BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

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

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

March 2000 Gasification Archive

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

From joacim at artech.se Thu Mar 2 04:01:47 2000
From: joacim at artech.se (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?article_about_the_K=E4lle-gasifier_on_www?=
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10003020914070.8010-100000@localhost>

 

A translation into something vaguely resembling English of Torsten Källe's
article "The making of the Källe-gasifier" (published in 1942) is now
available at: http://www.artech.se/~joacim/gengas/
(html and postscript of both the original in Swedish and the translation)

The Källe-gasifier is mentioned briefly in Gengas, but Källe's own article
describes the design a little more in detail I think, and he also describes
how he reasoned and experimented his way up to the final design. It was a
charcoal gasifier of a somewhat excentric design with recycling of exhaust
gases, a quite unique hearth design etc, and was famous for its fuel
economy and ease of use. Today, an article about a charcoal gasifier is
mostly of historical interest of course, but some of his thoughts and woes
about gasifier design back then may appear oddly familiar to some of
you. ;)

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

 

From 146942 at email.msn.com Thu Mar 2 10:05:10 2000
From: 146942 at email.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: article about the Källe-gasifier on www
Message-ID: <002701bf8457$4be9d4e0$5c3d1b3f@oemcomputer>

Amen! I personally believe that the future of ROAR (rapid oxidation
reduction reaction) will have to include catalytic refractory and egr. I do
it, but as usual, I am re-inventing the wheel as it always seems someone
else has already done it years ago.

skip

 

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 pbadger at bioenergyupdate.com Fri Mar 3 17:09:16 2000
From: pbadger at bioenergyupdate.com (Phillip Badger)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: US Virgin Islands Solid Waste
Message-ID: <003101bf8539$413537a0$0701a8c0@bionerngyupdate.com>

US Virgin Islands-Bids Sought for Solid Waste Recycling and Disposal
Facility

The government of the US Virgin Islands has released a solicitation for a
contractor that will design, build, own, and operate a facility (or
facilities) to manage all solid waste generated in the Territory of the US
Virgin Islands. It is envisioned that this facility will consist of a
material recycling facility and a waste destruction process. Incinerators as
defined by Virgin Island statute are prohibited by law. Waste collection
will not be part of the contract. Bidders must be pre-registered with the
government of the US Virgin Islands. Population of the US Virgin Islands
Territory is roughly 110,000. For additional information, contact Sonya
Nelthropp, Technical Assistant to the Commissioner, Government of the US
Virgin Islands, Public Works Department, 8244 Sub Base, St. Thomas, VI
00802-5805, USA phone +1 340 774-4139, fax +1 340 774-5869, email
sdn519@worldnet.att.net <mailto:sdn519@worldnet.att.net>. Email and phone
are best ways to reach Ms. Nelthropp.

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 sylva at iname.com Sat Mar 4 09:30:13 2000
From: sylva at iname.com (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_GAS-L:_article_about_the_K=E4lle-gasifier?= on www
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20000304142339.006dc8b0@mail.cableol.co.uk>

On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 10:02:47 +0100 (GMT-1), you wrote:

>The Källe-gasifier is mentioned briefly in Gengas, but Källe's own article
>describes the design a little more in detail I think, and he also describes
>how he reasoned and experimented his way up to the final design. It was a
I have been waiting eagerly to see some technical comments on this design
since Joacim posted, why no takers?
>charcoal gasifier of a somewhat excentric design with recycling of exhaust
>gases, a quite unique hearth design etc, and was famous for its fuel
>economy and ease of use. Today, an article about a charcoal gasifier is
>mostly of historical interest of course, but some of his thoughts and woes
>about gasifier design back then may appear oddly familiar to some of
>you. ;)
It may be of historical interest but, as Joacim points out, with high
taxation on European transport fuels (some 560% in UK) and an upcoming
climate change levy of 20% on fossil fuels (oddly enough not weighted for
carbon content of the fuel), there may be a niche market for an automotive
gasifier. For the small rural charcoal maker with a problem marketing
charcoal fines it looks ideal. I would be tempted to run a van with it for
its advertising value alone.

What is the likely cold gas efficiency? What cooling between the gasifier
and engine is necessary? I know of one gasifier, which was used to generate
power via a Morris 1000 engine, which was no problem with charcoal but
unusable on the wood it was supposed to use (it was at the Centre for
Alternative Technology).

Anyone out there with a ball park figure for having such a beast
constructed? It looks like it should be considerably smaller than a
wood-gasifier. I had previously considered a charcoal gasifier and had
proposed steam injection to increase calorific value of the gas and cool
the reactor, steam being generated in the cooling of the offgas, my
knowledge of chemistry does not readily allow me to see if the energy
balances would be favourable. If exhaust gas recirculation can achieve the
same result then so be it, however presumably the engine becomes more
severely derated?
AJH

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

 

From 146942 at email.msn.com Sat Mar 4 11:50:35 2000
From: 146942 at email.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: compressing of wood gas
Message-ID: <003601bf85f9$99b39fa0$2b3d1b3f@oemcomputer>

Anyone know what you get if you take gasses from a destructive distiller and
compress those gasses to say 250 psi and cooling to 40 degreees?

What would the result be by doing the same with wood chips gassified with
900 degrees steam?

thanx
Skip
www.sensiblesteam.com

 

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

 

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Mar 4 20:04:29 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Kalle gasifier and charcoal, ugh
Message-ID: <9e.1e3c9db.25f30c74@cs.com>

Dear Joachim and all:

I enjoyed reading the Kalle article. Interesting history.

However, I believe charcoal was used primarily at the beginning of World War
II. Charcoal is incredibly easy to gasify. We always start our gasifier on
charcoal until it is hot enough for wood.

Unfortunately the manufacture of charcoal wastes 65-85% of the energy in the
wood (and can make clouds of noxious smoke), so consumes forest at a great
rate. Fortunately, by 1942-43 the Imbert gasifier was developed for wood.
While slightly more complicated than Kalle, it performed well in most
applications. Thus Gen-Gas spends 90 % of its pages on wood gasification,
not charcoal.

Does anyone have good data (energy content, gas composition, efficiency) on
charcoal gasification. (Not in Gen Gas.)

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF

 

In a message dated 3/2/00 2:52:06 AM Mountain Standard Time, joacim@artech.s=
e=20
writes:

<<=20
A translation into something vaguely resembling English of Torsten K=E4lle'=
s
article "The making of the K=E4lle-gasifier" (published in 1942) is now
available at: http://www.artech.se/~joacim/gengas/
(html and postscript of both the original in Swedish and the translation)
=20
The K=E4lle-gasifier is mentioned briefly in Gengas, but K=E4lle's own arti=
cle
describes the design a little more in detail I think, and he also describes
how he reasoned and experimented his way up to the final design. It was a
charcoal gasifier of a somewhat excentric design with recycling of exhaust
gases, a quite unique hearth design etc, and was famous for its fuel
economy and ease of use. Today, an article about a charcoal gasifier is
mostly of historical interest of course, but some of his thoughts and woes
about gasifier design back then may appear oddly familiar to some of
you. ;)
=20
Joacim
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 joacim at artech.se Sun Mar 5 09:50:14 2000
From: joacim at artech.se (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Kalle gasifier and charcoal, ugh (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10003051552060.8010-100000@localhost>

 

I think the "Reply-to:" is wrong, and there ought to be a
"Precedence: bulk" in the header from any mailing list. (to avoid automatic
replies from list member's mail servers)
On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:

> Dear Joachim and all:
>
> I enjoyed reading the Kalle article. Interesting history.
>
> However, I believe charcoal was used primarily at the beginning of World War
> II. Charcoal is incredibly easy to gasify. We always start our gasifier on
> charcoal until it is hot enough for wood.
>
> Unfortunately the manufacture of charcoal wastes 65-85% of the energy in the
> wood (and can make clouds of noxious smoke), so consumes forest at a great
> rate. Fortunately, by 1942-43 the Imbert gasifier was developed for wood.
> While slightly more complicated than Kalle, it performed well in most
> applications. Thus Gen-Gas spends 90 % of its pages on wood gasification,
> not charcoal.

Oddly enough, charcoal was actually more common than wood gasifiers in
Sweden, in general and particulary for cars, for which the portion
charcoal gasifiers even /increased/ to some 90% towards the end. (See Fig.
1 in "Gengas") Wood gas was dominating for trucks and buses though, and
more widely in use in Finland. ...and the original Imbert design from 1942
had lousy idling and dynamics, so the old-timers tell me anyway. It had
pre-heating of the fuel all the way up (plain wrong), and no condensor. The
"V-hearth" and "monorator"-type designs that came around '44 or '45 were
much better. I've omitted the outer mantle completely for my own wood
gasifier project, and will wrap up the hot parts in mineral wool instead,
and add an external heat exchanger.

Are there any studies made, a thesis perhaps, on gasifier dynamics?

It puzzles me when reading old articles and Gengas that they didn't
apply basic regulation theory to the problem. ...but the other day, as I
was flicking through my old school books in regulation theory, I realised
that regulation theory was a rather young branch of engineering science in
those days. The Nyqvist theoreme came in 1932. They didn't have the
mathematics, or the people interested in gasification hadn't taken in
regulation theory yet. I figure it ought to be possible to build a model
taking in heat generation from the hearth, heat conductivity values, steam
generation etc... and see how a gasifier reacts to variations in the load.

There is a flaw, sort if, in the Källe-gasifier (imho anyway):
Primary air comes in through the inner tube, and gas is sucked out through
the outer, i.e the reduction zone surrounds the oxidation zone; this
implies that the fuel must travel through the reduction zone to reach the
oxidation zone, i.e. it is principally an /updraft/ gasifier. As one could
have expected, it was also sensitive to tar in the fuel.

Suppose one could figure out a way to reverse the flow in it: have primary
air come in via the outer tube etc, and thus have a reduction zone
surrounded fully by an oxidation zone? The "grid" would have to made in
some different way, and the temperatures could become tremendous at the
mouth of the central tube. Maybe it could be turned into a (coarse) sawdust
or fine wood chip gasifier?

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.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 joacim at artech.se Wed Mar 8 14:53:00 2000
From: joacim at artech.se (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Are producer gas powered vehicles viable?
In-Reply-To: <hqc5csg8nnm7b48cib108lnr00l1muvd00@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10003081923190.8010-100000@localhost>

 

I'm convinced there is a `market' for producer gas vehicles, perhaps not in
the cities, and certainly not everywhere in the world; like in a desert or
whatever...the energy content of wood is too low to make it worth while
transporting any distances, even transporting large amounts of wood into a,
say, minor one million citizen city would be impractical I think. (3-5
times as much weight, 7 times the volume of petroleum derivatives. That'd
be lots of trucks having cargo only one way.)

But driving on it on the countryside out here in the taiga belt? definitely
viable. And it would be rather impractical for a government to enforce a
500% tax on sticks lying on the ground for anyone to pick, or logs or wood
chips sold on the side by a farmer. A refined fuel is easy to control, thus
the 500% tax on it in half of Europe. One could produce synthetic fluid
fuel from wood too (some 30-40% efficiency?, as bad as charcoal), but I'm
pretty sure it would soon be subject of the same taxation as petrol. ...not
that I fancy petrol very much; flammable on the verge of being explosive,
cancer, allergies... but I only have an infinitesimal faith in politicians
and their motives.

The first vehicles to convert to running on wood chips, should naturally be
wood chippers and other forestry machines. The saving on the diesel cost
only for a wood chipper (very powerful motor, consumes lots of diesel)
roughly equals the cost of the driver, with the fuel prices and salaries
here. Definitely viable. It also takes working time and fuel to transport
diesel out to where the forestry machines are operating. Someone must drive
a pick-up with a barrel of diesel on it or whatever, and get payed for
doing that. No wonder the forestry trade has such a small margin of profit.
They're producing low-priced biomass energy and raw material from diesel, a
refined product, a high-exergy form of energy. The implacable second law of
thermodynamics strikes again.

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.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 agallego at iepmail.unimep.br Wed Mar 8 23:07:32 2000
From: agallego at iepmail.unimep.br (Antonio Garrido Gallego)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Black Liquor Gasification
Message-ID: <200003090407.UAA03114@secure.crest.net>

Dear friends,

I would like to work with the analyses of the performance of Black
Liquor gasifier and gas turbine combined Cycle congenaration in the
Kraft pulp and Paper industry. And Can you please help me in any way
regarding this
topic or to find material about this theme? What is the state of the art

this aplication?

Thanking you in anticipation.

Antonio Gallego

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 s.hla at devtech.unimelb.edu.au Fri Mar 10 20:11:22 2000
From: s.hla at devtech.unimelb.edu.au (San Shwe Hla)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tar Cracking
Message-ID: <200003110111.RAA32558@secure.crest.net>

Dear all,

Could anyone please give me the source of information about amount of tar
produced in Parolysis zone and amount of tar cracking in combustion in
conventional downdraft gasifier. Is there anyone done model for amount of
tar cracking using the variables as temperature of combustion zone and
resident time of tar (velocity of producer gas inside the gasifier) in the
combustion zone, etc..?

Waiting for your supply,
Thanks
SAN

---------------------------------------------------
San Shwe Hla
International Technologies Center (IDTC)
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
The University of Melbourne
Victoria, 3010
Australia

Telephone : + 61 3 9344 6769
Fax : + 61 3 9344 6868

Email : s.hla@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au
s.hla@devtech.unimelb.edu.au
---------------------------------------------------

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 Sat Mar 11 09:05:58 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tar Cracking
Message-ID: <45.18a53d5.25fbac7f@cs.com>

Dear San et al:

We published a paper on "Superficial Velocity - the Key to Biomass Downdraft
Gasification" at the 4th Biomass of the Americas Conference last September. I
will attach a copy for you and can send to anyone who requests it, but we
have been asked not to make general attachments through CREST.

We found that at a superficial velocity (The Gas production in mm3/s divided
by cross section in meters = velocity in m/s) of .05 m/s we generated 13%
charcoal AND 8,000 ppm (almost1%) tar in the gas (air fuel ratio of 1.5). At
a superficial velocity of 0.26 m/s we generated only 4.7% char and 300 ppm
tar (air fuel ratio of 3.5).

So the "secret" to low tar gas in flaming pyrolysis is a high superficial
velocity.

I hope this answers your question.

Yours truly, TOM REED CPC/BEF
In a message dated 3/10/00 7:00:02 PM Mountain Standard Time,
s.hla@devtech.unimelb.edu.au writes:

<<
Dear all,

Could anyone please give me the source of information about amount of tar
produced in Parolysis zone and amount of tar cracking in combustion in
conventional downdraft gasifier. Is there anyone done model for amount of
tar cracking using the variables as temperature of combustion zone and
resident time of tar (velocity of producer gas inside the gasifier) in the
combustion zone, etc..?

Waiting for your supply,
Thanks
SAN >>
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 eemp at ait.ac.th Mon Mar 13 08:50:29 2000
From: eemp at ait.ac.th (EEMP-AIT)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: energy cost from biosmass gasification.
Message-ID: <200003131350.FAA13202@secure.crest.net>

Does anybody have the data energy cost from biomass gasification ( in
south asia) particularly for Nepal?

Thanks
--
Shankar

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 Mon Mar 13 14:01:28 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Deja Vu Producer Gas
Message-ID: <e6.2a5b407.25fe94e1@cs.com>

Dear Joachim et al:

(The following message bounced because it was addressed to
"gasification@crest.NET". Please whoever is using this change to CREST.ORG.)

I never thought of producer gas vehicles as a way to beat the fuel taxes.
Interesting idea. Eventually any fuel will have to support fuel taxes or
what will pay for the roads. However, in the development phase when the new
fuel is less than 10% of the total mix governments will probably forgive tax
or even subsidize if they see it in their interest. Ethanol was highly
subsidized in France between the wars and made considerable progress.

In the period 1950-1970 there was a great deal of work done at the National
Swedish Testing Institute for Agricultural Machinery uder the direction in
part of Eric Johansson. I wonder if he is still alive.

They did the work in part to adapt producer gas to modern Saabs and Volvos
and they came up with interesting designs for both wood blocks and wood
chips. Is there any single document that records that research. The biomass
Energy Foundation could possibly be interested in translating and publishing
that as a sequel to Gen-Gas (in English).

Can you find out about that?

You are right about the relative energy content of wood Vs oil, but
pelletization brings biomass to a density of >1.0 at which point it is only
twice as bulky as petroleum, so maybe shipping into cities isn't too bad and
certainly in your "Taiga" region it will be fine.

We are currently developing new "tarfree-turnkey" gasifier systems which will
have raw gas tar less than 20 ppm and won't need the extensive filtering that
the old Imbert gasifiers needed. The "turnkey" piggybacks on the wonderful
clean technology for cars that has been developed in the last decade. I hope
we can bring these technologies together.

Your second law ignores the fact that the oil originally required an enormous
amount of sun and plant matter and pressure and time to form. When it's gone
we won't be so snotty about renewable biomass.

Hope you can find Gengas II.

Yours truly, TOM REED CPC/BEF

In a message dated 3/8/00 12:56:00 PM Mountain Standard Time,
joacim@artech.se writes:

<<

I'm convinced there is a `market' for producer gas vehicles, perhaps not in
the cities, and certainly not everywhere in the world; like in a desert or
whatever...the energy content of wood is too low to make it worth while
transporting any distances, even transporting large amounts of wood into a,
say, one million citizen city would be impractical I think. (3-5
times as much weight, 7 times the volume of petroleum derivatives. That'd
be lots of trucks having cargo only one way.)

But driving on it on the countryside out here in the taiga belt? definitely
viable. And it would be rather impractical for a government to enforce a
500% tax on sticks lying on the ground for anyone to pick, or logs or wood
chips sold on the side by a farmer. A refined fuel is easy to control, thus
the 500% tax on it in half of Europe. One could produce synthetic fluid
fuel from wood too (some 30-40% efficiency?, as bad as charcoal), but I'm
pretty sure it would soon be subject of the same taxation as petrol. ...not
that I fancy petrol very much; flammable on the verge of being explosive,
cancer, allergies... but I only have an infinitesimal faith in politicians
and their motives.

The first vehicles to convert to running on wood chips, should naturally be
wood chippers and other forestry machines. The saving on the diesel cost
only for a wood chipper (very powerful motor, consumes lots of diesel)
roughly equals the cost of the driver, with the fuel prices and salaries
here. Definitely viable. It also takes working time and fuel to transport
diesel out to where the forestry machines are operating. Someone must drive
a pick-up with a barrel of diesel on it or whatever, and get payed for
doing that. No wonder the forestry trade has such a small margin of profit.
They're producing low-priced biomass energy and raw material from diesel, a
refined product, a high-exergy form of energy. The implacable second law of
thermodynamics strikes again.

Joacim
- >>

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 Mar 14 11:42:31 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tesla Efficiencies
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000314103710.008ba540@wgs1.btl.net>

Listers -- Peter here in Belize. The list has been quite tranquil lately --
here is something that might be of interest to all. Looking for Mr. Good
efficiency (eff) in under 5 mwe size power plants -- or even under 1 mwe!!

Peter

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

Hi Jonathan;

At 06:00 AM 3/14/00 EST, you wrote:
>Dear Peter
>I have since spoken to a UK co which paid for tesla turbine to be built by
>university here.
>The turbine turned out to be hopeless with efficiency of just 35%.

What -- 35% is simply incredibly great! I'll explain why at the end. Sure
that is not a misprint??

They have
>given up on it.
>Maybe it is not what it is cracked up to be.

By the way -- I just joined that "Tesla" list and will be "pumping" them
for all the info I can.

>Always saying that the turbine will be ready soon but
>never does it appear and never is their any talk of efficiency which is the
>important bit.

I feel they are a little at loss regarding prototyping this device. That is
they should start small with very tight monitoring of all functions -- with
easy changing of variables -- such as nozzles etc. -- to find the optimum
operation for a given steam quality.

>I think I am going to stay watching the gasification list.
>Yours sincerely Jonathan R Wade
>

OK -- here is the "big" deal. Using a case example I am presently working
on here in Belize. That being a projected 3.75 mwe cogeneration using
citrus wastes.

Due to scale of economics -- we are restricted to a fire tube boiler
(Hurst) of maximum 400 PSI 700F steam quality.

The best turbine eff we can get is just 21%!!!

>From my research on the Tesla -- it is maxed out with 200 PSI and low super
heat -- maybe 200 F.

If it can do 35% efficiency at those poor steam quality rates it is the
ideal "small" system turbine!

Will put those people on that list through the "wringers" regarding this!

