August 2001 Gasification Archive

From tombreed at home.com Wed Aug 1 08:21:03 2001
From: tombreed at home.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010731082641.0095d9b0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <004a01c11a82$69992780$18e5b618@lakwod3.co.home.com>

Dear All:

Peter suggests modifying the engine to permit burning tars. Much better to
modify the gasifier so that it makes very little.

See our website at www.gocpc.com

Turbochargers are even more susceptable to tars than intake manifolds.
However, I agree that a wrap of insulation on the intake manifold would
hellp. Also warming up the engine on gasoline or propane while getting the
gasifier to full operating condition.

Onward... TOM REED

From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@btl.net>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Fw: Tar Measurement Protocols
>
> How about designing an IC engine to burn dirty gas -- loaded with tars??
>
> A two stroke -- forced, hot, induction -- hey what can the tars do then??
>
> Also -- I can replace piston rings with a special design. I can even use
> tars -- should any condense out -- as lubrication.
>
> Maybe I'll build such -- easy enough to do ---
>
> I'll ship it to you -- and you can try to destroy it running dirty gas.
>
> I see 4 HP Chinese diesels selling for $500 US. Good test station?
> Certainly a lot less expensive than the test procedures described to date.
>
> Peter Singfield / Belize
>
> -
> Gasification List Archives:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
> www.webpan.com/BEF
>
> Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Gasification Events and Information:
> http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>
>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Gasification Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

From kenboak at stirlingservice.freeserve.co.uk Wed Aug 1 08:47:37 2001
From: kenboak at stirlingservice.freeserve.co.uk (Ken Boak)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Olive waste
Message-ID: <20010801124639.15524.qmail@fsmail.net>

Hi from Zakynthos in the Ionian sea,

Has anyone had experience in the gasification of the pulp residue from olive oil pressing?

Any thoughts on this appreciated.

Ken Boak

Check out my Personal Website for Stirlings, PIC Microcontrollers, Electric Cars and Wood Gasification at:

http://www.geocities.com/kenboak/index.html

or for Zakynthos alternative technology

http://www.geocities.com/wastewatts/zak.html

_______________________________________________________________________
FSmail - Get your free web-based email from Freeserve: www.fsmail.net

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From snkm at btl.net Wed Aug 1 09:27:20 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Tar-Burning Engines
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010801071938.00961100@wgs1.btl.net>

Ok Marc -- let's bash this idea around and see if anything valid is there.

At 07:58 AM 8/1/2001 +0800, you wrote:
>
>
>Peter Singfield wrote:
>
>> Also -- using variable valve timing to "govern" an engine rather than
>> butter-fly valving the intake manifold. Then always having boost pressure
>> in the intake manifold.
>
>Clever - one of those ideas bruited about in the early days of IC
>engines that never made it to production. But with separate camshafts
>for intake and exhaust valves and 4 valve/cylinder designs, it should be
>possible to implement now without heroic measures.

Actually -- I was thinking of directly actuated valves -- by
microcontroller electronically actuated valves. Cheaper than building cams,
timing gears -- etc.

>
>> Also -- how hot can one run an intake manifold? Quite hot with proper
>> design I would think.
>
>Hot intakes mean poor volumetric efficiency.

But we have a blower in this design. Mind you -- it was the first thought
that came to mind -- but the blower boost can certainly be designed to
over-come any losses there.

>
>> How about designing an IC engine to burn dirty gas -- loaded with tars??
>> A two stroke -- forced, hot, induction -- hey what can the tars do then??
>
>Seems like the very heroic measures we might want to avoid. It seems to
>me that there are gasifiers out there with very low tar outputs - all
>the downdraft designs, for example, where the tars get cracked or burned
>as soon as they are formed. Why mess with the engine?

Because -- when you are operating a gasifier over long periods --
intermittent tar conditions make arise??

Further, eliminating gas cleaning apparatus cleaning apparatus lowers costs.

But mostly -- quite a bit of energy can be recovered using hot product.

OK -- going further down that line --

That hot intake product is immediately tempered by the 50% ambient air mix.

Second -- to recover that thermal energy -- a little bit of water injection
-- as discussed before.

3rd -- that little bit of water injection will probably cause some steam
reformation as well -- which is endothermic.

Steam reformation of what you might ask?

Well, tars steam reform -- but everything has to be hot!

Not saying I have a design I have been working on with all this done.

Never thought of this until yesterday - -or the day before.

Just saying -- look at the problem from a different viewpoint.

Increase efficiencies -- decrease costs.

As for tars condensing on the intake of the blower --

Will discuss that later -- but for now -- if you have a very insulated
intake channel -- where does the heat go?? And if the heat has no place to
go -- how does temperature go down?

True -- we would need two blowers -- one for air -- one for product gas --
the actual air and product mixing occurring only in the cylinder.

You know -- a four intake valve GMC 2 stroke diesel engine. Two valves for
air intake -- two valves for hot product -- exhaust out the bottom ports.