The world needs an under 5 meg turbine that can pull better than 30% eff.
from a simple fire tube boiler!

The Hurst design is an excellent gasifier furnace coupled to an innovative
-- yet still traditional -- fire tube boiler and costs are very reasonable!

But for finding a turbine to run at better than 21% eff. at these "poor"
quality steam conditions -- no way Jose!

I have found just one "real" alternative to date -- and that is a Unaflow
Steam engine. They will get at least 29% eff. from steam quality of 400psi
700F.

Problem is they are expensive, complicated, and require so much
maintenance! And no one is really making them any more!

The tesla turbine is a dream come true for these style applications. If it
can pull +30% even!!

Do you have any idea how huge a market exits for 1 mwe and less
cogeneration plants in 3rd world??

This entire country of Belize pulls 37 mwe at max draw!! And runs happily
at under 20 mwe!!

3rd world uses much less power per capita! But unfortunately -- all
combustion power plants are designed for top eff at humongous size only!

By the way -- another advantage of the unaflow is that it throttles down
well without losing peak eff. Wonder if the Tesla does as well?

Peter Singfield / Belize
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.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 enecon at ozemail.com.au Tue Mar 14 16:03:31 2000
From: enecon at ozemail.com.au (Jim Bland)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: Fw: GAS-L: Tesla Efficiencies
Message-ID: <003f01bf8df8$294bc2e0$5e8a54d2@enecon>

Peter and others,

Maybe there is some confusion here as to what sort of efficiency we are
talking about. It seems this discussion is about steam turbines, for which
two measures of efficiency are relevant:

Isentropic efficiency This is used to predict performance of steam turbines
for given steam inlet conditions. It is defined as: (actual steam enthalpy
at inlet - actual steam enthalpy at outlet)/(actual steam enthalpy at
inlet - theoretical steam enthalpy at outlet if no change in entropy
occurred), i.e. (mechanical power actually extracted)/(mechanical power that
could be extracted if expansion were done reversibly). Typical figures for
the small sizes of turbines mentioned are 45 - 70%. The more you pay, the
higher the efficiency - there are generally more stages in more efficient
turbines. Large power stations (100 MW +) use steam turbines with
efficiencies >80%. I suspect that the first figure below of 35% is an
isentropic efficiency, in which case, yes, it is hopeless. I have little
experience with steam engines, but I understand their isentropic
efficiencies are generally at the low end of the range, if not even lower
than most steam turbines.

Conversion of heat to mechanical power efficiency. This is defined as:
(actual steam enthalpy at inlet - actual steam enthalpy at outlet)/(heat
input to boiler), i.e. (mechanical power actually extracted)/(heat input).
Typical values are 20-40%, and depend very much on how much you superheat
the steam, how low you can get the pressure in your condenser, and of
course, your steam turbine's isentropic efficiency. I suspect that this is
the efficiency definition that Peter is used to.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Jim Bland
Enecon Pty. Ltd.
Melbourne, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 3:38 AM
Subject: GAS-L: Tesla Efficiencies

Listers -- Peter here in Belize. The list has been quite tranquil lately --
here is something that might be of interest to all. Looking for Mr. Good
efficiency (eff) in under 5 mwe size power plants -- or even under 1 mwe!!

Peter

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

Hi Jonathan;

At 06:00 AM 3/14/00 EST, you wrote: Dear Peter I have since spoken to a UK
co which paid for tesla turbine to be built by university here. The turbine
turned out to be hopeless with efficiency of just 35%.

What -- 35% is simply incredibly great! I'll explain why at the end. Sure
that is not a misprint??

They have given up on it. Maybe it is not what it is cracked up to be.

By the way -- I just joined that "Tesla" list and will be "pumping" them for
all the info I can.

Always saying that the turbine will be ready soon but never does it appear
and never is their any talk of efficiency which is the important bit.

I feel they are a little at loss regarding prototyping this device. That is
they should start small with very tight monitoring of all functions -- with
easy changing of variables -- such as nozzles etc. -- to find the optimum
operation for a given steam quality.

I think I am going to stay watching the gasification list. Yours sincerely
Jonathan R Wade

OK -- here is the "big" deal. Using a case example I am presently working
on here in Belize. That being a projected 3.75 mwe cogeneration using citrus
wastes.

Due to scale of economics -- we are restricted to a fire tube boiler (Hurst)
of maximum 400 PSI 700F steam quality.

The best turbine eff we can get is just 21%!!!

>From my research on the Tesla -- it is maxed out with 200 PSI and low super
heat -- maybe 200 F.

If it can do 35% efficiency at those poor steam quality rates it is the
ideal "small" system turbine!

Will put those people on that list through the "wringers" regarding this!

The world needs an under 5 meg turbine that can pull better than 30% eff.
from a simple fire tube boiler!

The Hurst design is an excellent gasifier furnace coupled to an
innovative -- yet still traditional -- fire tube boiler and costs are very
reasonable!

But for finding a turbine to run at better than 21% eff. at these "poor"
quality steam conditions -- no way Jose!

I have found just one "real" alternative to date -- and that is a Unaflow
Steam engine. They will get at least 29% eff. from steam quality of 400psi
700F.

Problem is they are expensive, complicated, and require so much maintenance!
And no one is really making them any more!

The tesla turbine is a dream come true for these style applications. If it
can pull +30% even!!

Do you have any idea how huge a market exits for 1 mwe and less cogeneration
plants in 3rd world??

This entire country of Belize pulls 37 mwe at max draw!! And runs happily at
under 20 mwe!!

3rd world uses much less power per capita! But unfortunately -- all
combustion power plants are designed for top eff at humongous size only!

By the way -- another advantage of the unaflow is that it throttles down
well without losing peak eff. Wonder if the Tesla does as well?

Peter Singfield / Belize The Gasification List is sponsored by USDOE
BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/ and PRM Energy Systems
http://www.prmenergy.com Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.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 146942 at email.msn.com Tue Mar 14 19:42:44 2000
From: 146942 at email.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:21 2004
Subject: GAS-L: tesla? he-he!
Message-ID: <001c01bf8e17$566ae020$da3d1b3f@oemcomputer>

If you are going to do that Tesla route, you best spend somebody else's
inheritance.
I have had a standing offer of a hundred dollar bill at all the energy fairs
if it's efficiency comes even close to my worst piston engine.
I also bring my check book so I can buy it. I am in the business you see
and I could sell it..........IF it really worked. Fact is that in Iowa, I
conceeded and we ran the 'big project' they have been talking about for
years. It sure made a lot of noise(steam hitting all those rivets) and drew
quite a crowd. Then I stopped it with my foot!!!

I tried to explain the principals of why it will or wont work, but all they
want to do is debate conspiracy theories.
35%?????????
I would be happy if a turbine in the under 500hp got 10%, and didn't cost a
million dollars plus millwrighting.

My best piston engines can get close to 10% actual net output and cost a
whole hell of a lot less. Problem is that all those 'paper' engineers would
get away from theories and get some dirt under their fingernails they would
see what works and what isn't cost effective.
Your right, it is real hard to beat a Skinner Unaflow and they are cheaper
than a turbine when all is said and done.
Skip
www.sensiblesteam.com

 

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

 

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Mar 14 20:36:47 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ..gas-l Reply-To header mis-configuration
Message-ID: <38CEE730.6971D4FD@c2i.net>

Hi,

..is: Reply-To: gasification@crest.net
/\/\/\

..should be: Reply-To: gasification@crest.org
/\/\/\

...to avoid mail bounces from the gas list.
This Reply-To header mis-configuration was done between
Jan. 21'th and 24'th, afaik. It has caused a few bounces for me too.

..chances are some of you guys are waiting for some response from me,
I only log my incoming mail filtering, and I'm checking my logs now.

--
..mvh/wkrf Arnt ;-)

scenario, n.:
An imagined sequence of events that provides the context in
which a business decision is made. Scenarios always come in
sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case.
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
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 Wed Mar 15 17:46:12 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: About Efficiencies
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000315164141.008ba2e0@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Jim and All;

A great number of people have responded to me regarding the Tesla
Efficiency quote of 35%. Obviously I was not thinking properly -- So I
automatically jumped to the wrong conclusion. In my work -- efficiency is
regarded in how many BTU's in to get how many kw's of electrical power out.

Ergo -- that turbine efficiency I mentioned was 21% of the power that goes
in comes out as electrical power. Still not net though! For that one must
subtract the electrical cost of plant operation as well.

I should of realized that the 35% figure for the Tesla Turbine was not of
this category -- sorry.

>Conversion of heat to mechanical power efficiency. This is defined as:
>(actual steam enthalpy at inlet - actual steam enthalpy at outlet)/(heat
>input to boiler), i.e. (mechanical power actually extracted)/(heat input).
>Typical values are 20-40%, and depend very much on how much you superheat
>the steam, how low you can get the pressure in your condenser, and of
>course, your steam turbine's isentropic efficiency. I suspect that this is
>the efficiency definition that Peter is used to.

Yes -- exactly! And yes -- super heat is everything!

Hmm -- taking one example.

Condensing at 1 psi (all pressures are "absolute" -- not gauge"), 101.74 F
-- gives an enthalpy (h) of 1106 btu per pound

(Condensing at 14.696 psi -- atmospheric pressure -- 212 F gives 1150.4
btu/lb)

The other end of the spectrum is just how much energy one can invest in the
steam after the change of state "cost". The change of state cost is
basically established by how high a vacuum one pulls on the exhaust. Ergo
-- in our starting point above -- 1106 BTU per pound.

This energy is invested as superheat. Pressure has little effect in the
formula -- actually reducing not increasing enthalpy slightly -- more
later) but it is much easier to super heat highly pressurized steam than
atmospheric steam. Much greater heat transfer rates. And is certainly cuts
down on delivery criteria and allows for a much more compact engine to
power ratio. So most superheat applications are running at quite
respectable pressures -- the standard lower limit being around 1600 PSI.

The amount of superheat is limited by what your engine can handle without
meltdown. "Comfortable" upper ranges being from 900F to 1000F.

It you really want confusion in this issue -- remember that water or steam
over 705.4 F or 3206.2 psi is actually super critical H2O.

So -- 1500 psi at 1000 psi has and enthalpy (h) of 1491 btu/lb.

On the other hand -- super heating atmospheric pressure steam to 1000F
gives one 1533.1 btu/lb. The curve (Higher pressure -- less btu) goes down
as pressure goes up -- told you I'd get back to this.

(400 psi at 700F = 1362.7 btu/lb)

So -- in this example -- 1491 btu in -- 1106 btu out. Ergo, we have only
385 btu out of a total of 1491 btu available for "work". (at 400psi/700F -
256.7) The rest is just a burden for the cooling tower to blow off to the
skies.

The device extracting this energy is rated in an efficiency regarding it
ability to extract mechanical energy from the steam between boiler and
condenser.

Over all efficiency of the "engine" in power generation is how much
electrical power comes in from an amount of steam put in.

Let's call that the mechanical efficiency of the engine in question.

Now --

Large turbine gets the very best efficiencies -- but are so expensive!

Piston steam engines get less.

The question is where does the Tesla Turbine fit in?

Well, I have a pile of communications on this subject to filter through.
>From all kinds of sources. Thanks to that posting I made to both the
gasification list and the Tesla Turbine list.

Stay tuned for a report -- but do not hold your breath!

I'm quite overloaded with work -- yet this is an interesting area to
pursue. further -- I may finally be able to convince some people of the
necessity of duel working fluid systems -- in this case applying the
refrigeration cycle fluid to primary engine exhaust to steal back some
(quite a bit actually!) of that "energy" presently being blown out the
cooling tower to the skies.

A "tandem" working fluid operation.

Peter in Belize

 

At 07:58 AM 3/15/00 +1100, you wrote:
>Peter and others,
>
>Maybe there is some confusion here as to what sort of efficiency we are
>talking about. It seems this discussion is about steam turbines, for which
>two measures of efficiency are relevant:
>
>Isentropic efficiency This is used to predict performance of steam turbines
>for given steam inlet conditions. It is defined as: (actual steam enthalpy
>at inlet - actual steam enthalpy at outlet)/(actual steam enthalpy at
>inlet - theoretical steam enthalpy at outlet if no change in entropy
>occurred), i.e. (mechanical power actually extracted)/(mechanical power that
>could be extracted if expansion were done reversibly). Typical figures for
>the small sizes of turbines mentioned are 45 - 70%. The more you pay, the
>higher the efficiency - there are generally more stages in more efficient
>turbines. Large power stations (100 MW +) use steam turbines with
>efficiencies >80%. I suspect that the first figure below of 35% is an
>isentropic efficiency, in which case, yes, it is hopeless. I have little
>experience with steam engines, but I understand their isentropic
>efficiencies are generally at the low end of the range, if not even lower
>than most steam turbines.
>
>Conversion of heat to mechanical power efficiency. This is defined as:
>(actual steam enthalpy at inlet - actual steam enthalpy at outlet)/(heat
>input to boiler), i.e. (mechanical power actually extracted)/(heat input).
>Typical values are 20-40%, and depend very much on how much you superheat
>the steam, how low you can get the pressure in your condenser, and of
>course, your steam turbine's isentropic efficiency. I suspect that this is
>the efficiency definition that Peter is used to.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Regards,
>
>Jim Bland
>Enecon Pty. Ltd.
>Melbourne, Australia
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net>
>To: <gasification@crest.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 3:38 AM
>Subject: GAS-L: Tesla Efficiencies
>
> Listers -- Peter here in Belize. The list has been quite tranquil lately --
>here is something that might be of interest to all. Looking for Mr. Good
>efficiency (eff) in under 5 mwe size power plants -- or even under 1 mwe!!
>
>Peter
>
>*******************
>
> Hi Jonathan;
>
>At 06:00 AM 3/14/00 EST, you wrote: Dear Peter I have since spoken to a UK
>co which paid for tesla turbine to be built by university here. The turbine
>turned out to be hopeless with efficiency of just 35%.
>
>What -- 35% is simply incredibly great! I'll explain why at the end. Sure
>that is not a misprint??
>
>
> They have given up on it. Maybe it is not what it is cracked up to be.
>
>By the way -- I just joined that "Tesla" list and will be "pumping" them for
>all the info I can.
>
>Always saying that the turbine will be ready soon but never does it appear
>and never is their any talk of efficiency which is the important bit.
>
>I feel they are a little at loss regarding prototyping this device. That is
>they should start small with very tight monitoring of all functions -- with
>easy changing of variables -- such as nozzles etc. -- to find the optimum
>operation for a given steam quality.
>
>I think I am going to stay watching the gasification list. Yours sincerely
>Jonathan R Wade
>
> OK -- here is the "big" deal. Using a case example I am presently working
>on here in Belize. That being a projected 3.75 mwe cogeneration using citrus
>wastes.
>
>Due to scale of economics -- we are restricted to a fire tube boiler (Hurst)
>of maximum 400 PSI 700F steam quality.
>
>The best turbine eff we can get is just 21%!!!
>
>From my research on the Tesla -- it is maxed out with 200 PSI and low super
>heat -- maybe 200 F.
>
>If it can do 35% efficiency at those poor steam quality rates it is the
>ideal "small" system turbine!
>
>Will put those people on that list through the "wringers" regarding this!
>
>The world needs an under 5 meg turbine that can pull better than 30% eff.
>from a simple fire tube boiler!
>
>The Hurst design is an excellent gasifier furnace coupled to an
>innovative -- yet still traditional -- fire tube boiler and costs are very
>reasonable!
>
>But for finding a turbine to run at better than 21% eff. at these "poor"
>quality steam conditions -- no way Jose!
>
>I have found just one "real" alternative to date -- and that is a Unaflow
>Steam engine. They will get at least 29% eff. from steam quality of 400psi
>700F.
>
>Problem is they are expensive, complicated, and require so much maintenance!
>And no one is really making them any more!
>
>The tesla turbine is a dream come true for these style applications. If it
>can pull +30% even!!
>
>Do you have any idea how huge a market exits for 1 mwe and less cogeneration
>plants in 3rd world??
>
>This entire country of Belize pulls 37 mwe at max draw!! And runs happily at
>under 20 mwe!!
>
>3rd world uses much less power per capita! But unfortunately -- all
>combustion power plants are designed for top eff at humongous size only!
>
>By the way -- another advantage of the unaflow is that it throttles down
>well without losing peak eff. Wonder if the Tesla does as well?
>
>Peter Singfield / Belize The Gasification List is sponsored by USDOE
>BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/ and PRM Energy Systems
>http://www.prmenergy.com Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.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 146942 at email.msn.com Wed Mar 15 19:30:53 2000
From: 146942 at email.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: efficiencies of steam engines
Message-ID: <008d01bf8ede$db762460$cb3d1b3f@oemcomputer>

Peter, you should consider a couple of things.
There is no such thing as an efficient impulse turbine.....at any size. The
efficiency comes from going into reaction turbines (and boy does that get
expensive).

If you want to capture lost heat, a good rule of thumb is that everything
under 600 degrees both boiler and engine exhaust, should be used to heat
combustion fuel and air. It is also cheaper.

Skip
www.sensiblesteam.com

 

 

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

 

From snkm at btl.net Wed Mar 15 21:07:40 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: More about steam efficiencies
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000315195824.008c3740@wgs1.btl.net>

Picking up where I left off --

We have steam of 1500 psi, 1000 F, 1491 btu/lb "in" and 1 psi, 101.74F,
1106 btu/lb "out".

Question -- what is the ultimate thermal efficiency???

OK:

To make that quality steam the boiler invests 1491 btu for every pound of
steam of that quality produced.

The cooling tower has to absorb 1106 btu/lb to achieve a vacuum of 1 psi
(absolute) pressure.

1491 - 1106 = 385

385/1491 = 25.8%

Pitiful but true! 25.8% is all the "heat" that is available in a form of
energy that can be used to make mechanical power. So even at 100%
mechanical efficiency -- one cannot get better than 25.8% efficiency in
converting heat invested in making steam of those conditions to power
coming out.

The "mechanical" efficiency of the device put in between boiler and
condenser will be power out over btu in.

In this case -- power is electricity.

An example: (from one such plant I am working on now)

ITEM I

One (1) eight stage steam turbine designed for 400 PSIG, 750oF steam inlet
and 4" Hg abs. exhaust. The turbine will produce 3,750 KW with 42,530 PPH
steam flow and a turbine speed of 4,750 RPM. The turbine will be complete
with NEMA "D" governor, Gimbel T&T valve, labyrinth gland seals, insulation
and lagging, vibration probes, bearing RTD's and magnetic pick up. Turbine
complies with NEMA SM23 standard. Turbine shall be equipped with a single
inlet valve. Turbine inlet shall be 6"/600# and turbine exhaust shall be
36"/125#.

OK -- using these figures supplied by the manufacturer --

400 PSIG = 415 psi Absolute at 750F = 1389 btu

So 42,530 PPH steam of this quality = 42,530 * 1389 btu =

Total of 59,074,170 "in"

Converting this to KWH's -- that is divide by 3414

17,303.5 KWH's in and 3,750 KWH's out.

Gross efficiency = 21.6%

We have two types of mechanical efficiency numbers. One is the theoretical.
The other is after subtracting process "costs". A large process cost would
be operating the cooling tower -- for example.

This is not over all plant efficiency. That is heat in over power out. This
is just engine/turbine efficiency.

But what confuses me in the above example is this.

We are given an exhaust vacuum of "4" Hg abs."; which is 1116 btu/lb of
condensing.

So: 1389 btu in - 1116 btu out = 273 btu

273/1389 = 19.65%

Yet the manufacturer is claiming, what in effect, works out to 21.6%
efficiency! The turbine has to be a little bit of a perpetual motion machine!

So where have I gone wrong??

Now -- if anyone can find errors in the above logic -- please point them out!

Peter in 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 snkm at btl.net Wed Mar 15 21:23:09 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: efficiencies of steam engines
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000315200703.008afc80@wgs1.btl.net>

Bare with me Skip -- we'll be crossing into that territory soon. Your right
about the price of the turbine. Your right about using waste furnace heat
for fuel drying and preheating combustion air. But using a condenser -- do
not expect steam exhaust temps to be high -- as you will see in the
following days.

I have in front of me a complete set of quotes with all the math for a 3
mwe biomass cogen plant (Citrus peels).

So I can give you all the real figures. We go at this bit by bit -- until
it is well understood.

The great loss in efficiency is not in flue gasses -- but turbine "steam"
exhaust -- it always is!

I am also getting a lot of input from the "other" list (Tesla turbines).
Just of the top of my head -- it appears there is no more than a few
percent dif in efficiencies. But the price of a Tesla Turbine would be only
a fraction of the equivalent blade turbine. And yes -- they multi stage
Tesla turbines to do that.