Peter

>
>Marc de Piolenc
>
>
>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From snkm at btl.net Wed Aug 1 10:13:49 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: New use of torrefaction
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010801080318.009624d0@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Tom --

I was sure I mentioned Bernard Diaz. As that is the book I was holding in
hand.

If not -- sorry.

Quite some "adventure" though --- and that is the right book you have.

Peter

At 06:16 AM 8/1/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>Ed:
>
> ( I don't leave until the 5th of August for Brazil. )
>
>I am reading "The Conquest of Mexico" by Bernard Diaz (not Prescott,
>recommended by Peter Singfeld) and they talk a lot about "fire hardened
>darts". What might they be and could we interest the DOD?
>
>Does wood possibly get harder and stronger before it starts to get brittle?
>
>TOM
>
>
>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From snkm at btl.net Wed Aug 1 10:16:27 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010801081005.00960100@wgs1.btl.net>

Tom and all --

Regarding engines that can run on extremely dirty gas -- have appended a
past communication.

Peter / Belize

At 06:06 AM 8/1/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>Dear All:
>
>Peter suggests modifying the engine to permit burning tars. Much better to
>modify the gasifier so that it makes very little.
>
>See our website at www.gocpc.com
>
>Turbochargers are even more susceptable to tars than intake manifolds.
>However, I agree that a wrap of insulation on the intake manifold would
>hellp. Also warming up the engine on gasoline or propane while getting the
>gasifier to full operating condition.
>
>Onward... TOM REED
>

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

Return-Path: <gasification-return-4139-snkm=btl.net@crest.org>
Mailing-List: contact gasification-help@crest.org; run by ezmlm
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list gasification@crest.org
From: "renertech" <renertech@xtra.co.nz>
To: "GAS-L" <gasification@crest.org>
References: <3.0.32.20010212131101.00a05520@wgs1.btl.net>
<3A885597.CFE97730@club-internet.fr>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:26:11 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Log gasifiers -- and cutting wood sawdustly.

Dear Gas-L'ers
> > On the 12-2- someone wrote,

> > The logs were approximately 10 to 15 cm (4" to 6") in diameter and
from 1 metre to 1 metre 80 (3' to 6') long. The gasifiers were very tall,
making possible insertion of long logs, and usually mounted just behind the
cab.
> >
> > About those long "log" gasifiers -- you mean they worked with full
length wood??
Gentlemen!
I think we could restore some perspective by re-iterating a little bit of
colonial history.
In the 1930's prior to the War, and the subsequent post war moves by the
Oil Majors to price coal and other fuels out of the market by selling
petroleum as zero price energy, virtually for what it cost to process it, it
was pumped out of the ground for nothing, things were very very different
to today.
In Australia, Malaya, New Zealand, and all the African States, Every
outback Gold mine, Sawmill, Tin mine, Coal mine was either run by Steam, or
Producer gas.
A typical Gas setup would be a giant Crossley single cylinder Gas engine
with a piston two feet in diameter and running at about 300rpm.and 200
horsepower. The clearance on the piston would be measured in sixteenths of
an inch, to allow for the build up of tars, which virtually doubled up as
the lubricating oil. (once it got hot that is.) Each engine would be fed
by a battery of five or six down draft gasifiers. The gasifiers were made
of fire bricks with a fuel hopper five or six feet in diameter and ten to
twelve feet deep and a throat at the bottom of around ten inches. These
units, usually 4 or 5 were in operation at any one time, were fired with
logs each as heavy as one man could carry. In the case of Australian
hardwood that would be a log six to eight feet long and eight to ten
inches in diameter. The logs would be seasoned for a month or so, as they
were transported into the mine, but were still green with lots of sap.
Each man staggered up the cat walk with his log and slid it from his
shoulder aiming it down into where ever he saw a hot spot in one of the
fires, to plug the hole. Gas cleanup was abysmal. A water spray gas
cooler/cleaner, and a tar beater. The beater was a straight radial bladed
centrifugal fan, which assisted the suction on the gasifiers, and slung the
water/tar droplets out to impact on and drip down the outer casing. As
one can imagine, the pollution level was horrendous, but they worked and
they worked surprising well for the time, A bit like wooden ships and
iron men, those were the Days!!!

Ken Calvert. Renertech@ xtra.co.nz

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From snkm at btl.net Wed Aug 1 16:56:28 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010801140533.008e3870@wgs1.btl.net>

Ok -- how about pressurizing the entire gasifier? That is putting the
blower on the intake side of the gasifier??

Keep the gas hot -- right to the intake valve -- and under pressure?

As for intake air --

Run the air intake through a heat exchanger coupled to the gas product
delivery line. Ergo both arrive at the same temperature.

Condensation in intake manifold is probably due to tempering due to mixing
product with ambient temperature air -- drastically lower temperatures --
right at a point of partial vacuum -- and ideal "cloud-chamber".

Recovery of extra energy and densification of charge can be accomplished by
water injection -- in a four stroke.

Why a four stroke? Well, the water would spray inject on the intake stroke
-- not at the top of compression -- not at the intake valve entrance -- but
directly into the cylinder though its own port.