I have also been referred to a new innovation -- a rotary engine. At first
glance it looks like a mechanical monster. I remember designing and
building a prototype sliding vane motor 32 years ago -- that was very
simple to make and reliable.

Think of a hydraulic vane pump -- but with special body curves. I do
believe that is just the right combination of piston and turbine
technology. Smooth rotary motion -- well balanced for high RPM. A rotary
design is always a unaflow -- by the way. These can be built very small --
and much easier than any piston engine. Wish you were here with your shop
Skip -- I'd turn one out for you in a couple of days.

In the example I will be giving -- it is a fire tube boiler over a gasifier
furnace bed. Very relevant to the interests of this list.

I was wrong about the pressure and temps. But not much -- pouring over all
the specs -- I see it is 400 psi and 750 F.

This is a "plant" that is 3rd world oriented. Small!

I plan to use this as a "practical" example for our present discussions.

I just have to find the time to write this book. So patience --

Peter in Belize or:

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

 

At 05:46 PM 3/15/00 -0600, you wrote:
>Peter, you should consider a couple of things.
>There is no such thing as an efficient impulse turbine.....at any size. The
>efficiency comes from going into reaction turbines (and boy does that get
>expensive).
>
>If you want to capture lost heat, a good rule of thumb is that everything
>under 600 degrees both boiler and engine exhaust, should be used to heat
>combustion fuel and air. It is also cheaper.
>
>Skip
>www.sensiblesteam.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

 

From 146942 at email.msn.com Wed Mar 15 22:03:12 2000
From: 146942 at email.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: nice #'s, pete
Message-ID: <003a01bf8ef4$223498e0$d043183f@oemcomputer>

Peter, I understand the hunt for truth through math. But, you like me, know
that sometimes 'ya just gotta build one'. If you go to my website and look
at the back pages, you will see the 10hp Hurst boilers on trailers powering
piston steam engines driving generators. I get 25kw continous with 40kw
surge. It eats up to 500lbs an hour of non mulched wood, therefore little
material handling.
exhaust steam raises feedwater to 220 and a simple economizer in the stack
gets it to 300.
Yes, a lot of waste goes up the stack but big deal. It is not cost
effective to chase it at that size. If it was larger, I only would wish to
preheat air. No need for blowers. Plenty of heat to push it up the stack
still, but I always use a steam stack blower for hot roddin'.
I am of the attitude that you should build something that works, then start
tweaking it. If there is a solid promise of a better model, then it can be
built.......with your own money. That is the capitalist way!
No grants, No govt., No ???
skippy
www.sensiblesteam.com

 

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

 

From snkm at btl.net Wed Mar 15 22:20:57 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Steam as a working fluid
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000315211448.008cf990@wgs1.btl.net>

A working fluid carries heat to be converted to power. Steam may well be
the oldest working fluid to do such -- but it is of terrible efficiency due
to all the energy lost in the change of state from liquid to gas.

Going back to the citrus wastes plant example.

"17,303.5 KWH's in and 3,750 KWH's out."

13553.5 KWH's simply blows out the cooling tower!! Is this really the best
we can do??

According to "modern" thinking -- yes!

However -- if one would use a second working fluid -- a refrigerant for
example -- as part of the condenser cycle -- at least another 20% worth of
power can be extracted.

Has this ever been done before? Yes!!

Let me scan this in from:

Marks'

Mechanical Engineers'
Handbook

PREPARED
BY A STAFF OF SPECIALISTS

LIONEL S. MARKS, Editor-in-Chief
PROFESSOR OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING,
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

SECOND EDITION

SIXTH IMPRESSION

TOTAL ISSUE, 97,500

McGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY, INC.
NEW YORK: 370 SEVENTH AVENUE
LONDON: 6 & S BOUVERIE ST., E.C.4
1924

Page: 1015

A steam-sulphur dioxide system has been used in reciprocating engines. This
extends the temperature range at the lower limit and avoids the necessity
of maintaining a high steam vacuum. As Worked out by Josse, the steam
expands to about 3 lb. abs. (142 deg. fahr.) and on condensation generates
sulphur dioxide vapor at about 160 lb. per sq. in. This vapor expands down
to about 50 lb. per sq. in. (70 deg. fahr.) before it is condensed. To
reduce steam to the same temperature would require the maintenance of a
vacuum of 29.3 in., which is impracticable in a reciprocating engine. The
sulphur dioxide engine is of small bulk as a result of its high pressure.
Added as a third cylinder to a compound steam engine, it has increased the
power output and thermal efficiency about 50 per cent.

Cute! This would certainly make small power plants far more economically
feasible!

But we still need an economical, reliable, and efficient engine. Can the
Tesla Turbine be the answer??

It certainly looks like a simple turbine to build. And no reason for not
having at least the same reliability as any modern turbine.

The only question is just how it shapes up in over all efficiencies in
converting a working fluids moving energy to mechanical motion.

There -- I hope I have defined "efficiency" sufficiently for the purposes
at hand.

The next installments will be reviewing state of the art results regarding
applying the Tesla Turbine to power generation from a moving working fluid.
Be it steam or refrigerant!

Peter in 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 snkm at btl.net Thu Mar 16 11:04:45 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Enthalpy, Extraction and Reheat
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000316095946.008e6100@wgs1.btl.net>

 

>Peter,
>You said the boiler had to put "ALL" 1491 BTU/lb in to make the
>steam, however, the water being boiled already has some enthalpy.
>So your total heat input would be reduced thus your efficiency
>would increase.

>Gary Harmond

Hi Gary;

Great question. Lets delve into it --

Of course I am pulling all those figures from my trusty old steam charts.
Here is some more info that will throw some lite on your question.

To date -- I have been using just the superheat figures. Now -- let's look
at the broader picture.

Taking our two examples -- that is a condenser pressure of 2 psi and a
boiler pressure of 400 psi.

Temp. Press. Sat. Liquid Evaporation Sat. Vapor
Enthalpy Enthalpy Enthalpy

100 .9492 67.97 1037.2 1105.2

445 400 424 780.4 1204.4

Pressures in psi abs. Heat measured as btu per pound.

The Saturated Liquid Enthalpy represents the heat invested above 32F to
reach that pressure steam.

The Evaporation Enthalpy represents the heat needed to accomplish the
change of state (Liquid to gas -- vaporization).

Saturated Vapor Enthalpy represents the total heat invested to reach that
state of steam quality.

To go one step further:

400 psi steam superheated to 750 F = 1389 btu/lb

186.6 btu/lb invested in super heat.

While heating feed water using waste heat (such as flu gasses -- condenser
temperature waste heat not being high enough) does improve over all plant
efficiencies (Your boiler "economizer") -- it has no effect on steam
turbine/engine efficiencies regarding energy in and energy out.

However -- there is a way to "cheat".

This is done by extraction and reheating. This allows turbines (and
compound steam engines) to break the theoretical efficiency levels and is
responsible for those impossible to believe efficiency rates achieved in
the very large power plants.

In simple terms -- it is simply superheating the exhaust steam from one
stage before it goes to the next.

This breaks the change of state lock -- as water is not being boiled to
steam -- just steam being heated. Ergo -- theoretical efficiency of heat in
to gas expansion is 100% -- not the 19.65% as in my citrus cogeneration
model -- as example.

But to answer your question in a direct manner -- the turbine/engine does
not care what the feed water temperature is in regarding efficiency of its
operation.

Simple -- so many btu's come in. From this amount, so much mechanical
energy is extracted -- the rest goes out the exhaust as waste heat.

In the next posting we'll discuss extraction and reheat (superheat) and
also the problems inherent in achieving this goal -- or why only the really
large plants can afford to play with it. Also -- how I designed an
economical solution to this problem -- which has never been adopted.

But maybe, before that -- we had better start discussing the "theory" of
the Tesla Turbine?

I have a number of very pertinent point to demonstrate in that domain and
wish to find out just how aware the people involved with Tesla Turbine
technology are of the mechanical theory of a disk turbine.

For now -- it would appear to me that a Tesla Turbine must be exactly
"tuned" to steam quality and quantity to achieve the proper mechanical
efficiencies. I see no problems with doing this -- and will be advancing
some math models on how to proceed in that direction -- if you all have not
already been there??

We'll get into extraction and reheat during that discussion.

Now -- can we not define a Tesla Turbine as an impulse turbine with
multiple disks without the buckets??

Impulse Turbines were pretty well the most common type during the time
Tesla designed his disk turbine.

 

Peter in 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 146942 at email.msn.com Thu Mar 16 14:03:11 2000
From: 146942 at email.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: the Titanic
Message-ID: <001c01bf8f7a$3edcc0e0$9f3d1b3f@oemcomputer>

Pete, I believe the Titanic got 8lbs/hp/hr.
figure 1300 btu's to the lb. another 100 or so in superheat and reheat.
she had two quad expansion engines and a reaction turbine on the center
shaft.

if you round to 2500btus per hp, you probably have 30% efficiency. Todays
powerplants do better but not by much.
all in all, that is real damn good for utilizing a unrefined fuel, and, most
important, she was HAND fired (33 boilers)

if the fuel is cheap or free, what does efficiency have over practicality?
skip

 

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 tmiles at teleport.com Thu Mar 16 20:50:49 2000
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Test Reply To:
Message-ID: <4.3.2.20000316174719.00ab6bd0@mail.teleport.com>

The Reply To: in the mailer program has been set to gasification@crest.org
so we shouldn't see the problem we have had with the gasification.NET address.

Thank you for alerting us to the problem.

Regards,

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.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 Thu Mar 16 21:16:55 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: nice #'s, pete
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000316194927.008a3100@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Skip;

At 09:01 PM 3/15/00 -0600, you wrote:
>Peter, I understand the hunt for truth through math. But, you like me, know
>that sometimes 'ya just gotta build one'. If you go to my website --

www.sensiblesteam.com

>and look
>at the back pages, you will see the 10hp Hurst boilers on trailers powering
>piston steam engines driving generators. I get 25kw continous with 40kw
>surge. It eats up to 500lbs an hour of non mulched wood, therefore little
>material handling.

OK -- quick figuring -- saying the wood is dried and at around 5000 btu per
pound.

2,500,000 btu divided by 3414 = 732.3 kwh

25/732.3 = 3.4% over all efficiency of the entire power plant.

Now -- looking for your engine efficiencies:

The Hurst boiler is at least 65% boiler efficiency. So:

732.3 * .65 = 476 KWH is being converted to steam.

25/476 = 5.25% engine efficiency.

Mind you -- these are my math short-hand calculations -- but it certainly
puts everything in the same ball park perspective wise.

All in all Skip -- for a small system -- that is very good! But my mission
is to make small systems reach 20%+ over all efficiency with out increasing
costs on manufacturing.

>exhaust steam raises feedwater to 220 and a simple economizer in the stack
>gets it to 300.

Yes -- that goes a long way to increasing efficiency!

>Yes, a lot of waste goes up the stack but big deal. It is not cost
>effective to chase it at that size. If it was larger, I only would wish to
>preheat air. No need for blowers. Plenty of heat to push it up the stack
>still, but I always use a steam stack blower for hot roddin'.

Your right about the air preheat -- or even using waste heat to further dry
your fuel. Though the first is much less of a headache to implement than
the second -- especially on a small system. Your right there regarding cost
over advantage as well -- it simply would not be cost effective.

>I am of the attitude that you should build something that works, then start
>tweaking it. If there is a solid promise of a better model, then it can be
>built.......with your own money. That is the capitalist way!
>No grants, No govt., No ???
>skippy
>www.sensiblesteam.com

The once reasonable alternatives you have is to superheat your steam, throw
a small condenser (even a car radiator!) on the exhaust port.

And last -- you do not mention what model of piston steam engine you are
using -- but going to a unaflow design with a little super heat and a small
condenser would probably bring engine efficiency to over 20%. You would
then be producing 100 kwh with the same size unit!

This would give you an incredible 13.6% over all efficiency!

A small Unaflow should be cheaper to build than a small conventional steam
engine. Adding a superheater and a small condenser is no big deal in
expenses. Your price could increase by 50%.

The customer would be getting power for a capital cost per kwh 1/3 of your
present cost. And in the end -- capital costs per kwh is the very bottom line.

In your other message:

At 01:01 PM 3/16/00 -0600, you wrote:
>Pete, I believe the Titanic got 8lbs/hp/hr.
>figure 1300 btu's to the lb. another 100 or so in superheat and reheat.
>she had two quad expansion engines and a reaction turbine on the center
>shaft.
>
>if you round to 2500btus per hp, you probably have 30% efficiency. Todays
>powerplants do better but not by much.

Yes -- a point I continually pound on! The were achieving great
efficiencies 100 years ago! We need to look more closely at the past. The
Tesla turbine fits in that category as well.

>all in all, that is real damn good for utilizing a unrefined fuel, and, most
>important, she was HAND fired (33 boilers)

Wow!

>
>if the fuel is cheap or free, what does efficiency have over practicality?
>skip

I believe I answered that properly above -- more bang for the buck!

>I am of the attitude that you should build something that works, then start
>tweaking it. If there is a solid promise of a better model, then it can be
>built.......with your own money. That is the capitalist way!
>No grants, No govt., No ???

Giving more bang for the buck might not work for Capitalism -- where the
rule is make as much money as you can; screw the customer -- but is a
killer in a free enterprise world where the best man (rather than the best
"connected" man) wins.

3rd world is not rich enough to support Capitalism -- but it thrives on
free enterprise. Just like Canada and the US did a few years back.

Capitalism is about control. Eliminating competition through market
control. Free enterprise is may the best product win -- and always keep a
level playing field.

Modern world is big on subsidizing inefficient processes to protect their
capitalists. That is not a level playing field -- is it??

Now if I put a complete design together that would out preform your system
and had it built in China so I could sell it in the US for 1/4 the price of
your system -- yet giving 4 time the kwh's -- that is free enterprise.

Capitalism is making sure that can never happen! And we both know it will
not! But is that methology productive to advancing the human race??

Peter in 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 snkm at btl.net Thu Mar 16 22:44:06 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Designing the good TT!
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000316211716.008ac630@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi again Fred;

At 07:44 AM 3/16/00 -0800, you wrote:
>I am not entirely sure, but I think that the TT suffers from a couple of
>key problems that can be overcome readily, but must be. It is a very low
>torque system, and the torque curve is very flat, making it hard to see
>how it could naturally regulate it's power output without intelligent
>load control. What I mean by this is that when the turbine is loaded the
>turbine slows down, the drag increases increasing the torque. Initially
>this increases the output power. After a point, the output power begins
>to fall off as the torque changes very little once the turbine is
>running a lot slower than the gas vortex. Here I think the turbine
>becomes unstable for a fixed torque load, and will tend to stall. The
>load needs to be reduced to maintain the RPM for maximum power output. I
>think that this feature makes the turbine hard to run efficiently over a
>range of power levels.

Yes -- my thoughts to date exactly. But surely radically increasing disk
diameters should help here. First -- that definitely would raise torque and
second -- it would increase moving parts inertia giving a better flywheel
effect??

With active load control it should be pretty easy
>to overcome this, and to ignore the need that has been cited for rivets
>to generate torque on start up. (I would design the supports to be
>aerodynamic and generate as little torque as possible.)
>

Yes -- I have been looking at those rivets. Their purpose is to stop
harmonics in the disks from getting out of control. And yes -- I believe
you are right that they must be properly designed -- aerodynamic is a good
a word as any.

Looking in my old engineering handbooks -- the impulse turbine comes to
mind. I would love to experiment with using aerodynamic "buckets" for
rivets. Especially on the outer rims. This would solve the torque problem,
stabilize the disks.

Eventually I am going to demonstrate the theories I believe Tesla based his
design on. I hope that will make every thing clearer.

I see many variables. Number of disks -- diameter of disks -- and space in
between disks. Not to mention nozzles -- but I feel that is the least
important design criteria -- and is an "after-fit" option anyway. And of
course the rivets.

The basics here are to get the disks up to maximum velocity in regards to
the entering stream of steam -- and keep it there. Putting "buckets" on the
outer rim should not adversely effect Tesla's theory of operation and
definitely solves the torque problem.

Disk diameter is important to matching steam "quality" with expansion
space. If really designed properly -- one could avoid having to go to many
multi stages.

The spacing between disks is rather important as well -- and I must admit I
am at lost at this time how to work that out! Also thickness of disks.

>Secondly, I think the design of a good TT requires some pretty smart
>engineering. I have no idea how best to design one for a single stage
>supersonic gas input. It may simply be that it is so much easier to
>design a very bad TT that it just daunts most folk. That's why I am
>hoping for some practical design data on the systems being built now, to
>help establish just where the sticking points are.
>

I believe we will be working our way in that direction shortly. And of
course -- to make the TT design really efficient -- it will have to be
multi-stage with reheat between stages.

My problem is again -- I never did pack my machine shop when I moved to
Belize. And tweaking a TT design appears to depend heavily on prototyping.

Peter
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 Thu Mar 16 22:44:08 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Preheat and steam efficiencies
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000316211447.008ac640@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Fred --

See I have a pile of un-answered messages from you here!

At 07:28 AM 3/16/00 -0800, you wrote:
>TeslaList - http://frank.germano.com/page2.htm
>
>Perhaps you are missing any preheat, where intake water is preheated by
>exhaust and the heat load on the final radiator is reduced, and
>efficiency increased just a bit. Also, in computing the enthalpy, which
>I simply assume you did correctly, the energy required is that to change
>from water at the boiler pressure and inlet temperature to steam. Since
>the inlet temperature can be as high as near boiling, depending on how
>much heat is recaptured from the exhaust, you may be overestimating the
>energy needed to produce the steam. (Sorry, I just am not comfortable
>enough with these calculations to do them myself without help.)
>

I believe I answered this in the last posting. Bare with me in future
postings. I will be math modeling everything in simple terms. I am
co-posting those messages to the Gasification list -- which is full of
engineers that correct me if I make a math error. So don't worry about
accuracy. If I make a mistake it will be corrected and I always post the
corrections. So just look at the bottom line if it gets to tricky.

Besides -- very few people understand thermodynamics as well as I do --
even the Phd's in thermodynamics admit that. I already see that the TT list
has no clear understanding regarding how the TT is working. I hope to
rectify this. I see great potential in this design -- having studied it for
a while now.

To bad I did not bring my machine shop to Belize when I retired here. I am
hoping that some of my suggestions may be implemented by people on the TT
list to the benefit of all. I certainly can design a great test bed for
prototype development!

If I do not lose momentum -- and finish this discussion -- everything
should be clear at the end.

Peter
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

 

From 146942 at email.msn.com Fri Mar 17 01:08:53 2000
From: 146942 at email.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: re: #'s pete
Message-ID: <005801bf8fd2$957c03e0$fd3d1b3f@oemcomputer>

hey Pete-way to light up the board!
>>>>>>>
3rd world is not rich enough to support Capitalism -- but it thrives on
free enterprise. Just like Canada and the US did a few years back.

Capitalism is about control. Eliminating competition through market
control. Free enterprise is may the best product win -- and always keep a
level playing field.

Modern world is big on subsidizing inefficient processes to protect their
capitalists. That is not a level playing field -- is it??

Now if I put a complete design together that would out preform your system
and had it built in China so I could sell it in the US for 1/4 the price of
your system -- yet giving 4 time the kwh's -- that is free enterprise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Agreed. That is why I am down on the grant system. I also brag my track
record is better than NASA's!

In those pics on my website, those are Yugoslavians who are in New Zeland
and everything was paid for by the Chinese. Unfortunately, I have a feeling
that it is now a dreadnaught power supply for three 50,000 watt pulse
lasers. ??????%*&^$^&*&

The Chinese came to me with hat in hand after attempting to copy what I have
and could not do it cost effectively. This is where the real world comes in
and the paper and pencil become boiler bait.
The most important thing to know is that when pressures exceed 250psi and
temps get over 400 degrees, everything gets real expensive. No threaded
pipe, special valves, seamless tubing with lots of alloy, jig bends
everywhere and on and on........also, when you want nice efficiency figures,
you need expensive material handling, and engines need expensive materials
and on and on....... i have addressed that problem and the new engine uses
less than 20lbs steam per hp hour on less than 400 psi, 250 nominal and 600
superheat. same with the boiler. I am at 8 lbs wood per hp/hr and will hit
5 on ideal conditions.
It wont change the world, just a personal accomplishement.
I still say that efficiency takes a back seat to practicality. Just like my
car gets dramatically better milage on aviation gas but it is cheaper and
more practical to use that crap at the local store. (ps...$2 of octaine
boost gives me an additional 100 miles per tank)

who knows? If I sell enough of these dinosaur engines, then I can produce a
fancy engine at a cheap price....but....I just paid a bunch of taxes this
year.....someone has to pay for the 'grant crowd'

go get em Pete
Skip

 

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 Mar 18 14:57:17 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oh!! -- that small steam power plant ---
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000318133303.008c9220@wgs1.btl.net>

OK folks -- this is a long one -- Gonjo math modeling from one end to the
other. How to make that 29% plus over all efficiency; small, simple,
economical; 3rd world combustion power plant.