Tars might condense in the cylinder under these conditions -- and some
would definitely steam reform -- if temperatures of charge entering are
high enough -- less condesning -- more reforming.

What water is used for steam reforming tars ends up as higher quality
product gas -- to be used with greater advantage -- efficiency -- at ignition.

The balance of water (and remember -- this an easily variable amount)
would flash to steam -- cooling charge and increasing gas volume in the
cylinder.

Compressing steam is simply charging a battery. Again -- temperatures go up
-- steam reforming occurs quicker under pressure -- more energy for the
power stroke immediatly after.

Or -- one can consider simply injecting an amount of steam. The steam
required would not be large -- easily produced by a small boiler -- again
heat exchanging with gas out put.

We once figured a thermodynamic loss of 15% due to cooling product gas to
expectable levels for "cleaning" and them induction to the IC engines
manifold.

Converting that heat to steam or preheating air is not losing it!

Further -- a lot of heat energy for producing steam can be found from the
engine coolant ciruit as well as the engine exhaust -- probably a good
amount still left over to preheat intake air as well.

Over all efficiencies are related to temperature in over temperature out.
There is a lot of room for power blancing the gasifier/IC engine.

OK:

First priority -- design as clean a gasifier as possible.

Second priority -- do not waste heat energy between gasifier and engine.

3rd priority -- learn to live with a little tar that might slip by --
rather than shorten the life of your IC motor.

4rth priority -- recover your waste heat from the IC engine.

The results of applying all the above will be a more efficient system, much
less expense to build (as in dollar per kw production), and much more
reliable.

And now -- a question --

Are tars water soluble?

There -- something for everyone to consider ---

Peter Singfield / Belize

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From tombreed at home.com Wed Aug 1 22:22:20 2001
From: tombreed at home.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010731082641.0095d9b0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <003801c11af7$a1f02a00$18e5b618@lakwod3.co.home.com>

Dear Ken Calvert and Gasification:

Great story! There is also the currently produced Chinese gasifier that
uses their special engine 6 days a week. On the seventh day they clean it.
It has external pushrods etc. for easy access.

I wonder how much of this could be avoided by starting on diesel, gasoline
or propane for 5 minutes to get the gasifier, the block, manifold and valves
to operating temperature, then switching over. Same in reverse for
shutdown. We do this all the time at CPC, but we ALSO have low tars.

Yours for cleaner gas......... TOM REED

From: "renertech" <renertech@xtra.co.nz>
To: "Thomas Reed" <tombreed@home.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...

> Gentlemen,
> can I also weigh into this debate on tar free versus tar
resistance.
> After some bitter personal experience, I am most firmly on Tom's side.
> Nothing is impossible, and surely a tar resistant engine will be built one
> day some time some where. But a third world country or a low cost DIY
> atmosphere is not the place most likely to succeed. Its the old story of
> 'Intermediate' versus 'Appropriate' technology. When someone tries to
tell
> you that this is appropriate for you, it is always seen as a putdown.
> 'Why can't we have what you have already got. We want a new diesel engine
> not that sort of 'junk'! "
> One story that I heard from the second world war sums up the subject
> beautifully. It was about a Dutch tradesman, who ran his truck with a
gas
> producer. The startup routine each morning was to remove the cylinder
head
> cover, and strike each rocker arm with a hammer to free up all the valves.
> Then the spark plugs were removed and cleaned and some oil was poured down
> the plug holes and the engine levered over with a special crank handle
that
> looked like a modified crow bar. Then when everything was freed up and
> moving, the engine was put back together again and once fired up it ran
all
> day non stop. If it did stop for more than a few minutes, then the
routine
> had to be repeated.
> The adhesive capabilities of cold tar have to be seen to be believed! And
> what the pyroligneous acids will do to your sump, and especially to your
> bearing shells, you don't really want to think about. I have already
> related the background on the old Industrial Gas Engines of the early part
> of last century. Yes they worked, but the overall efficiency was
> horrendously low, and the maintenance factor astronomically high.
> They worked then because labour costs were low, slave labour in fact, and
> there were no alternatives. Any red blooded engineer today would turn
> back to his steam turbine, his diesel engine or his lawnmower every
time!!
> Or at least until the price of petrol has escalated to the point of
> absurdity.
>
> Ken Calvert. renertech@xtra.co.nz
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thomas Reed" <tombreed@home.com>
> To: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@btl.net>; "gasification"
> <gasification@crest.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 12:06 AM
> Subject: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...
>
>
>
>
>
>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From joacim at ymex.net Thu Aug 2 01:21:09 2001
From: joacim at ymex.net (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...
In-Reply-To: <004a01c11a82$69992780$18e5b618@lakwod3.co.home.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10108012103480.12290-100000@localhost>

On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Thomas Reed wrote:

> Dear All:
>
> Peter suggests modifying the engine to permit burning tars. Much better to
> modify the gasifier so that it makes very little.

Tar was actually another `alternative' fuel in Sweden (and, I presume,
elsewhere) during ww2. I read somewhere that they had better success with
`raw tar' than the regular boiled variant. I suppose boiling tar to produce
a substance for impregnation, not only takes away water from the raw
product, but unfortunately also removes lighter carbohydrates which
supposedly combust better and be less sticky.