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

Hi Skip;

At 08:50 AM 3/18/00 -0600, you wrote:
>built a tesla 20 years ago.....it drank too much
>last year's iowa energy fair, jeff hays(tesla pres) brought the turbine that
>"they" had worked on for so long
>at my challenge, ran it on my boiler. made a lot of noise and barely
>turned.
>i stopped it with my foot. i was giving it 20hp worth of steam. poor guy
>was an emotional wreck and the crowd was amused.
>if there is a lot of 'were gonnas', 'yest but', 'they', 'conspiracy this',
>one detail or another in the speel, it is crap.
>
>you are going to lose legitimacy and credibility if u push the tesla thing.
>
>skp

Not pushing the Tesla thingy at all -- simply re-investigating it. Found
this out.

In his original model -- it took 24 lbs steam to produce 1 hp -- this steam
of 125 psi with 250 F superheat.

125 psi saturates = 344F - with 250F superheat = 594 - say 600F

This is steam of 1327 btu per pound

24 lbs * 1327 btu/lb = 31,848

One HP/hr = 2546 btu/hr -- so:

31,848/2546 = 12.5 HP in to get 1 HP out

1/12.5 = 8% efficiency.

But -- needing a speed reducer and no torque. Big problem handling
variations in load demand.

I have always been pushing one thing "only" -- making Unaflows again. I see
great potential there for a moderately high efficiency device for small
steam power plants.

I am interested in designing the "better" small combustion power station
for 3rd world. I know there is a simply incredible demand out there for such.

I keep checking "other" designs just to make sure that my original goal is
valid. Hate to get blind sided by tunnel vision --

To show you just one example of what a unaflow can do:

(From: Kent's Mechanical Engineer's Handbook -- 12th edition -- 1950 --
"Power" Volume -- page 8-110)

Title: Condensing operation with saturated steam at 150 psi (Gauge)

Variation of Steam Consumption with load on Engine

(Taking this from a graph -- so numbers are relative -- "close" -- but not
exact!)

(Load is % of rated HP)
("Steam" consumption = lbs/hr)

500HP Uniflow (Spelled Uniflow -- not Unaflow -- in this example)

Load -- Steam

10% 17.3
20% 15.2
30% 14.2
40% 13.8
50% 13.4
60% 13.2
70% 13.6
80% 13.7
90% 13.8
100% 13.9
110% 14.0
120% 14.3
130% 14.7
140% 15.0
150% 15.4

Only the unaflow design can give economic efficiency ratings over such a
load variation. This is of prime importance in a variable demand situation
-- which is what we get a lot of when generating powder in 3rd world. The
standard method with steam turbine plants is to balance load using
secondary diesel gen sets!! The Unaflow eliminates that expense!

To give some perspective -- real efficiency ranges of the above.

150 psi saturated = 348.42F = 1194.1 btu/lb

(One HP/hr = 2546 btu/hr

17.3 lbs of that steam = 20,657.93 btu/2546 = 8.11 hp "in"

1/7.65 = 12.3% efficiency (worst case!!)

13.2 lbs/hp = 15,762.12 btu = 6.19 hp "in"

1/5.84 = 16.2% efficiency. (Best Case)

Taking your present engine example -- where I guesstimate (reasonably I
feel) 5.25% engine efficiency.

You are presently producing 25 kwh. If you changed over to that unaflow
engine you would be producing:

16.2/5.25 = 3.08 times more power or:

25 * 3.08 = 77 kwh instead of just 25.

I am quite sure your customers will appreciate the difference!

And remember -- all this with 150 psi "wet" steam!! Give it the same steam
conditions as you are presently using:

"i have addressed that problem and the new
engine uses less than 20lbs steam per hp hour
on less than 400 psi, 250 nominal and 600
superheat. same with the boiler."

And you could expect efficiencies well over 20%!!!

Also -- you stated:

"The most important thing to know is that when
pressures exceed 250psi and temps get over 400
degrees, everything gets real expensive. No
threaded pipe, special valves, seamless tubing
with lots of alloy, jig bends everywhere and on
and on........also, when you want nice efficiency
figures, you need expensive material handling,
and engines need expensive materials and on and
on....... i have addressed that problem and the
new engine uses less than 20lbs steam per hp hour
on less than 400 psi, 250 nominal and 600 superheat.
same with the boiler. I am at 8 lbs wood per hp/hr
and will hit 5 on ideal conditions."

I could not agree with you more!! But I have just shown how you can more
than triple your present output using a unaflow piston steam engine and at
pressure of just 150 psi saturated -- no super heater!! With the quality of
steam you describe above -- the unaflow would do 20+% easily!

Actually -- the condensing on exhaust serves the same function as
superheating. You simply have to decide if it is easier and more economic
to super heat rather than run a condenser.

You also stated:

"I would be happy if a turbine in the under
500hp got 10%, and didn't cost a
million dollars plus millwrighting."

Why bother when you can build a Unaflow?

But there is one fly in the ointment -- here is it:

WEAR OF CYLINDER AND OF PISTON RINGS.

Under average conditions, a set of piston rings travels over
300 million feet before renewal becomes necessary. Steam
cylinders last for about 1500 million feet of piston travel
before reboring becomes necessary. Cylinder walls are usually
made thick enough for two reborings. For 24-hour-per-day
operation, this means that a set of rings lasts approximately
14 months, that the cylinder must be rebored every 8 years, and
that it must be replaced after 25 years. Both figures are
influenced by the quality of rings and cylinder, by solids
carried in the steam, and by effectiveness of lubrication.
Piston rings of incorrect shape exert concentrated localized
pressure, producing local wear and even glass-hard spots in the
cylinder. These spots can be removed by grinding only. A set of
rings is sometimes worn out in 2 months while another set will
last 2 years. If cylinders are made of ordinary soft cast iron,
the wear may be five times as rapid as indicated by the above
figures, which apply to castings of hard cylinder iron. After a
short period of use, cylinders made of the right kind of iron
acquire a semiglazed and reasonably hard surface. From then on, the
wear is slight.

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

The turbine is much more maintenance free -- but if you can live with the
above (and I can!!) -- the Unaflow is just great. By the way -- the above
applies to any steam piston engine -- including the one you are using now.

You also mention:

"who knows? If I sell enough of these dinosaur
engines, then I can produce a fancy engine at
a cheap price....but....I just paid a bunch of
taxes this year.....someone has to pay for the
'grant crowd'."

You could easily set up here in Belize -- in an "Industrial Free Zone" --
and get a 20 year tax free "bonus". This also includes no import or export
duties.

OK Skip -- any reasons not to do all this??

One last point --

If one put a second unaflow system running a refrigerant working fluid as
the condenser for the first -- one greatly increases over all plant
efficiency -- putting it right up there with the most exotic, expensive and
huge -- present state of the art -- turbine power plants.

I see a simple setup -- nothing "exotic" -- producing 25% engine
efficiencies on steam and picking up another 20% on the second
refrigeration cycle.

This give over all engine efficiencies of 45%!!

Using the standard, low number, boiler efficiency of 65%

65% * 45% = 29.25% over all plant efficiency!

and this is a "conservative" estimate based on examples of what has
presently existed for 100 years!! (OK -- but not the Gasifier furnace/boiler)

This is what I am truly interested in pursuing -- not Tesla Turbines.
Whether I ever get into the right position to experiment in this direction
- well that is the question. And when I have finished that -- I'll move on
to building the ultimate gasifier!

Peter in Belize

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

 

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

 

From 146942 at email.msn.com Sat Mar 18 17:29:11 2000
From: 146942 at email.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oh!! -- that small steam power plant ---
Message-ID: <002201bf9129$6282f720$423d1b3f@oemcomputer>

pete, dont judge 500 hp engines and expect them to scale down with the same
efficiency.
the unaflow is a convenient design. that is why my new engines are that
way.

compounded engines for the last 100 years have routinely got better than
15lbs/hp.

turbines are very expensive to maintain.

life? hours? get real. in normal use, the engine outlives you.
by utilizing batteries and inverters at the load source, i have set up
systems where the whole village is powered by a steam engine running 4hrs a
day at 25kw and that was 70 apartments with english standard of living.
in new zeland, there is a use for the heat and efficiency is irrelevant.(an
increase of effectiveness by a factor of 10)

in the third world, process steam makes more sense than electricity. they
need money and industry. electricity is just a side benefit.

i will be going to kosovo soon to set up steam and biodeisel operations. it
is my own way of fucking the new world order.
skip

 

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 Mar 18 19:43:57 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oh!! -- that small steam power plant ---
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000318183833.008a47a0@wgs1.btl.net>

At 04:26 PM 3/18/00 -0600, you wrote:
>pete, dont judge 500 hp engines and expect them to scale down with the same
>efficiency.

Ah -- but that is just what I intend to do!

>the unaflow is a convenient design. that is why my new engines are that
>way.

Yes -- in all my investigations over the years it keep surfacing as the
bast single stage design -- which means economic.

>
>compounded engines for the last 100 years have routinely got better than
>15lbs/hp.
>

Yes - that same chart shows a compound engine getting 12.2 lbs to the hp --
fully 1 lbs more economic. That is a 1500 HP triple compound. But only
between 95 to 105% load -- very peaky!

>turbines are very expensive to maintain.
>

Yes -- but I don't want to argue with the turbine crowd. They always claim
different.

>life? hours? get real. in normal use, the engine outlives you.

Again -- I used the worse case scenario. It still makes the unaflow
competitive.

>by utilizing batteries and inverters at the load source, i have set up
>systems where the whole village is powered by a steam engine running 4hrs a
>day at 25kw and that was 70 apartments with english standard of living.
>in new zeland, there is a use for the heat and efficiency is irrelevant.(an
>increase of effectiveness by a factor of 10)

Yes -- but it would be nice to produce the same 25 kwh with a boiler, and
the rest of the front end, 1/3 or more less in size.

>
>in the third world, process steam makes more sense than electricity. they
>need money and industry. electricity is just a side benefit.
>

They are paying 18 cents US per kwh here. And electrical consumption, per
capita, though now where as great in a country such as the US, is still
increasing at a great rate.

I can "sell" for 11 cents US per kwh. But I have to pay for the biomass
(wood/wood chips) -- so I can't afford the luxury of not counting the cost
of the biomass fuel.

To make that work -- I need at least 20% over all efficiency. I have
studied some very nice designs. Foster Wheeler is building nice biomass
combustion units (fluid bed gasifiers/steam turbines -- 1600psi -- 900F)
in the 10 mwe range that get better than 20% efficiency over all. At
reasonable capital costs as well.

But the niche market is 500Kw to one megawatt plants. As per capita use is
so low -- distribution of power over long distances become futile. Hard to
pay the costs of the lines when so little market is at the other end. The
cost of a 50 mile main power line is greater than the cost of the plant to
make the same amount of power.

A small village -- off in the bush -- would be happy with 5kw. And a plant
along the lines you produce now would be perfect -- as in these small
systems -- you right -- the extra biomass amount needed due to lower
efficiency is piddling amount.

Batteries and inverters are not needed -- as running 4 to 6 hours per day
would be all they need.

Further -- as you have already pointed out -- just steam power would be
enough. For pumping water -- corn grinding mill -- refrigeration. Makes no
sense to go steam electric then electric motor -- just go small steam
engine where mechanical power is needed.

Just need an economic and good boiler engine design. I have better go to
you WWW site -- and check it out. Must be 8 months since the last time I
did. But prices were "steep" (for 3rd world) back then.

Just did quickly -- your Volk's Rabbit is certainly in better shape than
mine!!

>i will be going to kosovo soon to set up steam and biodeisel operations. It
>is my own way of fucking the new world order.

Wow! Quite a mission you got going for you! Best of luck.

 

Peter in Belize

>skip
>
>
>
>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 Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Mar 18 20:05:30 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Ceramics, Refractories and Insulations
Message-ID: <92.2874934.26058190@cs.com>

Dear Dean et al:

It is important to distinguish between Ceramics, Refractories and
Insulations.

"Ceramics" can refer to anything made of inorganic oxides such as clays,
mullite, alumina, zironcia, ..... and doesn't specify the form or density.

"Refractories" typically refers to ceramics in a form to resist high
temperatures.

"Insulation" refers to materials which have a relatively high resistance to
heat flow, often fibrous or particulate, relying on the (heat shield) effect
of many surfaces to relect radiation back to its source.

Dense refractories are typically not very good insulators, but very wear
resistant. Insulators are typically not wear resistant. Some forms of
insulation can be "rigidized" after forming to make them relatively tough.

You can check out the conductances and densities of commercial refractories
and insulations in Table 4.14.c in the North American Combustion Handbook
(Vol 1), (North Amer. Mfg. Co., third Ed., 1986).....

Or you can reinvent the wheel..

Yours truly, TOM REED
CPC/BEF

In a message dated 3/17/00 12:35:28 AM Mountain Standard Time,
dstill@epud.org writes:

<< Dear friends,

I am sure that many are aware of the different types of refractory cement
mixes available dry in 50 pound bags here in the U.S. There are many types
of insulative mixes but they tend to be soft as well. We are working on
various A. T. mixtures to try to replicate the industrial varieties. As soon
as something works, we'll report to the list. I'm trying to enlist the
companies that produce insulative refractory ceramics to help in this work.

Pumice or perlite or vermiculite can be mixed with cement to reduce the
mass.

A recipe for heat resistant cement is:

less than 5 gallons of water
2 cubic feet of sand
2 cubic feet of rock
94 pounds of cement
dry is better than wet

We are having some success with Honduran refractory ceramic parts surrounded
by wood ash. Wood ash is a great insulation. The refractory clay is made
from horse manure, sand, clay and tree gum. We also love spirals of aluminum
foil in areas below 700 degrees F.

We experimented with white highly emmissive paints from NASA that supposedly
had high R values. But, in our tests thay showed no real value in stoves.
They did not help performance in a haybox either.

Best,

Dean Still

>>
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 english at adan.kingston.net Sat Mar 18 22:14:06 2000
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oh!! -- that small steam power plant ---
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000318133303.008c9220@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <200003190313.WAA30301@adan.kingston.net>

>- I'll move on
> to building the ultimate gasifier!
>
> Peter in Belize

Peter,
What do you think about the gasifier for this power plant producing a
valuable co-product like charcoal. Ofcourse it may depend on your
fuel, but the total return from tri-gen (electricity, heat and
charcoal) might make an attractive package in your part of the world.

Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211

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 ticu at rdsor.ro Sun Mar 19 01:31:37 2000
From: ticu at rdsor.ro (Cornel Ticarat)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Drying beech wood using superheated steam.
Message-ID: <MAPI.Id.0016.00696375202020203030303430303034@MAPI.to.RFC822>

Dear gasifiers,

I'm intending to build a wood dryer using superheated steam. I know this drying method is a good one. The wood I want to dry is beech wood. It is cutted into small pieces of about 20 - 25 cm long and 4 - 10 cm thick. It's moisture content: 45 - 50 % (very fresh cutted wood ! ). I intend one batch of wood for drying to be of 6 cubic meter.
As far as I know, what is necesary for that is a boiler for generating steam and a drying room. The output steam's temperature have to be of no less than 200 Celsius degrees and it's pressure no less than 4 bar durind all the drying process.
I read in a Russian old documentation paper that they used this drying method and have had very good results. They dried beams beech wood, having the following dimensions:
120 x 200 mm and 4 - 6.5 long. The initial moisture content: 40 %
After 7 (seven ! ) hours the moisture content decreased to 16 % !!!
The above mentioned steam parameters I have from that Russian documentation.
Does anyone have some practical experience with this drying method?
I would be very grateful to anyone of you who would accept to discuss about this.

Regards,

Cornel (Romania)

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

 

From 146942 at email.msn.com Sun Mar 19 02:13:51 2000
From: 146942 at email.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: add: GAS-L: Ceramics, Refractories and Insulations
Message-ID: <005a01bf9172$ada90de0$0c3d1b3f@oemcomputer>

Tom, I think a new class of refractory should be created and included.
Catalytic refractory. In my boilers, I use duraboard and cerablanket
covered with expanded stainless. As gasses comingle, they burn in the
fibers and radiate quite an amount of radiation back into the fuel pile. I
believe this is the future of refractory. It is proven, and on the market
today. It just isnt in the books yet.

Skip
www.sensiblesteam.com

 

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

 

From 146942 at email.msn.com Sun Mar 19 02:13:51 2000
From: 146942 at email.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: avoid the grid mentality
Message-ID: <005b01bf9172$ae6950a0$0c3d1b3f@oemcomputer>

Peter, a grid system is just plain bad news. It only works when someone
from another country comes in a builds a powerplant and lets that country's
govt. smash peoples property rights for a grid, and the material handling is
also expensive too, but that doesnt count when you have mineral rights in
another country.

Unfortunately, here in America, we don't buy electricity-we buy coal....in a
highly refined form. Coal and everything connected with it is owned by
British Royalty. And believe me, they care as much about our health and
environment as we care about the people in Bohpahl, India.

The solution is island systems of generation, which is what you are talking
about on small scales here.
Skip

 

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 Sun Mar 19 10:32:13 2000
From: tvoivozd at roanoke.infi.net (tvoivozhd)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Drying beech wood using superheated steam.
In-Reply-To: <MAPI.Id.0016.00696375202020203030303430303034@MAPI.to.RFC822>
Message-ID: <38D4F24A.C16F3E8D@roanoke.infi.net>

 

Cornel Ticarat wrote:

> Dear gasifiers,
>
> I'm intending to build a wood dryer using superheated steam. I know this drying method is a good one. The wood I want to dry is beech wood. It is cutted into small pieces of about 20 - 25 cm long and 4 - 10 cm thick. It's moisture content: 45 - 50 % (very fresh cutted wood ! ). I intend one batch of wood for drying to be of 6 cubic meter.
> As far as I know, what is necesary for that is a boiler for generating steam and a drying room. The output steam's temperature have to be of no less than 200 Celsius degrees and it's pressure no less than 4 bar durind all the drying process.
> I read in a Russian old documentation paper that they used this drying method and have had very good results. They dried beams beech wood, having the following dimensions:
> 120 x 200 mm and 4 - 6.5 long. The initial moisture content: 40 %
> After 7 (seven ! ) hours the moisture content decreased to 16 % !!!
> The above mentioned steam parameters I have from that Russian documentation.
> Does anyone have some practical experience with this drying method?
> I would be very grateful to anyone of you who would accept to discuss about this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Cornel (Romania)

Tvoivozhd---superheated steam drying works well. It is not necessarily the lowest cost method---a consideration important in most countries. Here is an extensive bibliography of past and present drying methods. If the quantity of wood to dry is not immense, and your local amount of sunshine permits, consider one or several solar dryers. A
hard drive committed hara kiri, and deleted the files I had which had instructions and pictures for building various solar dryers. If you wish, I will rebuild that file and send it to you.

http://www.innovacorp.ns.ca/infosvcs/lumber.htm

http://www.dekker.com/e/p.pl/0737-3937/016/006/toc (Too expensive for most individuals, but perhaps a Romanian government library may have this $675 book from McGill University in Canada)

http://www.books.mfi.com/wood/HighTempDrying.html (a book on the effect of drying at various temperature levels, not academic approach, of kilns in action)

http://www.woodbin.com/prods/wow/wow_specs.htm (data at your fingertips on 910 tree species and wood products around the world, 300 kb on your hard-drive)

http://www.vacutherm.com/goliath.htm (rehandling is an economic curse to be assiduously avoided---here is a commercial website solution---drying wood a full lumber truck load at one time).

http://www.tfri.gov.tw/publish/21-3e.htm (Taiwan study, higher temperature drying significantly more economical of energy than low temperature drying)

http://www.tfri.gov.tw/publish/91-1e.htm (Taiwan study on pine, similar conclusions)

http://www.forestry.ac.cn/mcs/mcsnew/klsy.htm (mainland China source of commercial drying system)

http://iridium.nttc.edu/env/doe/e/curry.html (The Thermodyne process---save energy by recycling water vapor in a dryer instead of exhausting it to atmosphere)

http://www.anu.edu.au/Forestry/wood/drying/kiln.case.html (Casehardening in drying process, measuring and alleviating stress to produce high-quality lumber)

http://www.njc-usa.com/wooddy/default.htm (Wood Dryer Systems website, calculating your costs)
http://www.woodweb.com/~industry/machineryfinder/search.html (Woodweb, search site for components of wood, wood products systems)

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/div982.htm (Forest Products Research Lab, Madison, Wis.---one of very best worldwide sites for forest products research information)

http://www.woodtechmag.com/db_area/archives/1998/9809/softwood.htm (more on how critical relieving drying stress is to a manufacturer of wood products)

http://www.durastick.com/contact.htm (you don't have to tolerate sticker-stain, get rid of it)

http://www.hartingdale.com.au/~adh/Solar_Kilns.html (and if your climate permits, think about the solar option)

 

 

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 andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Sun Mar 19 16:00:45 2000
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oh!! -- that small steam power plant ---
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000318133303.008c9220@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <ttdadso0j9ik7okbfpnqomcvo7gr1d8j70@4ax.com>

On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 22:12:51 -0500, Alex wrote:

>
>Peter,
>What do you think about the gasifier for this power plant producing a
>valuable co-product like charcoal. Ofcourse it may depend on your
>fuel, but the total return from tri-gen (electricity, heat and
>charcoal) might make an attractive package in your part of the world.
I attempted to respond to the thread Joacim and Tom Reed posted about
the Kalle gasifier:
"On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 20:03:48 EST, Tom Reed wrote:

> Charcoal is incredibly easy to gasify. We always start our gasifier on
>charcoal until it is hot enough for wood."
Fine this is point one in favour of the proposition!

On the stoves list Tom has not been in favour of charcoal as a
co-product. The IDD stove clearly demonstrates clean burning (in an
urban environment this is possibly a bigger factor than outright
efficiency) but has the "drawback" of producing 25% by
weight of charcoal fines as a residue. To me a rural community
depending on wood for cooking may well welcome the ability to use a
by-product to power a machine cheaply.
>
>Does anyone have good data (energy content, gas composition, efficiency) on
>charcoal gasification. (Not in Gen Gas.)
Yes I am still waiting for response on this!

Peter and Skip are looking at the small scale, I guess Alex is also
looking at a similar scale. I was considering a micro scale, in the
absence of an electricity grid with cooking taking place on idd
woodstoves (essentially small hybrid pyrolyser/gasifiers with a large
char residue) the char being utilised in cheap small gasifiers with no
(or small) problems of gas cleanup in standard spark ignition engines
to produce power.

AJH

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 Sun Mar 19 17:36:39 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Designing the good TT!
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000319162724.008e9770@wgs1.btl.net>

Folks -- this will be the last cross posting from the TT list. But I feel
you might want to see what the end result is. That being redesigning some
basic part along the line that Tesla himself was in fact pursuing. Going
from a smooth bladed design to a "paddle-wheel" design.

It is interesting to note that as far as I can find out to dat no one has
built his "improved" version. Everyone believing the magic is in the:

"Instead of extracting energy from the gas by its
action on pistons, blades or vanes, Nikola Tesla's
disk turbine depended upon the properties of
adhesion and viscosity to achieve this result."

Screw the "adhesion" -- I believe it is the "paddle-wheel" and those outer
rivets!

Anyway -- having fun and wishing I still had my machine shop.

Anyone that wants to see all those diagrams in real WWW:

http://www.execpc.com/~teba

Seek around there and you shall find!

Meanwhile -- there is a minor turmoil over at the TT list! "Rain making" --
seems that is all I can do these days.

Still -- if the TT could work -- it would solve finding the small power
plant "engine" problem!

I believe Tesla was using the rivets and the star washer all along and was
just "snowballing" everyone with the other stuff.

Skip -- you would not be stopping no shaft with your foot if that TT had a
star washer. Go check it out! Not with 20 HP steam going through it! It
would rip your leg off first!

Peter in Belize

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

Hi Bernard;

I was making the same suggestion to Fred and using the same reference:

>the improvements
>to disc turbines put forth by Tesla in his British Patent

Fred has a fine way with words:

>>This would cause the coupling to the gas stream to
>>move from drag alone to a direct transfer of momentum.

The "Star washer" improvement definitely would convert drag to momentum
transfer.

Here is how I explained it to Fred:

Now Tesla starts a radial spiral flow and changes it to a central flow. I
guess this change of direction in such a radical manner imparts more energy
to the rotary movement. The star washer in his diagram takes up half the
working diameter of his disks. Interesting!

The first half of the working disk diameter (that is between circumference
and exhaust) is working according to his drag theory. This being the "fast"
injection area. The second part leading to the exhaust is effectively
blocked from further spiraling and just precedes directly to the exhaust
ports.

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

This leads one to wonder about a few things. Has anyone compared torque and
efficiency ratings between the two designs -- that is with and without star
washers.

I also notice that in the improved design he clearly puts rivets close to
the out side circumference of the disks. This also would impinge on gas
flow and provide initiating momentum.

I guess it would require a good prototype and a great test bed to find out.

And last -- but not least -- carrying the star washer right to the outer
circumference would really be "radicle".

The design is optimized for following the velocity curve. That is the outer
rim speeding much faster than the center part feeding to exhaust matches
with a high velocity initial gas flow slowing down as it loses power.

But I have one problem with that -- volumes. The initial volume is much
smaller than the greatly "expanded" exhaust volume.

Ergo -- one would design the capacity of the motor to the volume of
expanded steam exiting from the exhaust ports.

Thus the high velocity stream hitting the out circumference would have
multiples of room for expansion on its way to the central exhaust ports --
which would in effect be the most constricted area -- but still designed of
large enough size so as not to impede exhausting of rated capacity steam load.

Could one then figure efficiency by outer Disk Circumference over inner
disk exhaust?

OD/ID = theoretical efficiency

If that proves to be the case -- large diameter disks would be more
efficient. Has that proven to be the case??

Not to mention much greater torque and operation at much less RPM -- no
longer needing speed reduction.

And yes -- one can always leave a percentage of the upper disk
circumference area free of obstruction (such as in Tesla's star washer
improvement) just to have the drag effect working as well. Now -- how much??

Another suggestion I made was to change the design of those outer rivets to
catch a proportionally larger "hit" of steam flow energy.

If they were properly designed aerodynamically -- they could actually keep
part of the flow forcing to the outside. I mean a partial vacuum on the
back side of this special rivet -- kind of a push-pull mechanism. One can
also experiment with just how many to put along the outer circumference.

If one put such a rivet in the middle of the arms of the star washer -- out
at the circumference -- it would in effect bounce the steam outward so as
to only come inwards at the proper place. Probably just after clearing the
next star washer arm -- to be then forced directly down by the incoming
blast (on its way round) to fully connect -- impinging on the next star
washer arm with great; and concentrated; force.

Between this and the star washer -- all kinds of torque should be gained.

The star washer effectively turns the TT into a paddle wheel. But instead
of the stream impinging and exiting just from the outer rim -- it travels
right down to the center! Hopefully, pushing all the way -- ergo -- greatly
increasing efficiencies.

Maybe this was Tesla's intention all along -- as every inventor tries very
hard to patent the principles of ones device without giving up the trade
secrets of actual construction.

The Star washer most definitely changes everything inherent in his original
patent.

Patents are only good for 17 years -- then they become public domain. His
improvement comes in 10 years after his first application. This is normal
practice as it gives another 17 year protection. So one tries to patent the
basic principle first -- then show more detail as "improvements" to keep it
patented.

It is quite common to find out that the improved version is actually the
same as the real original version -- though not the same as the original
patent "drawings".

In a patent I wrote and filed:

United States Patent 4,571,484
Singfield Feb. 18, 1986

http://patents.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/ifetch4?INDEX+PATBIB-76-98+0+8049+4+2+9648+
OF+1+1+1+IN%2fSingfield

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

Abstract

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

Devices and methods are provided for generating a high pressure gas
such as steam utilizing as a heat source the heat released by the
change of state of a material, e.g. the heat of fusion released by
solidification of a liquid metal. One such device generates steam in
a continuous manner, while another such device generates steam in
intermediate bursts. Also provided is a method for generating sonic
waves underwater for seismic exploration. These sonic waves are
generated from bursts of steam produced from the above-mentioned
steam generating device which generates intermediate bursts of steam.

22 Claims, 6 Drawing Figures
*********************************

The device in patent drawing was never built! The actual design being quite
different. The device was filed and patented after a series of successful
tests using a prototype that was no way related to the drawing in the
patent application.

We did find out that steam makes an excellent seismic sound source.
(Especially in pressures greater than 15,000 psi!) But I did not want to
show how we were doing it. I did want to protect that technology --

I should be now patenting the "improvement" to get another 17 years of
"protection".

(Just have to find that spare 1/4 million dollars!!)

See no reason that Tesla was not doing the same -- so I tend to look
closely at that Star Washer and those rivets -- and not so closely at his
original patent!

A round rivet is probably aerodynamic enough for that effect I described
above.

Wonder what the result would be if I married my latent heat of fusion,
liquid metal boiler, to a TT??

Peter in Belize

At 10:26 PM 3/17/00 PST, you wrote:
>TeslaList - http://frank.germano.com/page2.htm
>
>
>To Fred McGalliard <frederick.b.mcgalliard@boeing.com>:
>
>>My thought was to shape the turbine by bending the blades so that the
>>channel either expands and contracts, or wiggles back and forth. This
>>would cause the coupling to the gas stream to move from drag alone to >a
>>direct transfer of momentum. It should allow us to make the turbine
>>smaller for the same energy output. It is, of course, more complex.
>
>This sounds interesting. The suggestion resembles somewhat the improvements
>to disc turbines put forth by Tesla in his British Patent. What do you mean
>by "bending the blades"? Can you expound on this some more? What other
>forces will the turbine be tapping into if not just drag which has always
>been the routine explanation?
>
>
>BC
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>To unsubscribe, write to TeslaTechnologyToday-unsubscribe@listbot.com
>______________________________________________________________________
>Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

 

From snkm at btl.net Sun Mar 19 18:02:30 2000
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oh!! -- that small steam power plant ---
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20000319165009.00893970@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Guys;

We are rich in Butane in Southern Mexico and upper Central America. It is
much more economic than charcoal (at the prices they sell it for here) and
much more convenient to use. They sell really economical ring burners made
from cast iron that come from China.

There is a great advantage to charcoal in that it can be easily converted
to synthesis gas -- probably using heat from a pyrolyzer -- but you need
1800F to do this.

>From synthesis gas one can make practically anything! Also -- if you run
the process at lower temps -- 1200F as example -- you can produce methane
from charcoal.

Either synthesis gas, methane, or a mixture of both will directly run any
spark ignition internal combustion machine -- very well indeed!

No need to go the diesel route where you must supplement operation with
diesel fuel.

Production of synthesis gas or methane from Coal Coke is ancient technology
and very well proven. I can see no problems adapting that process to charcoal.

Coke is simply pyrolized Coal!

In "small" combustion power plants -- the charcoal is a very important
source of heat.

Peter

At 08:59 PM 3/19/00 +0000, you wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 22:12:51 -0500, Alex wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Peter,
>>What do you think about the gasifier for this power plant producing a
>>valuable co-product like charcoal. Ofcourse it may depend on your
>>fuel, but the total return from tri-gen (electricity, heat and
>>charcoal) might make an attractive package in your part of the world.
>I attempted to respond to the thread Joacim and Tom Reed posted about
>the Kalle gasifier:
>"On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 20:03:48 EST, Tom Reed wrote:
>
>> Charcoal is incredibly easy to gasify. We always start our gasifier on
>>charcoal until it is hot enough for wood."
>Fine this is point one in favour of the proposition!
>
>On the stoves list Tom has not been in favour of charcoal as a
>co-product. The IDD stove clearly demonstrates clean burning (in an
>urban environment this is possibly a bigger factor than outright
>efficiency) but has the "drawback" of producing 25% by
>weight of charcoal fines as a residue. To me a rural community
>depending on wood for cooking may well welcome the ability to use a
>by-product to power a machine cheaply.
>>
>>Does anyone have good data (energy content, gas composition, efficiency) on
>>charcoal gasification. (Not in Gen Gas.)
>Yes I am still waiting for response on this!
>
>Peter and Skip are looking at the small scale, I guess Alex is also
>looking at a similar scale. I was considering a micro scale, in the
>absence of an electricity grid with cooking taking place on idd
>woodstoves (essentially small hybrid pyrolyser/gasifiers with a large
>char residue) the char being utilised in cheap small gasifiers with no
>(or small) problems of gas cleanup in standard spark ignition engines
>to produce power.
>
>AJH
>
>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 enecon at ozemail.com.au Sun Mar 19 18:05:05 2000
From: enecon at ozemail.com.au (Jim Bland)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: More about steam efficiencies
Message-ID: <00a301bf91f6$dd630660$468254d2@enecon>

Peter,

For your analysis of the spec for your 8-stage steam turbine, your heat in
is too high. You need to subtract the enthalpy of steam turbine condensate,
as this is returned to the system. This is 93 Btu/lb. So heat in is 42,530
x (1389 - 93) = 55.1 million Btu/h (16 145 kW - note: not kWh) So your
efficiency is 3750/16145 = 23.2%. Who is the manufacturer of this turbine -
it looks pretty good?

For your second question, the enthalpy of the turbine exhaust is not 1116
Btu/lb, because the exhaust is wet. From the information provided by the
turbine manufacturer, I calculate an isentropic efficiency of 70.3% (pretty
good for a small turbine, and quite achievable with 8 stages), and that the
exhaust steam will be 97.4% dry, and will therefore have an enthalpy of 1089
Btu/lb. Work extracted is then 1389 - 1089 = 300 Btu/lb. Efficiency is
then work extracted/net heat in = 300/(1389-93) = 23.1%

The difference is probably due to rounding somewhere.

When are you guys going metric? These Btus drive me nuts. Thank goodness
my steam properties software can do the conversions.

Regards,

Jim Bland
Enecon Pty. Ltd.
Melbourne, Australia

----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net> To:
<gasification@crest.org> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 1:04 PM Subject:
GAS-L: More about steam efficiencies

> > Picking up where I left off --
> >
> > We have steam of 1500 psi, 1000 F, 1491 btu/lb "in" and 1 psi, 101.74F,
> > 1106 btu/lb "out".
> >
> > Question -- what is the ultimate thermal efficiency???
> >
> > OK:
> >
> > To make that quality steam the boiler invests 1491 btu for every pound
of
> > steam of that quality produced.
> >
> > The cooling tower has to absorb 1106 btu/lb to achieve a vacuum of 1 psi
> > (absolute) pressure.
> >
> > 1491 - 1106 = 385
> >
> > 385/1491 = 25.8%
> >
> > Pitiful but true! 25.8% is all the "heat" that is available in a form of
> > energy that can be used to make mechanical power. So even at 100%
> > mechanical efficiency -- one cannot get better than 25.8% efficiency in
> > converting heat invested in making steam of those conditions to power
> > coming out.
> >
> > The "mechanical" efficiency of the device put in between boiler and
> > condenser will be power out over btu in.
> >
> > In this case -- power is electricity.
> >
> > An example: (from one such plant I am working on now)
> >
> > ITEM I
> >
> > One (1) eight stage steam turbine designed for 400 PSIG, 750oF steam
> inlet
> > and 4" Hg abs. exhaust. The turbine will produce 3,750 KW with 42,530
PPH
> > steam flow and a turbine speed of 4,750 RPM. The turbine will be
complete
> > with NEMA "D" governor, Gimbel T&T valve, labyrinth gland seals,
> insulation
> > and lagging, vibration probes, bearing RTD's and magnetic pick up.
> Turbine
> > complies with NEMA SM23 standard. Turbine shall be equipped with a
single
> > inlet valve. Turbine inlet shall be 6"/600# and turbine exhaust shall be
> > 36"/125#.
> >
> > OK -- using these figures supplied by the manufacturer --
> >
> > 400 PSIG = 415 psi Absolute at 750F = 1389 btu
> >
> > So 42,530 PPH steam of this quality = 42,530 * 1389 btu =
> >
> > Total of 59,074,170 "in"
> >
> > Converting this to KWH's -- that is divide by 3414
> >
> > 17,303.5 KWH's in and 3,750 KWH's out.
> >
> > Gross efficiency = 21.6%
> >
> > We have two types of mechanical efficiency numbers. One is the
> theoretical.
> > The other is after subtracting process "costs". A large process cost
would
> > be operating the cooling tower -- for example.
> >
> > This is not over all plant efficiency. That is heat in over power out.
> This
> > is just engine/turbine efficiency.
> >
> > But what confuses me in the above example is this.
> >
> > We are given an exhaust vacuum of "4" Hg abs."; which is 1116 btu/lb of
> > condensing.
> >
> > So: 1389 btu in - 1116 btu out = 273 btu
> >
> > 273/1389 = 19.65%
> >
> > Yet the manufacturer is claiming, what in effect, works out to 21.6%
> > efficiency! The turbine has to be a little bit of a perpetual motion
> machine!
> >
> > So where have I gone wrong??
> >
> > Now -- if anyone can find errors in the above logic -- please point them
> out!
> >
> >
> > Peter in 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
> >
>
>
>

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 Tue Mar 21 09:39:18 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Tar measurement (fwd)
Message-ID: <34.2c9ead6.2608e27e@cs.com>

Dear Mrs. Parikh, Timo Herthan et al:

Congratulations to Timo on inventing a tar meter. Tars are perceived as the
number one problem of gasification. The first step in solving problems is to
be able to quantify them. Your meter has a promise of doing that.

I have been thinking about the possibility of a continuous "tar meter" based
on an FID for some time, but we haven't done anything as yet here at CPC. It
sounds like Timo has taken the necessary steps to make a meter that could
become a standard to replace condensing liquids at various temperatures and
arguing about what is or is not tar.

I like the triple separation into low temperature pass (=methane and HCs),
medium (for benzene and other fuels), and passing everything above 100 C
(the tars).

Is this meter described in a publication of the University of Stuttgart? Is
it available commercially? Please let us know.

Yours truly, TOM REED CPC/BEF

In a message dated 3/13/00 1:22:39 AM Mountain Standard Time,
parikh@me.iitb.ernet.in writes:

<< Dear Dr Reed,

I am forwarding a mail received regarding Tar measurement. Your openion is
solicited urgently.
Regards
Mrs parikh

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

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

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 14:34:42 +0100
From: Timo Herthan <herthan@IVD.Uni-Stuttgart.DE>
To: parikh@me.iitb.ernet.in
Subject: Tar measurement

Dear Mrs Parikh

I read your email to Dr. Reed concerning the tar measurement problem in the
gasification
mailing list archive. Please give me the time to introduce to you a method
which was
developed at the Institute of Process Engineering and Power Plant Technology
(IVD) of the
University of Stuttgart in Germany.

The TA 120 Tar Analyser was developed for quasi-continuous online
measurement of the
content of condensable aromatic hydrocarbons, designated as tars, in the
producer gas from
biomass gasification. The inset of this quantification method features a
series of
improvements regarding conventional methods, like the wet chemical
measurements. Thereby,
the possibility of simultaneous and quasi-continuous online measurement of
tar, aromatic
and total hydrocarbon content persuades the user. The analysis time is about
two minutes.
As a matter of principle, the TA 120 can be used in other fields of
application, where
high seething and volatile hydrocarbons should be measured separately. The
crossover to
the production in series is made by Ratfisch Analysensysteme GmbH in Poing,
Germany.

The principle of the Tar Analyser is the following :
Hot gas is sucked in and purified from fine particles and aerosols, before
three sample
loops are loaded contemporaneously. These three gas volumes are flushed one
after another
by carrier gas to the flame ionization detector (FID). Thereby, the first
sample flows
through a tar filter and the second through an aromatic filter before they
reach the FID;
the third sample reaches the FID unaltered. The concentrations of tars,
aromatics and
total hydrocarbons are then calculated and displayed. The deposit
temperatures of both
filters can be regularised independently from each other. Flush cycles are
reducing memory
effects to a minimum and are increasing the lifetime of the filters. The
pressure, flow
rate and intensifier parameters of the FID are justified by the TA 120. The
control
parameterisation of the measurement cycles can be made optional on the TA
120 or by the
software TA 120 DataAquisitionÓ from PC/Laptob.