The motors they used were of course not modern diesel motors. But if they
could build motors 70-100 years ago that ran on /pure/ tar, surely it
must be possible to build a motor today that accepts mere traces of it
(compared to pure tar, that is). Motors today are heavily optimised for
petrol and diesel. Not just the motors; the whole system is.

It's not necessary to cope with tar though. A proper gasifier design should
bring it down to acceptable levels for a motor originally optimised for
petrol or diesel. ...under `normal' conditions. I've had the little
accident several times when the fuel hangs and I have to stop and stir the
pot. The gas I get after the stop is rather tarry, looking at the flame
(yellow tops, thick moist in the core). The reason is obvious: uncarbonised
fuel too far down the hearth. But the car runs significantly better --
better than normal -- for a short time after that. Tarry gas yields more
power. These little accidents happens though. Even with a proper design
there can be tar. I've gotten better at noticing when it's time to stop and
do something, but I can never really tell what tar levels I have when
driving. The fuel could hang for a moment and shake down again before I
notice it.

I'm more worried about soot, and moisture pH myself. I've been abusing the
old B21 motor in the Volvo now for months, since the heat-exchanger burned.
The only `filter' I have is a simple cyclone. I was planning to switch that
26 year old motor anyway; put one in with better CR and volume.(And better
access to spare parts -- the clutch broke down for me, and I couldn't find
one at the junk yard for models before 1980. A new one costed half of what
I paid for the car. Luckily, it could be fixed with a little welding.)
Now I just let it run to see how much abuse it can take. ;)

The motor oil gets thicker after a while. That's what the old-timers told
me too. I've changed oil twice since January (pretty normal for petrol if
you care about the motor, but not often enough on sooty gas I think). It
smokes when cold now, and at high rpms. I can't tell if it's soot in the
exhaust system, general wear-out, stuck piston rings, or worn-down valve
guides, or something else, or all of it. After I've changed oil and started
the motor once, the oil is just as black as before, that's how much soot I
have. =)

Producer gas and aluminium isn't a good combination either. I suspect a
slightly too high pH in the gas moisture, but it could be low as well, from
CO2+water. I kept the original Stromberg carburettor (most of it) and
strapped a simple mixer to the end of it. That way I didn't have to make a
new throttle and idling speed mechanism and all that, just a valve for
secondary air. But the aluminium carburettor gradually corroded so much
inside I couldn't get the idling speed down properly. It leaked around the
throttle. I don't know what the inlet mainfold and top looks like on the
inside.

I promise to be much kinder to the next motor.

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

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Thu Aug 2 03:33:16 2001
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fw: Tar Measurement Protocols
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010730224351.0095be90@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <000d01c11b24$f0ac97a0$529736d2@graeme>

Dear Peter
Hope you don't mind a brief reply to your questions as I do have a pile of
mail and I hate keeping people waiting.

1: Turbo charged engines are probably useable as spark ignition, but the
diesel dual fuel option would be risky in a variable load situation. A
vacuum still exists with a turbo, if the load drops lower than the exhaust
pressure to drive it, and the boost pressure cannot overcome the vacuum.
Tar does condense in and around the entry point to fans and I would expect
to see the same with a turbo.

2: Variable valve timing sounds good "but" if we have tar present it could
plate out on the valve stems causing seizure. I don't know if any
researchers have tried this approach. I should dig out my tar pictures of
the inlet manifolds! Just looking at my son Graeme's Nissan Skyline engine
with turbo and electronically controlled valve cams, foresees a host of
reasons why tar could create problems.

3: If it were possible, I think you would have to aim for 400 degrees C + to
keep on the top side of condensing hydrocarbons. From experience we found
that char was only formed correctly after distillation was complete, about
475 degrees C.

4: The two stroke options for dirty gas were used during WW11. Different
versions are recorded in Generator Gas - The Swedish Experience From
1939-1945 Pages 211-218. On the subject of hot gas, it does kill the
volumetric efficiency, and power output drops 3% for every 1 degrees C of
temperature increase if my memory recall is correct. Maybe its the other
way around but efficiency is still lost.

5: The piston rings have already been identified as an area to improve their
use with producer gas. Roy Kington Sales Manager of Lister New Zealand
presented a paper on this at the 2nd International Gasification Conference
in Bandung Indonesia in 1985. This paper was the result of a 2000 hour
field test using one of our early gasifiers which provided Listers with the
information to maintain engine warranty with our gasifier.

6: Unfortunately condensing tar is the reverse to a lubricant. Because
there is water present in these hydrocarbons, they are highly acetic, and
the engine oil is killed in only a few hours. I saw this at B9s
installation in Ireland last year when I pulled the dip stick. The operator
said the oil was changed every 10 hours (Crazy!) As you say there are
cheaper ways to test the gas.