· Detector:
Flame ionization detector (FID)
· Analysis Temperature:
Up to 300 °C
· Filter Temperatures:
0 to + 100 °C
(adjustable in steps of 1 °C)
· Number of Filters:
Two
· Number of Sample Inlets:
Two
· Effective Range:
3 decates up to max. 120 gC/m3
· Time for one Analysis:
About 120 seconds
· Measurement Limit:
< 0,2 % of the total hydrocarbon content
· Reproducibility:
± 0,5 % of the measured value
· Linearity:
± 2 % of the effective range accumulated value
· Sample Pressure:
- 30 - 50 mbar
· Sample Gas Flow Rate:
10 - 80 l/h
· Heating Time:
about 60 minutes
· Temperature Control:
PID- Controller
· Ambient Temperature:
+5 to + 35 °C
· Signal Outlet / Peripheral Control:
RS 485/232 - Interface
· Alarms:
- Sample loops
- Oven Temperature
- Temperature of both filters
- sensor break (temperature)
· Status Displays:
- Status of the analytic cycle
- Sample Inlet
- Oven Temperature
- Filter Temperature 1 and 2
· Software:
TA 120 DataAquisitionÓ
· Required Gases:
Fuel FID:
- Hydrogen (Purity 5.0), 2 bar, about 2 l/h
Air FID:
- synthetical air (HC-free), 3 bar, 20 l/h
Carrier Gas:
- Nitrogen (Purity 5.0) or compressed air, 2 bar, 5 l/h
Valve Control:
- compressed air, 6 bar, 50 l/h
Calibration Gas:
- about 5 Vol.-% Methan in N2 , max. 100 mbar
· Gas Connections:
6 mm clambing ring screw joint.
· Power Supply Line:
230 V / 50 Hz / 1500 VA
· Weights and Measures:
about 30 kg
6 HE x 19 " x 480 mm (H x B x T)


If you have more questions about the tar analyser feel free to contact me.

Kind Regards
Timo Herthan
>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

 

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Wed Mar 22 02:42:58 2000
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Irish gasification
Message-ID: <003201bf93d0$a921aba0$eb0e37d2@graeme>

Dear Gasification Colleagues

Have just returned to New Zealand after a month in Ireland and the U.K. on
what you could say was a busman's holiday.

I attended the Energy from Wood Conference in Belfast 17-18 February, saw
two gasified CHP systems, one going, one not, coppice willow harvesting,
storage, and drying, and a new gas turbine that looks made for producer gas.
So you could say that its all trying to happen in Northern Ireland.

There are two companies currently showing gasifiers in Northern Ireland, and
I do believe a third company is laying low for the moment until their first
project becomes public.

Rural Generation Ltd has a demonstration project with a 100kWe CHP system,
and a fuel drying and storage system to support their work using coppicing
willow. They also demonstrated a new willow harvesting machine which cut 10
acres making a nice stack to conduct drying trials.

On show but not connected was a small gas turbine developed for landfill gas
and able to run on 10% methane in that role. You cannot see much of a
turbine let alone question its suitability, so I later visited Queens
University Belfast to exchange information regarding the interfacing of the
two technologies.

The RGL gasifier had computer monitoring and all the temperature profiles
could be seen across the components. Being a blown system, surplus gas was
burnt in a flare stack, and gas to the engine had to pass through a
regulator. It was presented warts and all, but working and yes they did
have sporadic tar problems, which I later sorted out as being a fuel
problem.

I should mention that I was in Ireland to protect the potential customers of
gasification by supervising fuel testing on their behalf using the RGL
gasifier. It has been discussed widely that gasifiers are fuel specific and
the ability to change or adapt the design quickly is an important detail for
commercial installations. During the course of the fuel testing, the RGL
team had an opportunity to learn more about packed char beds, and see for
themselves how the fuel species and size affected gas making. Although not
planned, RGL have now sought a technical agreement to use Fluidyne
technology to support their equipment development programme.

Moving on to the other company demonstration, B9 Energy Ltd, the
installation was promoted as the first zero condensate downdraught gasifier
in the world. Producing 80kWe using a CHP system, it had a computer
controlled grab crane to load chips into a fuel drier then through fuel lock
into the gasifier. The installation stood cold and silent (like we were) and
no information was offered on performance etc. Specific questions like
"whats that" were declined to be answered, so if Hub Stassen from BTG in the
Netherlands been present, I at least could theorise with someone else who
knew what we should be seeing.

There is a limit to what may be considered classified information, but when
you sell equipment and others rely on the function of that technology, as a
manufacturer, everything has to be available for public scrutiny. In my
opinion B9 Energy lost a golden opportunity to how their stuff, but maybe
like RGL had been having bad fuel days, for it was easy to see their chip
fuel as nothing less than very poor quality,.
For the moment, hope this report will get your interest away from steam and
turbines that work on the etherical level, and will post some separate
reports and photographs over the next few weeks as time becomes available.

Regards
Doug Williams
Fluidyne.

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

 

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Wed Mar 22 02:42:58 2000
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Vehicle gasifiers
Message-ID: <003301bf93d0$aa46a3a0$eb0e37d2@graeme>

Dear Gasification Colleagues.

Those of you interested in vehicular gasification should make contact with
Mikkonen Vesa I met during a visit to Ireland. I have put the photographs
onto the Fluidyne Archive web page, but they don't show much detail. I am
sure they will share detailed information but your attention is drawn to the
fact that they use peat in Finland and possibly changing to wood chip is
going to cause problems.

A copy of his letter to me follows, and I hope those interested will
communicate directly with this very enthusiastic group.

Regards
Doug Williams
Fluidyne.

http://members.xoom.com/whitools/

--- snip -----------

Hello, Dough

It was a real plessure for me to meet You in Belfast.

We have an Association of Ecological Motoristis in Finland for vehicles
using
renewable energy sourses in trafic. Beeing chairman of the club, it was very
interesting to have a litle bit larger view of the gasification technology
programs. We are about one hundred members and the members have about a
dozen
of vehicles which are energized using gasification technology. Modifications
of
down draft cocurrent gasifiers are used. None is using the other
technologies in
trafic to utilize non fossile energy sources.

As you know, mobile gasifyers were very common in continental Europe during
the
war time 1940 - 1945. In Finland and Sweden, mainly woodbased fuels were
used.
Since 1995, I have driven over 40 000 km on peat based fuel. Wood would do
just
as well, but it is not commercially available at appropriate form.

As I do work to promote gasification aplications for trafic, I do send You
some
information concerning the mobile gasification technology.

To open the files attached, You will need a latter version of MS- exel. The
JPG
files are packed pictures of cars, and a photo editor is required to open
them.
The GMC truck belongs to Urho Kari, the Ford truck to Osmo Ylikarkela and
the
white Buick is mine, all in Finland. The technical information describes
technolgy of my car.

All the information enclosed is public.
Please, You may deliver it further to anyone who asks or is interested.

I would apreciate if You could send me some more information about the
technologies you have been developing.

Truly Yours,

Vesa vesa.mikkonen@aanekoski.metsabotnia.com

---------- snip ----------

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
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 fractional at willmar.com Wed Mar 22 03:12:53 2000
From: fractional at willmar.com (fractional@willmar.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:22 2004
Subject: GAS-L: coppice willow harvesting
Message-ID: <38D88220.E69BFD91@willmar.com>

Hello Doug,

Could you describe the willow harvesting machinery? There is a lot of
equipment being made in England and Sweden but links to their sites are
difficult to find. Perhaps they are too experimental or commercially
secretive.
I was curious if they were chipping or chunking the willow. Since
you mentioned Coppice, that would eliminate anything over 2" diameter
would it not?

Thanks,

Alan

PS, the photos of the AEM trucks are not coming through. ???

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 enecon at ozemail.com.au Wed Mar 22 17:52:02 2000
From: enecon at ozemail.com.au (Colin Stucley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Irish gasification
Message-ID: <01bf9451$88f23620$1d8d54d2@col-s-pc>

Dear Graeme,

A cold month in Ireland - you should have come to Western Australia earlier
in March for the IEA Task 17 meetings - we had 30 deg C and beautiful
sunshine!

Your comments on willow coppicing equipment are interesting, like others on
the network I would appreciate directions to more information.

We have recently had communications with B9 and would paint a brighter
picture than you have (mind you we have not stood in the cold looking at a
silent gasifier!). B9 have replied to our specific requests for information
with polite words to the effect of "we are still working on this and want to
be completely comfortable with our results before we take this further ".
This is a refreshing and honest approach. Unfortunately there are still
players around who make rash or naive promises about their technology, or
who have no idea of the technical and commercial gaps between a pilot
research rig and an operating commercial unit with performance guarantees.
Against the false expectations that such players develop I am grateful for a
bit of realism from people like B9.

Cheers from Australia,

Col Stucley
Enecon Pty Ltd

-----Original Message-----
From: Graeme Williams <graeme@powerlink.co.nz>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Wednesday, 22 March 2000 6:43 PM
Subject: GAS-L: Irish gasification

>Dear Gasification Colleagues
>
>Have just returned to New Zealand after a month in Ireland and the U.K. on
>what you could say was a busman's holiday.
>
>I attended the Energy from Wood Conference in Belfast 17-18 February, saw
>two gasified CHP systems, one going, one not, coppice willow harvesting,
>storage, and drying, and a new gas turbine that looks made for producer
gas.
>So you could say that its all trying to happen in Northern Ireland.
>
>There are two companies currently showing gasifiers in Northern Ireland,
and
>I do believe a third company is laying low for the moment until their first
>project becomes public.
>
>Rural Generation Ltd has a demonstration project with a 100kWe CHP system,
>and a fuel drying and storage system to support their work using coppicing
>willow. They also demonstrated a new willow harvesting machine which cut
10
>acres making a nice stack to conduct drying trials.
>
>On show but not connected was a small gas turbine developed for landfill
gas
>and able to run on 10% methane in that role. You cannot see much of a
>turbine let alone question its suitability, so I later visited Queens
>University Belfast to exchange information regarding the interfacing of the
>two technologies.
>
>The RGL gasifier had computer monitoring and all the temperature profiles
>could be seen across the components. Being a blown system, surplus gas was
>burnt in a flare stack, and gas to the engine had to pass through a
>regulator. It was presented warts and all, but working and yes they did
>have sporadic tar problems, which I later sorted out as being a fuel
>problem.
>
>I should mention that I was in Ireland to protect the potential customers
of
>gasification by supervising fuel testing on their behalf using the RGL
>gasifier. It has been discussed widely that gasifiers are fuel specific
and
>the ability to change or adapt the design quickly is an important detail
for
>commercial installations. During the course of the fuel testing, the RGL
>team had an opportunity to learn more about packed char beds, and see for
>themselves how the fuel species and size affected gas making. Although not
>planned, RGL have now sought a technical agreement to use Fluidyne
>technology to support their equipment development programme.
>
>Moving on to the other company demonstration, B9 Energy Ltd, the
>installation was promoted as the first zero condensate downdraught gasifier
>in the world. Producing 80kWe using a CHP system, it had a computer
>controlled grab crane to load chips into a fuel drier then through fuel
lock
>into the gasifier. The installation stood cold and silent (like we were)
and
>no information was offered on performance etc. Specific questions like
>"whats that" were declined to be answered, so if Hub Stassen from BTG in
the
>Netherlands been present, I at least could theorise with someone else who
>knew what we should be seeing.
>
>There is a limit to what may be considered classified information, but when
>you sell equipment and others rely on the function of that technology, as a
>manufacturer, everything has to be available for public scrutiny. In my
>opinion B9 Energy lost a golden opportunity to how their stuff, but maybe
>like RGL had been having bad fuel days, for it was easy to see their chip
>fuel as nothing less than very poor quality,.
>For the moment, hope this report will get your interest away from steam and
>turbines that work on the etherical level, and will post some separate
>reports and photographs over the next few weeks as time becomes available.
>
>Regards
>Doug Williams
>Fluidyne.
>
>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 cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Wed Mar 22 19:13:54 2000
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas-L; Northern Ireland Gasification
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20000323001347.007b6300@pop3.demon.co.uk>

Dear Gasifiers,

I would like to add some further comments to the concise and accurate
summary of the Energy from Conference held in Northern Ireland in February
given by Doug Williams. Being a resident in the UK with half my time spent
in Northen Ireland and the other half in England, I have a particular
interest in thermal conversion activiites in my own backyard.

The visits to the Rural Generation gasifier and the B9 gasifier were
organised as part of a Dept of Trade and Industry funded conference, Energy
from Wood, held in Belfast in mid-February. The conference was very well
attended with over 150 delegates, despite being organised at short notice.
I also had the pleasure of talking with Doug during the conference - the
furthest travelled delegate.

I do not want to review small-scale gasification, but we all know there
have been numerous attempts to develop a low cost gasification and engine
system to produce up to 200 kWe. Some companies have succeeded and others
have fallen by the wayside. Opportunities for systems are limited and the
industry must be open, honest and admit to difficulties. I want to see
small-scale succeed, but for that to happen, companies must open about the
status of their technology, the successes and the difficulties.

I'm afraid that I have to agree with Doug Williams on the subject of the B9
gasifier. I work independently on pyrolysis and gasification and I try to
ask the same questions of companies that I meet on their gasification [or
pyrolysis] technology, especially if there is no published data. It is not
my function as a worker in this area to denigrate anyone's technology, but
information was sparse. Typical questions I ask gasification companies are:

What is the heating value of your gas?
What is the gas composition?
What are the tar and particulate levels in the gas prior to the engine?
What is the real engine deration?
How much diesel do you use?
What is the production cost per kWe?
etc. You can guess the rest.

Extremely limited answers were provided to these questions by B9, as Doug
has pointed out. Rural Generation Ltd. were the opposite and free access
was granted to any part of the operation. For your information, a third
[55 kWe downdraft] gasifier will be opeatrional in Northern Ireland in the
very near future.

B9's claim to be the first zero liquid discharge gasifier is not correct as
far as I am aware- the KARA/BTG gasifier was before B9 - ask Harrie Knoef
at BTG. Harrie was also willing to say how this is achieved - B9 were not.
B9 claim 24 hours a day, 6 days a week operation, fully automated [except
for ash removal]. What I would like to know has anyone in the gasification
group seen this gasifier operating? I would appreciate feedback.

When companies are evasive in public about their technolgoy, it does not
instill confidence in the civil servants and policy makers when no
forthright answers are given. Other companies in the UK and Europe are
trying to market systems and it is very easy to be ''tarred with the same
brush''. As far as I am concerned, claims must be backed up with hard
evidence, preferably independent.

B9 missed an opportunity to show their system working - it is unlikely they
will get a second opportunity. The industry in Europe had one bite of the
cherry in the 1980's this might be the last oppotunity in the new Millennium.

I will probably get ''burned'' by some members of the group, but if we do
not raise the quality and professionalism of our marketing and provision of
information, then we are not helping ourselves.

Here endeth the lesson........

Yours,

Cordner Peacocke [Dr.]

Director
Conversion And Resource Evaluation Ltd.
9 Myrtle House
5 Cassowary Road
Birmingham
B20 1NE.
Tel: (44) 121 551 0344 or (44) 28 90422658 or (01232) 397955
Fax: (44) 870 0542981 or (44) 121 359 6814
Internet: http://www.care.demon.co.uk/
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

 

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Thu Mar 23 02:58:02 2000
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: coppice willow harvesting
Message-ID: <003e01bf949b$e6d195c0$e70e37d2@graeme>

Dear Alan

Will try to give some priority to writing about the coppice willow
harvesting with photos but Graeme is flat out with his own work and can only
do my computing at the weekends.

The Irish harvester demonstration was a single row tractor mounted system
for the very wet and small plantation that Irish farmers will most likely
experience. Coppice size depends on age and growing conditions, but in
thespirit of coppice about 2 inches is the maximum size of the butts.
Larger willow should use a Sasmo screw auger chipper.

Cutting of the chip appropriate for gasification is the key and Rod Parfitt
at Long Ashton has this down to a fine art using larger machinery. As you
mat remember from previous postings, I set up the coppice willow
gasification trial at Long Ashton in 1994 with Rod and he sorted out the
method to give me the right chip size.

The machine demonstrated was built by

H.Mell and Son
Old Trew Road
Beckingham
Doncaster
Ph.01427 848210
Fax: 01427 848069

Some comments that were made about willow coppice suggests that it can have
very different cutting behaviour and that Swedish machines built for the
industry were on the "light side"
Hope this helps

Regards
Doug Williams.

> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:19:45 -0600
> From: fractional@willmar.com
> Subject: GAS-L: coppice willow harvesting
>
> Hello Doug,
>
> Could you describe the willow harvesting machinery? There is a lot of
> equipment being made in England and Sweden but links to their sites are
> difficult to find. Perhaps they are too experimental or commercially
> secretive.
> I was curious if they were chipping or chunking the willow. Since
> you mentioned Coppice, that would eliminate anything over 2" diameter
> would it not?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alan
>
> PS, the photos of the AEM trucks are not coming through. ???
>

 

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 neeft at ecn.nl Thu Mar 23 05:10:44 2000
From: neeft at ecn.nl (Neeft, J.P.A.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tar measurement (fwd)
Message-ID: <50B56D407D2DD31191DE00902771E9F401102B97@ecntex.ecn.nl>

 

Dear Tom Reed, Mrs. Parikh and gasification list,

Timo Herthan has demonstrated the Tar Analyser at ECN about one month ago.
My opinion is that the analyser is a valuable instrument in biomass
gasification research, as it has a number of advantages over other tar
measurement methods: it is fast (almost on-line), cheap and gives
reproducable results.
The actual concentration of "tars ", measured with the analyser, depends
strongly on the filter material and the filter temperature. If the analyser
will be used by several research institutes, we (=the biomass community)
might want to define a material and temperature for one of the two filters.
This will allow us to compare results obtained with the analyser.

Another point of discussion will be the comparison of tar concentrations
measured with the analyser with tar concentrations measured with other
measurement methods. This point probably will be discussed in a European
project towards the development of a Tar Protocol. This project further
develops the two draft protocols which have recently been published (Biomass
& Bioenergy, vol 18, issue 1). I will inform you in more detail about this
project once it has been started (we are still waiting for the contract from
Brussels).

An article on the tar analyser was published in the same issue of Biomass &
Bioenergy, pp. 79-86, by Oliver Moersch who developed the apparatus.