Hope this helps.
Regards
Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@btl.net>
To: "Graeme Williams" <graeme@powerlink.co.nz>
Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2001 4:46 pm
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Fw: Tar Measurement Protocols

> At 12:00 PM 7/31/2001 +1200, you wrote:
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Graeme Williams" <graeme@powerlink.co.nz>
> >To: <tombreed@home.com>; <neeft@ecn.nl>
> >Sent: Saturday, 28 July 2001 9:01 am
> >Subject: Tar Measurement Protocols
> >
> >
> >> Dear Tom and John
> >>
> >> I'd like to contribute to this debate on the measurement of tar in
> >producer
> >> gas.
>
> Dear Doug;
>
> regarding:
>
> > So to sum this all up, nothing should condense out of the gas other than
> > water and carbon particles in a vacuum situation similar to an engine
> > manifold.
>
> Does this mean a super or turbo charged engine can avoid condensing tar
> problems better than a naturally aspirated one?
>
> As in -- no vacuum situation in the manifold --
>
> Also -- using variable valve timing to "govern" an engine rather than
> butter-fly valving the intake manifold. Then always having boost pressure
> in the intake manifold.
>
> Also -- how hot can one run an intake manifold? Quite hot with proper
> design I would think.
>
> I can see that tars are not going to be condensing at the exhaust valve!
>
> How about designing an IC engine to burn dirty gas -- loaded with tars??
>
> A two stroke -- forced, hot, induction -- hey what can the tars do then??
>
> Also -- I can replace piston rings with a special design. I can even use
> tars -- should any condense out -- as lubrication.
>
> Maybe I'll build such -- easy enough to do ---
>
> I'll ship it to you -- and you can try to destroy it running dirty gas.
>
> I see 4 HP Chinese diesels selling for $500 US. Good test station?
> Certainly a lot less expensive than the test procedures described to date.
>
> Peter Singfield / Belize

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Aug 2 05:31:47 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...
Message-ID: <3B6917D4.8CE59969@c2i.net>

On Wed, 1 Aug 2001 22:33:36 +0100 (GMT-1), Joacim Persson
<joacim@ymex.net> wrote in
<Pine.LNX.4.10.10108012103480.12290-100000@localhost>:

> The motor oil gets thicker after a while. That's what the old-timers told
> me too. I've changed oil twice since January (pretty normal for petrol if
> you care about the motor, but not often enough on sooty gas I think). It
> smokes when cold now, and at high rpms. I can't tell if it's soot in the

..what color is the tailpipe smoke?

> exhaust system, general wear-out, stuck piston rings, or worn-down valve
> guides, or something else, or all of it. After I've changed oil and started
> the motor once, the oil is just as black as before, that's how much soot I
> have. =)

..change oilfilter _often_, as in every day. Should catch more.
On oil change, flush the engine, or remove and clean the oil pan.

..also, consider finding a good oil pressure driven centrifugal
oil jet filter like those used in the old Scania Vabis trucks.

..these filters also had a full flow oil cyclone. "Clean" oil
is then piped up into the centrifuge wheel driven by oil jets,
which throws soot, sludge etc onto the can walls, this could
even work for tars. Servicing is "scrape soot off can walls".
"Soot" is good fuel. ;-)

> Producer gas and aluminium isn't a good combination either. I suspect a
> slightly too high pH in the gas moisture, but it could be low as well, from
> CO2+water. I kept the original Stromberg carburettor (most of it) and

..you are sure you have no ammonia in your gas? Should smell.

> strapped a simple mixer to the end of it. That way I didn't have to make a
> new throttle and idling speed mechanism and all that, just a valve for
> secondary air. But the aluminium carburettor gradually corroded so much
> inside I couldn't get the idling speed down properly. It leaked around the
> throttle. I don't know what the inlet mainfold and top looks like on the
> inside.
>
> I promise to be much kinder to the next motor.
>
> Joacim

.. ;-)

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

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

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From snkm at btl.net Thu Aug 2 11:17:36 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010802084223.00906750@wgs1.btl.net>

Hey Guys!!

Between changing oil twice per day. Oil filter every day. Absurdly
increased wear on the engine even with all this -- plus all the extra labor
involved --

There just has to be a better way ---

Tom -- tell us more about that specially adapted Chinese diesel.

Also -- it takes blow by from the compression rings to contaminate oil --
right?

Also -- where is it written in stone that only poppet valves can be used??

I can certainly demonstrate a motor with a piston seal that is 100%
efficient -- ergo -- no blow-by.

I can also demonstrate valving along the same line -- and not requiring
seats to be glued to once motor stops.

How corrosive is the combustion atmosphere for cylinder walls, cylinder
head and piston materials?

An for using hot product -- and not losing volume efficiencies -- steam or
water injection.

Wait -- once refined fuels get as expensive as all that -- maybe you all
will be more concerned about putting so much wasted heat to the sky?

For now -- it looks like partial combustion gasification followed by steam
reformation to directly power a fuel cell -- is what we will be probably
seeing in the future.

And buy the way -

Pyrolization, then Partial combustion, then steam reformation -- of Coal --
is how all of this started -- way back then!

I just love all these comments regarding -- "well, we stay with what we got
because development is so expensive"

What happened to the "moderns" folks?? Banned innovation and free
thinkers?? Made it impractical for your society to "change".

Sure looks that way -- well good luck to the mess of you -- you'll
certainly need "luck" -- as you don't believe in technical innovation so much.

Wheel turns -- where it stops -- nobody knows. Maybe next spin -- but in
case you did not notice -- you lost this stop. Place your bets and spin the
wheel again -- or move aside and let the next player in.

And you see that booth next door?? No gambling -- just pure scientific
evolution of designs. So don't waste your time there!

All right folks -- step right up and spin this wheel -- how is your "luck"
today?

Sure -- you guys are spinning wheels -- you actually make gas from biomass
and run an IC engine with it. Wow!

So now what -- all engines stop -- trip over??

Surely folks -- onward ---

Pyrolization, then Partial combustion, then steam reformation -- then a
fuel cell.

Which -- if you check the archives -- is what I was saying when I joined
this list a few years back.

Place your bets ---

(I have nothing against museums -- and that appears to be where the
gasifier and IC engine is headed unless some people start doing a little
innovation)

Such as starting on another fuel to heat everything up -- and also shutting
down in that manner -- cleaning the engine. I find it shocking nobody has
even tried that!

What -- to expensive to research and probably not worth the effort??

Boy -- what good excuses people have!

Peter Singfield / Belize

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Thu Aug 2 11:47:57 2001
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010802084223.00906750@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <NEBBLHHHOLFOEGCILKHEIEFPCPAA.kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>

The problem of tars depositing out in an engine system is indeed an
interesting one.

1: "The best way to solve a problem is to eliminate it in the first place."

Aren't downdraft gasifiers inherently less tarry than updraft? Can a
"downdrafter" be modified to contain an increased depth of charcoal, to
absolutely minimize the escape of tars in the gas product?

2: If there are indeed sufficient residual tars to be a concern, then why
not run the system in a way that ENCOURAGES DROP-OUT of tars BEFORE they
have a chance to create nuisance, or do damage?

Kevin Chisholm

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Singfield [mailto:snkm@btl.net]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 7:04 AM
> To: gasification
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...
>
>
>
> Hey Guys!!
>
> Between changing oil twice per day. Oil filter every day. Absurdly
> increased wear on the engine even with all this -- plus all the
> extra labor
> involved --
>
> There just has to be a better way ---
>
> Tom -- tell us more about that specially adapted Chinese diesel.
>
> Also -- it takes blow by from the compression rings to contaminate oil --
> right?
>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From tombreed at home.com Thu Aug 2 13:45:13 2001
From: tombreed at home.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tar Dewpoints and TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...
In-Reply-To: <NEBBLHHHOLFOEGCILKHEIEFPCPAA.kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>
Message-ID: <001501c11b76$efe15f20$18e5b618@lakwod3.co.home.com>

Dear Kevin Chisholm and all:

At BEF and CPC we KNOW that tars are the Achilles heel of biomass
gasification. (After all, coal is typically 20% volatiles, biomass is 80%).
Our motto is to burn the tars during gasification rather than fight with
them later.

> The problem of tars depositing out in an engine system is indeed an
> interesting one.

Updraft gasification can produce 20% condensible tars at room temperature,
(beginning to condense at ~400 C ?).

Fluidized beds produce 1-5% condensible tars at room temperature (condensing
at maybe 300 C?).

Downdraft gasifiers produce 0.05 to 0.2 % condensable tars at room
temperature (condensing at 100 to 150 C?) .

Improved downdraft gasifiers (IISc, Bangalore, and CPC types) produce
0.00001 to 0.000002% tars (condensing at 30 to 100 C?) .

So choose your gasifier type carefully for the application you have in mind!

> 1: "The best way to solve a problem is to eliminate it in the first
place."
>
> Aren't downdraft gasifiers inherently less tarry than updraft? Can a
> "downdrafter" be modified to contain an increased depth of charcoal, to
> absolutely minimize the escape of tars in the gas product?
>
> 2: If there are indeed sufficient residual tars to be a concern, then why
> not run the system in a way that ENCOURAGES DROP-OUT of tars BEFORE they
> have a chance to create nuisance, or do damage?
>
Yes: It's called gas cleanup and can cost more than the gasifier itself.

The numbers above are the guestimated "dew points" of the various tar
concentrations.

The dewpoint of water is an exact indication of the concentration of water
in air, (A DP of 0 C corresponds to about 7 X 10^-3 atm, 0.7%; a DP of 50 C
corresponds to 0.2 atm 20%). The dewpoint of each tar component is
similarly the temperature at which its particular concentration would
condense (either in the gas phase or on the wall.

Naphthalene is particularly common in downdraft gasifiers. A dewpoint of 20
C corresponds to a concentration of 10^-4 atm (0.01%). If the gas has less
naphthalene than this it won't condense. At 100 C the dewpoint is 2 X 10^-2
atm (2%). If concentration is less than this, no condensation above 100 C.

ETC. Unfortunately, the above principle is true for each of the hundreds of
components of each tar and each different kind of tar.