With kind regards,

John Neeft
Netherlands Energy Research Foundation (ECN)

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Reedtb2@cs.com [SMTP:Reedtb2@cs.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 3:35 PM
> To: parikh@me.iitb.ernet.in; herthan@ivd.uni-stuttgart.de;
> artsolar@usaor.net; Robbcpc@aol.com; das@eagle-access.net;
> sellis@mines.edu; john_scahill@nrel.gov; Kingcpc@aol.com;
> sweetness34@uswest.net; dieboljc@rmii.com; pdebruicker@mail.gocpc.com;
> gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: Re: Tar measurement (fwd)
>
> Dear Mrs. Parikh, Timo Herthan et al:
>
> Congratulations to Timo on inventing a tar meter. Tars are perceived as
> the
> number one problem of gasification. The first step in solving problems is
> to
> be able to quantify them. Your meter has a promise of doing that.
>
> I have been thinking about the possibility of a continuous "tar meter"
> based
> on an FID for some time, but we haven't done anything as yet here at CPC.
> It
> sounds like Timo has taken the necessary steps to make a meter that could
> become a standard to replace condensing liquids at various temperatures
> and
> arguing about what is or is not tar.
>
> I like the triple separation into low temperature pass (=methane and HCs),
>
> medium (for benzene and other fuels), and passing everything above 100 C
> (the tars).
>
> Is this meter described in a publication of the University of Stuttgart?
> Is
> it available commercially? Please let us know.
>
> Yours truly, TOM REED CPC/BEF
>
>
> In a message dated 3/13/00 1:22:39 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> parikh@me.iitb.ernet.in writes:
>
> << Dear Dr Reed,
>
> I am forwarding a mail received regarding Tar measurement. Your openion
> is
> solicited urgently.
> Regards
> Mrs parikh
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~
> ~
> Prof. (Mrs.) P.P.Parikh Phone Office : 5783496, 5767548
> Dept. of Mechanical Engg. 5782545 Ext. 7548 / 8385
>
> I.I.T. Bombay Home : 5704646
> Mumbai 400 076 INDIA Fax Office : 5783496, 5783480
>
> email : parikh@me.iitb.ernet.in
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 14:34:42 +0100
> From: Timo Herthan <herthan@IVD.Uni-Stuttgart.DE>
> To: parikh@me.iitb.ernet.in
> Subject: Tar measurement
>
> Dear Mrs Parikh
>
> I read your email to Dr. Reed concerning the tar measurement problem in
> the
> gasification
> mailing list archive. Please give me the time to introduce to you a
> method
> which was
> developed at the Institute of Process Engineering and Power Plant
> Technology
> (IVD) of the
> University of Stuttgart in Germany.
>
> The TA 120 Tar Analyser was developed for quasi-continuous online
> measurement of the
> content of condensable aromatic hydrocarbons, designated as tars, in the
> producer gas from
> biomass gasification. The inset of this quantification method features a
> series of
> improvements regarding conventional methods, like the wet chemical
> measurements. Thereby,
> the possibility of simultaneous and quasi-continuous online measurement
> of
> tar, aromatic
> and total hydrocarbon content persuades the user. The analysis time is
> about
> two minutes.
> As a matter of principle, the TA 120 can be used in other fields of
> application, where
> high seething and volatile hydrocarbons should be measured separately.
> The
> crossover to
> the production in series is made by Ratfisch Analysensysteme GmbH in
> Poing,
> Germany.
>
> The principle of the Tar Analyser is the following :
> Hot gas is sucked in and purified from fine particles and aerosols,
> before
> three sample
> loops are loaded contemporaneously. These three gas volumes are flushed
> one
> after another
> by carrier gas to the flame ionization detector (FID). Thereby, the first
>
> sample flows
> through a tar filter and the second through an aromatic filter before
> they
> reach the FID;
> the third sample reaches the FID unaltered. The concentrations of tars,
> aromatics and
> total hydrocarbons are then calculated and displayed. The deposit
> temperatures of both
> filters can be regularised independently from each other. Flush cycles
> are
> reducing memory
> effects to a minimum and are increasing the lifetime of the filters. The
> pressure, flow
> rate and intensifier parameters of the FID are justified by the TA 120.
> The
> control
> parameterisation of the measurement cycles can be made optional on the TA
>
> 120 or by the
> software TA 120 DataAquisitionÓ from PC/Laptob.
>
> · Detector:
> Flame ionization detector (FID)
> · Analysis Temperature:
> Up to 300 °C
> · Filter Temperatures:
> 0 to + 100 °C
> (adjustable in steps of 1 °C)
> · Number of Filters:
> Two
> · Number of Sample Inlets:
> Two
> · Effective Range:
> 3 decates up to max. 120 gC/m3
> · Time for one Analysis:
> About 120 seconds
> · Measurement Limit:
> < 0,2 % of the total hydrocarbon content
> · Reproducibility:
> ± 0,5 % of the measured value
> · Linearity:
> ± 2 % of the effective range accumulated value
> · Sample Pressure:
> - 30 - 50 mbar
> · Sample Gas Flow Rate:
> 10 - 80 l/h
> · Heating Time:
> about 60 minutes
> · Temperature Control:
> PID- Controller
> · Ambient Temperature:
> +5 to + 35 °C
> · Signal Outlet / Peripheral Control:
> RS 485/232 - Interface
> · Alarms:
> - Sample loops
> - Oven Temperature
> - Temperature of both filters
> - sensor break (temperature)
> · Status Displays:
> - Status of the analytic cycle
> - Sample Inlet
> - Oven Temperature
> - Filter Temperature 1 and 2
> · Software:
> TA 120 DataAquisitionÓ
> · Required Gases:
> Fuel FID:
> - Hydrogen (Purity 5.0), 2 bar, about 2 l/h
> Air FID:
> - synthetical air (HC-free), 3 bar, 20 l/h
> Carrier Gas:
> - Nitrogen (Purity 5.0) or compressed air, 2 bar, 5 l/h
> Valve Control:
> - compressed air, 6 bar, 50 l/h
> Calibration Gas:
> - about 5 Vol.-% Methan in N2 , max. 100 mbar
> · Gas Connections:
> 6 mm clambing ring screw joint.
> · Power Supply Line:
> 230 V / 50 Hz / 1500 VA
> · Weights and Measures:
> about 30 kg
> 6 HE x 19 " x 480 mm (H x B x T)
>
>
> If you have more questions about the tar analyser feel free to contact
> me.
>
> Kind Regards
> Timo Herthan
> >>
> 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 146942 at email.msn.com Thu Mar 23 09:02:59 2000
From: 146942 at email.msn.com (skip goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Steam eductors?
Message-ID: <000d01bf94d0$4a07d940$033d1b3f@oemcomputer>

After building several steam atomizers for liquid fuels, I think I have
worked out the quirks on low flow (under 1gpm) systems. I also think I have
a real good handle on the stack eductors which work of steam and some give
volume while others can give lower gas flow but high vacuum.

All said...why couldn't a gassifier utilize a high vacuum eductor and
'draw' the gasses through. You would also have a source of cooling on the
incoming water/steam. Best of all, there is no moving parts to corrode or
wear out.

Question is: could the gassification temp. be lowered if chamber pressure
was lowered to say 23hg? It surely would assist in the removal of moisture
from the wood. Perhaps, tars could either be reduced or localized?

Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam
www.sensiblesteam.com

 

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

 

From fractional at willmar.com Thu Mar 23 20:16:06 2000
From: fractional at willmar.com (fractional@willmar.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: coppice cutters
Message-ID: <38D9AB74.5D0FC087@willmar.com>

Thanks Doug for the reply and promise of more information on coppice
harvesting.
Personally that single row device sounds interesting for home fuel
uses. A fellow with the Minnesota willow and poplar project informed
me that rotary shears and high speed circle saws were being used.
After some search I found one machine that took a single row and
stacked them on a trailer whole, without stripping them. It might have
been a pic of a Swedish machine at some English site. Can't find them
anymore. Apparently they store and dry them that way for later
chipping right at a CHP microplant.
The other machine somehow or other picked them out and processed them
like silage.
I have taken a 212 Case silage harvester and stripped the corn head off
of it thinking there is no point in trying to stuff them in backwards.
The objective is to be able to chop the stuff on the go and throw it in
a grain trailer, then throw it in a old corn crib for drying.

My plan was to push the 'stocks' over and nip them with a rotary
shear and grab them right there with some vertically oriented toothed
drums. From there deliver the sticks butt first to the traction feed
wheels on the existing harvester with the aid of two opposing conveyor
belts. Most of this stuff was salvaged from junk equipment as I have no
plans to make harvesters for a never to appear market. I'm not looking
to reinvent a harvesting process, if there is anything out there that
works simpler please pass it along.

Thanks,

Alan

 

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 joacim at artech.se Fri Mar 24 06:18:12 2000
From: joacim at artech.se (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Deja Vu Producer Gas
In-Reply-To: <e6.2a5b407.25fe94e1@cs.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10003241045000.7928-100000@localhost>

On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:

> I never thought of producer gas vehicles as a way to beat the fuel taxes.
> Interesting idea. Eventually any fuel will have to support fuel taxes or
> what will pay for the roads. However, in the development phase when the new
> fuel is less than 10% of the total mix governments will probably forgive tax
> or even subsidize if they see it in their interest. Ethanol was highly
> subsidized in France between the wars and made considerable progress.

Ethanol is still subsidised, but by the EU now: the ethanol is produced
from excess wine, made from subsidised grapes. I wonder what the total
efficiency of *that* system is. =)

 

> In the period 1950-1970 there was a great deal of work done at the National
> Swedish Testing Institute for Agricultural Machinery uder the direction in
> part of Eric Johansson. I wonder if he is still alive.

The centre in Umeå? They still work a little with producer gas, but all
governmental funding of it ended a few years ago. Rumor has it they now do
producer gas work for "private enterprise" (being a little secretive about
it too I'm told)

> They did the work in part to adapt producer gas to modern Saabs and Volvos
> and they came up with interesting designs for both wood blocks and wood
> chips. Is there any single document that records that research. The biomass
> Energy Foundation could possibly be interested in translating and publishing
> that as a sequel to Gen-Gas (in English).
>
> Can you find out about that?

I search the library databases...no luck. There were just a few articles
and student essays on producer gas of later date, and quite a few old,
pre-ww2, ones (including one with the somewhat self-confident title: "Tar
and soot free producer gas" from 1910 =) There may have been plans for a
sequel, but it seems it was never written, or at least not published.

There is a gasifier called the "Volvo-gasifier", developed by Volvo on the
behalf of a defense branch (Office of Civil Preparedness, ÖCB, or some
other agency). I've only seen a diagram of it in a book at the library; it
didn't look very peculiar though; just a monorator + V-hearth; something
easy to build in case of an emergency. Volvo's motor factory is located not
far from where I live, and there have been rumors from time to time about
strange-looking producer gas-powered vehicles rolling in the vicinity. Last
time I've heard of any was in the early 1990's.


> You are right about the relative energy content of wood Vs oil, but
> pelletization brings biomass to a density of >1.0 at which point it is only
> twice as bulky as petroleum, so maybe shipping into cities isn't too bad and
> certainly in your "Taiga" region it will be fine.

I think they have better alternatives in the cities though. The
urbanisation process usually stabilise around a 15% rural population. Since
I'm part of that 15% myself, the problems there concerns me more than the
problems they have in the cities and towns. Since politicians are
interested in votes, they all tend to go for the other 85% whenever there
are conflicting interests. So they raise the fuel tax to prevet pollution i
the cities; to make the people there use public transport instead. Were
there are no alternatives, it has no other effect but breaking down
society. It's pointless to flog a horse tied to a pole, so to speak.


> We are currently developing new "tarfree-turnkey" gasifier systems which will
> have raw gas tar less than 20 ppm and won't need the extensive filtering that
> the old Imbert gasifiers needed. The "turnkey" piggybacks on the wonderful
> clean technology for cars that has been developed in the last decade. I hope
> we can bring these technologies together.

There's lots of things that could be done with modern sensors, servos,
computers etc. A lambda sond could be coupled to a servo on the gas mixer
to blend the gas automatically for instance. That should be fairly simple
to rig. ...and think of how easy it could be to collect and process data
nowadays, compared with the lab equipment they had half a century years
ago.

Incidently, to compensate for the previous charcoal gasifier article, I've
since taken the liberty to translate another old article about a wood
gasifier improvement; Prof. Kyrklund's article about the laboratory tests
of the "monorator" in Helsinki, Finland, in the spring of 1945.
Link from: http://www.artech.se/~joacim/gengas/
(html and postscript, Swedish and English as before); the diagrams were
remade from the original (too poor quality of the scans to be useful). I
tried to make them follow the scanned images the best I could, but don't
take the "data" too literal. ...I have a vague memory of another, earlier,
brief article about it, but I couldn't find it.

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.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 boenisch at bitways.de Fri Mar 24 11:29:51 2000
From: boenisch at bitways.de (T. Bönisch (Bitways))
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: urgent inquiry for charcoal
Message-ID: <200003241629.IAA17794@secure.crest.net>

 

Dear Sirs,

We are an international trading company,mainly serving the automotive
industry worldwide.
The Bitways Group purchases globally on own account and then resells the
products to
various clients. Our aim is to source globally and to offer our clients the
best prices worldwide.

>From one of our own or rented databases we have retrieved your address as
potentiall supplier
of the product(s)we would like to purchase this time. If you can promtly
give us your very best
quote you might be chosen as the supplier we have been looking for as early
as next week.

At the moment we are looking for charcoal.

In conclusion I would like to ask you to give us your best quote by e-Mail
or fax as this will enable us to work more efficiently.

Yours sincerely,

Timo Boenisch
BITWAYS GLOBAL SOURCING GMBH

Berliner Brücke, BZO, House 20,
InnovationCampus,
D-38448 Wolfsburg
Fon: +49 (0)5361 275784
Fax: +49 (0)5361 275799
Email: boenisch@bitways.de
www.bitways.de

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 english at adan.kingston.net Sat Mar 25 10:10:03 2000
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oh!! -- that small steam power plant ---
In-Reply-To: <200003190313.WAA30301@adan.kingston.net>
Message-ID: <200003251509.KAA21757@adan.kingston.net>

 

<snip>>
I was considering a micro scale, in the
> absence of an electricity grid with cooking taking place on idd
> woodstoves (essentially small hybrid pyrolyser/gasifiers with a large
> char residue) the char being utilised in cheap small gasifiers with no
> (or small) problems of gas cleanup in standard spark ignition engines
> to produce power.
>
> AJH

Hi,
I think this is worth a closer look. Lets start with all our usual
optimistic assumptions about fuel, technology and sociology. In a
mythical village of 100 people where each household cooked with a
pyrolyser stove and produced .5 kg of charcoal, at roughly 60% of
the fuel value of gasoline. If the charcoal gasifier was 60%
efficient our village might accumulate the equivalent of 18 kg of
gasoline, or roughly 25 litres, per day.

It is easy to produce charcoal from the "right" fuel, while producing
useful heat and low emissions. Check out
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Turbo/Turbo.htm
for one example of a pyrolyser/ charcoal making stove.
and
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/aburner/td1.htm
for a recent experiment of mine, based on the same principle.

Perhaps some one could tell us how much simpler it is to make a
charcoal gasifier than a wood gasifier for a spark ignition engine?

Lets try and compare this example to say that of a diesel unit
running on Jatropha oil. Aside from electrical generation, why not
use the torque to grind grain. For Jatropha, an hour spent pressing
oil can save many grinding grain. Can an hour spent resizing fuel for
a pyrolyser stove save as many grinding grain?

Current and forecasted oil prices should provide the necessary
"spark" to re-ignite the gasification and biodeisel folks into
action.

Alex


Alex English
RR 2 Odessa Ontario
Canada K0H 2H0
Tel 1-613-386-1927
Fax 1-613-386-1211

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 Mar 26 05:59:15 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Deja Vu Producer Gas
Message-ID: <bc.2e55cfb.260f46c4@aol.com>

I doubt if the government would allow vehicles on the road very long without
paying road use taxes. They would come up with some mechanism such as is the
case with diesel semi-trucks where you pay on overall mileage.

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 arnt at c2i.net Sun Mar 26 09:28:52 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Deja Vu Producer Gas
In-Reply-To: <bc.2e55cfb.260f46c4@aol.com>
Message-ID: <38DE1C97.FCC51327@c2i.net>

LINVENT@aol.com wrote:
>
> I doubt if the government would allow vehicles on the road very long without
> paying road use taxes. They would come up with some mechanism such as is the
> case with diesel semi-trucks where you pay on overall mileage.

..most of these taxes are now "justfied by fossil carbon emmissions"
etc, which we can take advantage of by proving the exact thruth on our
fuel use and its effects on the global (and local) environment. The
official tax motivation is "whoever messes up, shall pay for messing
up". The logical extention of this motivation is never spoken out
afaik, but should'nt stop us from asking to be paid for driving around
cleaning up this planet...

--
..mvh Arnt ;-)

scenario, n.:
An imagined sequence of events that provides the context in
which a business decision is made. Scenarios always come in
sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case.
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
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 Mar 26 14:13:57 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tar measurement (fwd)
Message-ID: <a3.3d03295.260fbb53@aol.com>

John Neeft

Netherlands Energy Research Foundation (ECN)

Dear John,
There is a real easy way to measure tar content in a no pressure drop or
collection media process. It can even measure molecular weight, boiling
point, and other factors in the gas stream very accurately. I would be
willing to discuss it under a confidentiality agreements. Prototype would be
easy to build.

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 LINVENT at aol.com Sun Mar 26 14:18:18 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Deja Vu Producer Gas
Message-ID: <a9.361a57f.260fbc51@aol.com>

Dear Arnt,
The cost of maintaining and building roads is supposed to be paid for by
vehicle use taxes whether through vehicle licensing or fuel taxes. I have a
mining operation which uses diesel fuel and we do not pay road use taxes on
this diesel fuel as it is all off road use, however, there is still poliution
from the equipment.
If you will notice on the back of some US semi's, the sign "this truck
pays $0000's of dollars in road use taxes", the vehicle reports the milage in
each state and pays a fee which is disbursed to each state. There would be a
way the government would still assess the taxes regardless of the source of
fuel.
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 arnt at c2i.net Mon Mar 27 00:18:56 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Deja Vu Producer Gas
In-Reply-To: <a9.361a57f.260fbc51@aol.com>
Message-ID: <38DEDF18.379C546E@c2i.net>

LINVENT@aol.com wrote:
>
> Dear Arnt,
> The cost of maintaining and building roads is supposed to be paid for by
> vehicle use taxes whether through vehicle licensing or fuel taxes. I have a
> mining operation which uses diesel fuel and we do not pay road use taxes on
> this diesel fuel as it is all off road use, however, there is still poliution
> from the equipment.
> If you will notice on the back of some US semi's, the sign "this truck
> pays $0000's of dollars in road use taxes", the vehicle reports the milage in
> each state and pays a fee which is disbursed to each state. There would be a
> way the government would still assess the taxes regardless of the source of
> fuel.
> Tom Taylor

..sure, but let them tax collectors argue their own case themselves...
;-)

..a lot of the tax levvy motivation here in norway, stinks.

--
..mvh Arnt ;-)

scenario, n.:
An imagined sequence of events that provides the context in
which a business decision is made. Scenarios always come in
sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case.
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
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 Mon Mar 27 08:56:59 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Eductors for gasifiers...
Message-ID: <1a.183e362.2610c285@cs.com>

Dear Skip et al:

Ejectors (eductos) are described in our "Handbook of Biomass ..Gasifier ..
Systems" on P. 87 and 96. They can be driven with exhaust gas, nitrogen,
steam, propane, or air, depending on application. They are particularly
useful for handling tarry gases in experimental situations, for gasifier
startup etc.

Yours truly, TOM REED

In a message dated 3/23/00 7:25:25 AM Mountain Standard Time,
146942@email.msn.com writes:

<<
After building several steam atomizers for liquid fuels, I think I have
worked out the quirks on low flow (under 1gpm) systems. I also think I have
a real good handle on the stack eductors which work of steam and some give
volume while others can give lower gas flow but high vacuum.

All said...why couldn't a gassifier utilize a high vacuum eductor and
'draw' the gasses through. You would also have a source of cooling on the
incoming water/steam. Best of all, there is no moving parts to corrode or
wear out.

Question is: could the gassification temp. be lowered if chamber pressure
was lowered to say 23hg? It surely would assist in the removal of moisture
from the wood. Perhaps, tars could either be reduced or localized?

Skip Goebel
Sensible Steam
www.sensiblesteam.com
>>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

 

From mnorris at dekaresearch.com Mon Mar 27 10:08:37 2000
From: mnorris at dekaresearch.com (Mike Norris)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oh!! -- that small steam power plant ---
Message-ID: <71308BA96577D3119B1300A0C9AC08AD2E7DD8@exchange1.dekaresearch.com>

What is the experience with using Jatropha oil in burners. I've heard
it has bad coking (tar) problems that clog injectors. Any experience
or comments. Also does anyone know where I could get Jatropha oil
for some experiments.

Mike Norris
DEKA Research and Development
Manchester USA
603 669-5139

> -----Original Message-----
> From: *.English [SMTP:english@adan.kingston.net]
> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 10:09 AM
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Cc: stoves@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Oh!! -- that small steam power plant ---
>
>
> <snip>>
> I was considering a micro scale, in the
> > absence of an electricity grid with cooking taking place on idd
> > woodstoves (essentially small hybrid pyrolyser/gasifiers with a
> large
> > char residue) the char being utilised in cheap small gasifiers with
> no
> > (or small) problems of gas cleanup in standard spark ignition
> engines
> > to produce power.
> >
> > AJH
>
> Hi,
> I think this is worth a closer look. Lets start with all our usual
> optimistic assumptions about fuel, technology and sociology. In a
> mythical village of 100 people where each household cooked with a
> pyrolyser stove and produced .5 kg of charcoal, at roughly 60% of
> the fuel value of gasoline. If the charcoal gasifier was 60%
> efficient our village might accumulate the equivalent of 18 kg of
> gasoline, or roughly 25 litres, per day.
>
> It is easy to produce charcoal from the "right" fuel, while producing
> useful heat and low emissions. Check out
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Turbo/Turbo.htm
> for one example of a pyrolyser/ charcoal making stove.
> and
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/aburner/td1.htm
> for a recent experiment of mine, based on the same principle.
>
> Perhaps some one could tell us how much simpler it is to make a
> charcoal gasifier than a wood gasifier for a spark ignition engine?
>
>
> Lets try and compare this example to say that of a diesel unit
> running on Jatropha oil. Aside from electrical generation, why not
> use the torque to grind grain. For Jatropha, an hour spent pressing
> oil can save many grinding grain. Can an hour spent resizing fuel for
> a pyrolyser stove save as many grinding grain?
>
> Current and forecasted oil prices should provide the necessary
> "spark" to re-ignite the gasification and biodeisel folks into
> action.
>
> Alex
>
>
> Alex English
> RR 2 Odessa Ontario
> Canada K0H 2H0
> Tel 1-613-386-1927
> Fax 1-613-386-1211
>
>
> 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 LINVENT at aol.com Mon Mar 27 20:23:45 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Deja Vu Producer Gas
Message-ID: <ae.2f03144.2611637a@aol.com>

Dear Mr. Arnt,
It has been proven over and over again throughout history that the less
the government takes in taxes and largesse, the better off the culture is as
the individuals are more able to fend for themselves and are stronger.
Survival of the fittest is still the rule of the jungle. So, next time
someone talks about another government program, ask if it is really needed,
the cost to benefit ratio, ask them and others why can't we do it ourselves,
a private sector program or other arrangement? After all, the government
will mess up things in a much bigger way.
I really feel for you guys over there.
Sincerely,

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 Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Mar 28 08:33:24 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Densification as a major aid to biomass utilization
Message-ID: <75.291a300.26120e80@cs.com>

Dear Stovers and Gasifiers:

Jim Dunham's posting (below) is a welcome modern comment on densification of
biomass and covers the facts well.

When I first joined the Solar Energy Research Institute in 1977 I wrote (with
Becky Bryant) an assessment of the technology and economics of densification
after visiting several sites.

Densification makes low grade biomass into an excellent fuel. The energy
cost of densification is about 3% of the energy in the product. (This
doesn't include drying to 10-20%, because that is paid back in better
combustion).

Densification has progressed to the point where we now buy pellets for our
gasifier in the local hardware store for $2.50/40 lb bag ($125/ton) and bulk
pellets can be purchased for as little as $50/ton. So we've made some
progress in 23 years.

The BEF Press has just printed a second edition of "DENSIFIED BIOMASS: A NEW
FORM OF SOLID FUEL" including a scientific paper on densification I wrote in
1980(see below).

Unfortunately, densification is caught in a "chicken or egg" trap. If more
people burned or gasified biomass there would be more pellets/briquettes/logs
produced; if more were produced, more would develop uses and burn them. So
densification is doomed to only progress as fast as biomass prospers and that
is tied to oil prices.

So, I have learned to be patient as we stagger toward renewable energy.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF PRESS

ORDER LIST - Biomass Energy Books
(Nicknames in Bold, book descriptions follow)

1. A SURVEY OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION 2000: $25

2. BIOMASS DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS HANDBOOK: $25

3. CONTAMINANT TESTING FOR GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $10

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

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

6. SMALL SCALE GAS PRODUCER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $30

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

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

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

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

11. WOOD GAS GENERATORS FOR VEHICLES: $4

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

13. BIOMASS TO METHANOL SPECIALISTS' WORKSHOP: $30

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

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

16. TREES: $1

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

18. FROM THE FRYER TO THE FUEL TANK: HOW TO MAKE CHEAP,
CLEAN FUEL FROM FREE VEGETABLE OIL: $20

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

BOOKS FROM THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS

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

Biomass Energy Books - Description and Order Blank

NEW: A SURVEY OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION 2000: T. Reed and S. Gaur have
surveyed the biomass gasification scene for the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory and the Biomass Energy Foundation. 180 pages of large gasifiers
systems, small gasifiers and gasifier research institutions with descriptions
of the major types of gasifiers and a list of most world gasifiers. ISBN
1-890607-13-4 180 pp $25 _________

NEW: BIOMASS GASIFIER "TARS": THEIR NATURE, FORMATION, AND CONVERSION: T.
Milne, N. Abatzoglou, & R. J. Evans. Tars are the Achilles Heel of
gasification. This thorough work explores the chemical nature of tars, their
generation, and methods for testing and destroying them.
ISBN 1-890607-14-2 180 pp $25________

NEW: EVALUATION OF GASIFICATION AND NOVEL THERMAL PROCESSES FOR THE
TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE - W. Niessen et al. 1996 NREL report by
Camp Dresser and McKee on MSW conversion processes. ISBN 1-890607-15-0 198
pp $25_______

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a message dated 3/25/00 9:11:18 AM Mountain Standard Time,
costaeec@kcnet.com writes:

<<

Our firm specializes in densification of all types, so perhaps we might be
of some help.

First, there is no formula or secret recipe, as NO binder is needed for most
biomass feedstock, if using high pressure equipment. The naturally occurring
lignin becomes the binder, when subjected to high heat and pressure.

There are three basic types of briquetters; hydraulic, reciprocal, & screw.
Each has advantages, depending on the application. The reciprocal type is
far more versatile and reliable, but costs more. We still use one built in
1946.

Briquettes are generally 50mm to 95mm in diameter and 10mm to 300mm long.
Capacities range from 500-6000 pounds per hour. We have made briquettes
from virtually all dry plant materials, as well as paper, currency,
corrugate, waxed corrugate, aluminum, rice husk, nut shells, etc., etc.
Briquettes are made to reduce volume or to provide fuel. Once densified,
these materials can be easily conveyed, stored, transported, stoker fed and
burned. The high density provides a very hot and clean burning fuel. It
totally changes the concept of using waste as a fuel. We have extensive data
regarding the economics and logistics of this concept.

Same machines make fireplace logs and BBQ wafers.

Pellets are just small briquettes (1/4-3/4" dia.), but are generally more
precise and uniform. They are much more difficult to make, but have specific
applications which require them, rather than briquettes.

Cubing is another method of densification. It produces a rather low density
product about 25mm square. It is fine for volume reduction, but does not
make such good fuel. It is low cost and quite effective for certain
applications.

We have specific data on most machines and materials, and also a test
facility for new or unusual materials. We also have all brands of new & used
machines.

Jim Dunham
Environmental Engineering Corp.
816-452-6663
>>
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 Tue Mar 28 08:33:30 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oh!! -- that small steam power plant ---
Message-ID: <36.3ca8400.26120e85@cs.com>

Alex English writes...

<<
Perhaps some one could tell us how much simpler it is to make a
charcoal gasifier than a wood gasifier for a spark ignition engine?
>>

Most of the early work on gasification (1900-1940) used charcoal for its
convenience, and hang the cost or inefficiency. After WWII got going all the
countries realized that throwing away 70% of the wood energy to make the
charcoal was destroying their forests, so they took the extra steps required
for wood gasifiers (tar cleaning etc.) It's all detailed in the books below
and I have been re-reading them with new insites. "Those who don't study
history are doome dto repeat the mistakes of history." (Lord Acton?)

We are developing a "tarfree" gasifier at CPC and expect to throw out all the
wet scrubbing etc. the bedeviled the WWII "Stoves".

Yours truly, TOM REED CPC/BEF

ORDER LIST - Biomass Energy Books
(Nicknames in Bold, book descriptions follow)

1. A SURVEY OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION 2000: $25

2. BIOMASS DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS HANDBOOK: $25

3. CONTAMINANT TESTING FOR GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $10

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

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

6. SMALL SCALE GAS PRODUCER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $30

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

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

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

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

11. WOOD GAS GENERATORS FOR VEHICLES: $4

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

13. BIOMASS TO METHANOL SPECIALISTS' WORKSHOP: $30

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

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

16. TREES: $1

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

18. FROM THE FRYER TO THE FUEL TANK: HOW TO MAKE CHEAP,
CLEAN FUEL FROM FREE VEGETABLE OIL: $20

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

BOOKS FROM THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS

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

Biomass Energy Books - Description and Order Blank

NEW: A SURVEY OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION 2000: T. Reed and S. Gaur have
surveyed the biomass gasification scene for the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory and the Biomass Energy Foundation. 180 pages of large gasifiers
systems, small gasifiers and gasifier research institutions with descriptions
of the major types of gasifiers and a list of most world gasifiers. ISBN
1-890607-13-4 180 pp $25 _________

NEW: BIOMASS GASIFIER "TARS": THEIR NATURE, FORMATION, AND CONVERSION: T.
Milne, N. Abatzoglou, & R. J. Evans. Tars are the Achilles Heel of
gasification. This thorough work explores the chemical nature of tars, their
generation, and methods for testing and destroying them.
ISBN 1-890607-14-2 180 pp $25________

NEW: EVALUATION OF GASIFICATION AND NOVEL THERMAL PROCESSES FOR THE
TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE - W. Niessen et al. 1996 NREL report by
Camp Dresser and McKee on MSW conversion processes. ISBN 1-890607-15-0 198
pp $25_______

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

 

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Mar 28 08:48:29 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Deja Vu Producer Gas
In-Reply-To: <ae.2f03144.2611637a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <38E0A80D.88861316@c2i.net>

LINVENT@aol.com wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. Arnt,
> It has been proven over and over again throughout history that the less
> the government takes in taxes and largesse, the better off the culture is as
> the individuals are more able to fend for themselves and are stronger.
> Survival of the fittest is still the rule of the jungle. So, next time
> someone talks about another government program, ask if it is really needed,
> the cost to benefit ratio, ask them and others why can't we do it ourselves,
> a private sector program or other arrangement? After all, the government
> will mess up things in a much bigger way.
> I really feel for you guys over there.
> Sincerely,
>
> Tom Taylor

..dear Mr. Tom
I thank you for your wise and kind regards.
However, it is not hopeless over here, as long as you stay away from
hydro power and below 1000 Volts, 5 MW electric and 15 MW combined heat
and power on a farm or an industrial plant site, and put it on wheels,
and keep it off public roads, there is _no_ paperwork to do, decreed by
law.
Smart people keep quiet until after, they've started feed power to the
grid... ;-)

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt ;-)

scenario, n.:
An imagined sequence of events that provides the context in
which a business decision is made. Scenarios always come in
sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case.
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
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 Tue Mar 28 10:00:55 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Deja Vu Producer Gas
Message-ID: <99.2e0d221.261222fb@aol.com>

Dear Mr. Arnt:
How about lost case?

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 arnt at c2i.net Tue Mar 28 15:26:23 2000
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Deja Vu Producer Gas
In-Reply-To: <99.2e0d221.261222fb@aol.com>
Message-ID: <38E104A6.F40D1D98@c2i.net>

LINVENT@aol.com wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. Arnt:
> How about lost case?

..is what you will experience if over here you ask upfront.

..as in "CO, isn't that this dangerous lethal poisonous gas"...

..afterwards, when a record has been built and can be documented as
safe, profitable, environmentally friendly, etc in courtrooms and media,
your chances _improves_.

--
..mvh/wKRf Arnt ;-)

scenario, n.:
An imagined sequence of events that provides the context in
which a business decision is made. Scenarios always come in
sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case.
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
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 parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in Wed Mar 29 01:02:48 2000
From: parikh at me.iitb.ernet.in (Prof P P Parikh)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tar measurement (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <a3.3d03295.260fbb53@aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.96.1000329114705.7880D-100000@agni.me.iitb.ernet.in>

Dear Mr. Linvent

We in India are presently very much concerned and involved in measurement
of TAR. It will be great it other details of TAR can also be determined.
What kind of confidentiality agreement do you require? Please elaborate
and oblige.

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

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

On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 LINVENT@aol.com wrote:

> John Neeft
>
> Netherlands Energy Research Foundation (ECN)
>
> Dear John,
> There is a real easy way to measure tar content in a no pressure drop or
> collection media process. It can even measure molecular weight, boiling
> point, and other factors in the gas stream very accurately. I would be
> willing to discuss it under a confidentiality agreements. Prototype would be
> easy to build.
>
> 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
>

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 rlepur at greatwestdev.com Wed Mar 29 01:43:56 2000
From: rlepur at greatwestdev.com (Great West Development)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L:
Message-ID: <200003290643.WAA31219@secure.crest.net>

Hello,

I was given you as a contact by Mr. = Kinoshita from the University of
Hawaii gasification department. I am hoping that = you may be able to
provide me with information on the "gasification" process and = on
companies that are doing research on gasification. I would be = thankful
for a reply.

Radoslav = Lepur

From LINVENT at aol.com Wed Mar 29 17:28:57 2000
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tar measurement (fwd)
Message-ID: <6e.1b41984.2613dd7a@aol.com>

Dear Mrs. Parich,
The specific mechanical design would be confidential and require a
confidentiality agreement. The concept is to remove the tars/oils/water and
particulates at varying temperatures of coalescing into aerosols and then
removal by electrostatic precipitation. As an example, if the stream
temperature is kept high, only particulates would be removed. Then by
lowering the temperature, tars would be removed, then oils etc. This would
call for a multi-stage system where each stage would remove certain items. I
have found that removal of the particulates first is essential to prevent
contaminating the tars and giving erroneous readings. We are using this
process in a larger system which recycles the removed contaminants back into
the reactor for further destruction. Our objective is as much gas as
possible. The precipitators are minimal service and minimal power
consumption.
If this process has an interest to you, advise me and I will make further
arrangements to go forward.

Sincerely,

Tom Taylor
Thermogenics Inc.
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 neeft at ecn.nl Thu Mar 30 06:40:42 2000
From: neeft at ecn.nl (Neeft, J.P.A.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tar measurement (fwd)
Message-ID: <50B56D407D2DD31191DE00902771E9F401102BBE@ecntex.ecn.nl>

Dear Tom Taylor,

Your concept of particulate/tar/oil/water removal is very interesting. I
have two questions to your responses in this gasification list.

The first question relates to the electrostatic precipitation. I suppose it
is a _wet_ electrostatic precipitator in order to remove tars and oils from
the collector plates. If so, how can you vary the temperature of aerosol
formation when the temperature of the collector plates is below 100 deg.
Centigrade?

My second question relates to your earlier answer on tar measurement
methods. In a EU project (17 partners of which 2 North American partners) we
will develop a tar measurement method from existing knowledge, in other
words we will not perform experiments in the project itself which is a
concerted action project. Can you elaborate on the development status of
your tar measurement method? Has it been tested? Has it been compared with
other methods?

Kind regards,
John Neeft
Netherlands Energy Research Foundation (ECN)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: LINVENT@aol.com [SMTP:LINVENT@aol.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 12:28 AM
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Tar measurement (fwd)
>
> Dear Mrs. Parich,
> The specific mechanical design would be confidential and require a
> confidentiality agreement. The concept is to remove the tars/oils/water
> and
> particulates at varying temperatures of coalescing into aerosols and then
> removal by electrostatic precipitation. As an example, if the stream
> temperature is kept high, only particulates would be removed. Then by
> lowering the temperature, tars would be removed, then oils etc. This
> would
> call for a multi-stage system where each stage would remove certain items.
> I
> have found that removal of the particulates first is essential to prevent
> contaminating the tars and giving erroneous readings. We are using this
> process in a larger system which recycles the removed contaminants back
> into
> the reactor for further destruction. Our objective is as much gas as
> possible. The precipitators are minimal service and minimal power
> consumption.
> If this process has an interest to you, advise me and I will make
> further
> arrangements to go forward.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Tom Taylor
> Thermogenics Inc.
> 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 andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Thu Mar 30 16:16:56 2000
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oh!! -- that small steam power plant ---
In-Reply-To: <36.3ca8400.26120e85@cs.com>
Message-ID: <kcf7es8fhgmcl4op17r7d251ioe7gi9r23@4ax.com>

On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:32:53 EST, Tom wrote:

>Most of the early work on gasification (1900-1940) used charcoal for its
Yup, I understand that.
>convenience, and hang the cost or inefficiency. After WWII got going all the
>countries realized that throwing away 70% of the wood energy to make the
But the whole point for this discussion is that nothing is thrown
away. The wood is pyrolysed to charcoal and the off gas is burned
cleanly to cook food. Ronal was previously a champion of this
co-product for export as a cash return, Alex and I were just
suggesting an alternate market to cooking charcoal.

I have been discussing the relative merits of converted automobile
engines as prime movers (powered with steam versus producer gas) with
Vernon Harris. He suggests that some cultures are so poor any
technology will require continuing support. My viewpoint is parochial,
I have not travelled anywhere dependant on biomass as a cooking fuel.
It seems to me that automobile technology is available to many people
still dependant on biomass for cooking. Fuel for these engines must be
a drain on currency. My guess was that substituting an imported fuel
with a home grown one would be beneficial.
>charcoal was destroying their forests, so they took the extra steps required
>for wood gasifiers (tar cleaning etc.) It's all detailed in the books below
>and I have been re-reading them with new insites. "Those who don't study
>history are doome dto repeat the mistakes of history." (Lord Acton?)
>
>We are developing a "tarfree" gasifier at CPC and expect to throw out all the
>wet scrubbing etc. the bedeviled the WWII "Stoves".
I hope you do bring this device to the market, but will it be cheaper
than a charcoal gasifier and as simple as the Kalle one appears to be?
My proposition was that a charcoal gasifier might be cheaper to make,
easier to operate and more compact than a wood gasifier.
AJH
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 Fri Mar 31 09:48:03 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L:
Message-ID: <da.274a2fe.2616147d@cs.com>

Dear Radoslav :

We are the center for information on gasification and I am appending a list
of all our books. In particular our new Survey...2000 brings it all up to
date.....

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF

ORDER LIST - Biomass Energy Books
(Nicknames in Bold, book descriptions follow)

1. A SURVEY OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION 2000: $25

2. BIOMASS DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS HANDBOOK: $25

3. CONTAMINANT TESTING FOR GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $10

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

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

6. SMALL SCALE GAS PRODUCER ENGINE SYSTEMS: $30

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

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

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

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

11. WOOD GAS GENERATORS FOR VEHICLES: $4

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

13. BIOMASS TO METHANOL SPECIALISTS' WORKSHOP: $30

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

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

16. TREES: $1

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

18. FROM THE FRYER TO THE FUEL TANK: HOW TO MAKE CHEAP,
CLEAN FUEL FROM FREE VEGETABLE OIL: $20

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

BOOKS FROM THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION PRESS

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

Biomass Energy Books - Description and Order Blank

NEW: A SURVEY OF BIOMASS GASIFICATION 2000: T. Reed and S. Gaur have
surveyed the biomass gasification scene for the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory and the Biomass Energy Foundation. 180 pages of large gasifiers
systems, small gasifiers and gasifier research institutions with descriptions
of the major types of gasifiers and a list of most world gasifiers. ISBN
1-890607-13-4 180 pp $25 _________

NEW: BIOMASS GASIFIER "TARS": THEIR NATURE, FORMATION, AND CONVERSION: T.
Milne, N. Abatzoglou, & R. J. Evans. Tars are the Achilles Heel of
gasification. This thorough work explores the chemical nature of tars, their
generation, and methods for testing and destroying them.
ISBN 1-890607-14-2 180 pp $25________

NEW: EVALUATION OF GASIFICATION AND NOVEL THERMAL PROCESSES FOR THE
TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE - W. Niessen et al. 1996 NREL report by
Camp Dresser and McKee on MSW conversion processes. ISBN 1-890607-15-0 198
pp $25_______

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a message dated 3/28/00 11:51:37 PM Mountain Standard Time,
rlepur@greatwestdev.com writes:

<<
Hello,

I was given you as a contact by Mr. Kinoshita from the University of Hawaii
gasification department. I am hoping that you may be able to provide me with
information on the "gasification" process and on companies that are doing
research on gasification. I would be thankful for a reply.


Radoslav Lepur
>>
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 Fri Mar 31 09:48:11 2000
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:23 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Carbon Monoxide Toxicity
Message-ID: <98.3429466.26161482@cs.com>

Dear All:

It is quite true that carbon monoxide is toxic. Two deep breaths of it will
kill you. On the other hand, producer gas (wood-gas, gengas etc.) was the
only gaseous fuel available to humanity from 1830-1930 when the first
"natural gas" pipeline from Texas arrived in Denver. Smokers regularly live
with 300 ppm CO in their blood. OSHA says that we should start worrying when
levels reach 40 ppm (all day limit?).

So, humans have learned to live (or die - convenient for suicide) with CO in
the past. We now have inexpensive CO warning devices and our new CPC lab has
three.

If learning to live with CO is the only problem in developing biomass
gasification, turbo stoves etc. for renewable energy, I guess we'll have to
live with it.

Onward==> TOM REED BEF

In a message dated 3/28/00 1:42:14 PM Mountain Standard Time, arnt@c2i.net
writes:

<< >
> Dear Mr. Arnt:
> How about lost case?

..is what you will experience if over here you ask upfront.

..as in "CO, isn't that this dangerous lethal poisonous gas"...

..afterwards, when a record has been built and can be documented as
safe, profitable, environmentally friendly, etc in courtrooms and media,
your chances _improves_.

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