I have long dreamed of a "tar dewpoint meter". It could be a 45 degree
mirror mounted at a cross in the gas stream with a window observing the
reflection and automatic temperature control on the mirror (cooling AND
heating below and above gas temperature) which would keep the mirror ''just
barely clean". [Robb, when are we going to build this??
_________
One you have gotten rid of the tars, it is easy to eliminate the
particulate. If you don't get rid of tars first,
TAR + PARTICULATE ===> ASPHALT

> Kevin Chisholm

Yours truly, TOM REED

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>
To: "gasification" <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 1:39 PM
Subject: RE: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Singfield [mailto:snkm@btl.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 7:04 AM
> > To: gasification
> > Subject: Re: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...
> >
> >
> >
> > Hey Guys!!
> >
> > Between changing oil twice per day. Oil filter every day. Absurdly
> > increased wear on the engine even with all this -- plus all the
> > extra labor
> > involved --
> >
> > There just has to be a better way ---
> >
> > Tom -- tell us more about that specially adapted Chinese diesel.
> >
> > Also -- it takes blow by from the compression rings to contaminate
oil --
> > right?
> >
>
>
> -
> Gasification List Archives:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
> www.webpan.com/BEF
>
> Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Gasification Events and Information:
> http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>
> Dr. Thomas Reed
The Biomass Energy Foundation
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
303 278 0558; tombreed@home.com

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From tombreed at home.com Thu Aug 2 13:54:20 2001
From: tombreed at home.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tar resistant engine - no
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010802084223.00906750@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <001d01c11b77$fb8462e0$18e5b618@lakwod3.co.home.com>

Dear Peter:

As a clever mechanical engineer I am sure that you could make an engine that
could stand 200 or 2000 ppm tar. It would be one of a kind and not help
anyone else with gasification.

As a sometimes clever chemical engineer it seems much more profitable to
design the gasifier to burn its own tars down to at least 100 ppm and we are
demonstrating that daily.

(In the same way, one CAN burn waste cooking oil in a diesel car with some
modification. However, transesterification of the oil with methanol yields
a diesel fuel that is better than diesel. So, rather than modify a few 100
million engines around the world wouldn't it be better to modify the fuel?)

Your admirer, TOM REED

TOM REED

Dr. Thomas Reed
The Biomass Energy Foundation
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
303 278 0558; tombreed@home.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@btl.net>
To: "gasification" <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 8:03 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...

>
> Hey Guys!!
>
> Between changing oil twice per day. Oil filter every day. Absurdly
> increased wear on the engine even with all this -- plus all the extra
labor
> involved --
>
> There just has to be a better way ---
>
> Tom -- tell us more about that specially adapted Chinese diesel.
>
> Also -- it takes blow by from the compression rings to contaminate oil --
> right?
>
> Also -- where is it written in stone that only poppet valves can be used??
>
> I can certainly demonstrate a motor with a piston seal that is 100%
> efficient -- ergo -- no blow-by.
>
> I can also demonstrate valving along the same line -- and not requiring
> seats to be glued to once motor stops.
>
> How corrosive is the combustion atmosphere for cylinder walls, cylinder
> head and piston materials?
>
> An for using hot product -- and not losing volume efficiencies -- steam or
> water injection.
>
> Wait -- once refined fuels get as expensive as all that -- maybe you all
> will be more concerned about putting so much wasted heat to the sky?
>
> For now -- it looks like partial combustion gasification followed by steam
> reformation to directly power a fuel cell -- is what we will be probably
> seeing in the future.
>
> And buy the way -
>
> Pyrolization, then Partial combustion, then steam reformation -- of
Coal --
> is how all of this started -- way back then!
>
> I just love all these comments regarding -- "well, we stay with what we
got
> because development is so expensive"
>
> What happened to the "moderns" folks?? Banned innovation and free
> thinkers?? Made it impractical for your society to "change".
>
> Sure looks that way -- well good luck to the mess of you -- you'll
> certainly need "luck" -- as you don't believe in technical innovation so
much.
>
> Wheel turns -- where it stops -- nobody knows. Maybe next spin -- but in
> case you did not notice -- you lost this stop. Place your bets and spin
the
> wheel again -- or move aside and let the next player in.
>
> And you see that booth next door?? No gambling -- just pure scientific
> evolution of designs. So don't waste your time there!
>
> All right folks -- step right up and spin this wheel -- how is your "luck"
> today?
>
> Sure -- you guys are spinning wheels -- you actually make gas from biomass
> and run an IC engine with it. Wow!
>
> So now what -- all engines stop -- trip over??
>
> Surely folks -- onward ---
>
> Pyrolization, then Partial combustion, then steam reformation -- then a
> fuel cell.
>
> Which -- if you check the archives -- is what I was saying when I joined
> this list a few years back.
>
> Place your bets ---
>
> (I have nothing against museums -- and that appears to be where the
> gasifier and IC engine is headed unless some people start doing a little
> innovation)
>
> Such as starting on another fuel to heat everything up -- and also
shutting
> down in that manner -- cleaning the engine. I find it shocking nobody has
> even tried that!
>
> What -- to expensive to research and probably not worth the effort??
>
> Boy -- what good excuses people have!
>
> Peter Singfield / Belize
>
> -
> Gasification List Archives:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
> www.webpan.com/BEF
>
> Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Gasification Events and Information:
> http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From tombreed at home.com Thu Aug 2 14:00:50 2001
From: tombreed at home.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier soot
Message-ID: <003701c11b78$29f91620$18e5b618@lakwod3.co.home.com>

Dear Ben Russelland Jerry Scott:

I am the moderator at the gasification site at Crest.org and a question
came up about soot in producer gas. I met Ben Russell at NREL about 1978
and told him who to visit in Sweden to learn about gasifiers for cars.

My memory is that Ben built a gasifier to run his '78 Malibu wagon. He
spent a whole summer trying to get the soot out of the gas for a coast to coast
energy contest. Gave up and ran with the soot, no problemo.

I visited Ben's energy site at <A
href="http://www.econcompany.com/">http://www.econcompany.com/. Lots
of pictures of car gasifiers. (Sounds like Ben is having as much fun
as I am with wood energy.)

We would all be grateful if you would give more details of the ECON
car/soot problems and your current interests in gasification. Address me
and gasification@crest.org.

Thanks,
TOM REED

Dr. Thomas Reed
The Biomass Energy Foundation 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401303
278 0558; <A
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gif00365.gif
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 5665 bytes
Desc: "href="mailto:tombreed@home.com">tombreed@home.com"
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20010802/d69f76a0/gif00365.obj
From tombreed at home.com Thu Aug 2 15:34:46 2001
From: tombreed at home.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ACHTUNG!
Message-ID: <007a01c11b87$54b70520$18e5b618@lakwod3.co.home.com>

Dear Technikalische dumkopfen:

Came across this sign which could be posted on ALL gasifiers and MANY
stoves (preferably in Old English or German Script):

Das Machinen ist nicht fur Gerfingerpoken und Mittengraben;
Ist easy schnappen der Springenwerk, Blowenfusen und Poppen Corken mit
Spitzensparken.
Es is nicht fur gewerken by die Dumkopfen.
Keepen die hands in Das Pockets, Relaxen und Watch das Blinkenlights!

(With apologies to our German members....

TOM REED

Dr. Thomas Reed
The Biomass Energy Foundation 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401303
278 0558; <A
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gif00366.gif
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 5665 bytes
Desc: "href="mailto:tombreed@home.com">tombreed@home.com"
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20010802/88baa01a/gif00366.obj
From cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Thu Aug 2 17:40:53 2001
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Authorisation for gasification systems
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20010802223753.009492e8@pop3.demon.co.uk>

Gasifier Developers,

I have noticed that little comment is made about the actual ''procedures''
for implementing a gasification system in the ''real'' world and would like
to raise it as a topic, as it has proved a hurdle in too many instances for
the deployment of systems and in the European Union, it is not likely to
get any better.

One of the major issue now pertaining to installations in the European
Union relates to the authorisation of both gasification and pyrolysis
technologies. The European Union approved a Dorective implementing
Integrated Pollution and Prevention Control IPPC [1st August 2000] which
will necessitate new installations having approval from the national
Environmental Agency before operation is possible.

For those not familiar with IPPC check:

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2000/20001973.htm

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1996/en_396L0061.htm

These will keep you occupied for some time to come.

Brief Summary

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, an EC Directive implemented in
the UK by the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales)
Regulations 2000. This is similar to IPC but also covers noise, vibration,
resource minimisation, energy efficiency, environmental accidents and site
protection and covers more industrial processes.

The Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive aims to protect
the environment taken as a whole by preventing and controlling emissions to
air, land and water in an integrated way. The Pollution Prevention and
Control Act, which enacted the Directive, received Royal Assent [in the
UK]in July 1999. The time-scale for processes to be regulated is up to
2007, with different industrial sectors being brought under IPPC in the UK
at various dates from 2001.

----------

Existing installations have a lead tiome to implement the Directive, but it
is an additional cost to consider in the establishement of the process, and
the annual subsistence fees to show the relvant authorities that emission
limits are being met are significant.

I have had three involvements [one on fast pyrolysis and two on gasifiers]
in this area and was wondering what experiences others have had in meeting
the requirments of IPPC in the EU.

General or specific comments appreciated.

Cordner Peacocke

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From snkm at btl.net Thu Aug 2 20:53:17 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Tar resistant engine - steam reforming -- the whole works!
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010802184551.00905810@wgs1.btl.net>

At 11:24 AM 8/2/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>Dear Peter:
>
>As a clever mechanical engineer I am sure that you could make an engine that
>could stand 200 or 2000 ppm tar. It would be one of a kind and not help
>anyone else with gasification.
>
>As a sometimes clever chemical engineer it seems much more profitable to
>design the gasifier to burn its own tars down to at least 100 ppm and we are
>demonstrating that daily.

I accept this "challenge"!

First of all -- I am thinking more of simple modifications to existing IC
engines -- but really big power plant style -- say a Wartsila!

Cutting to the "quick" Tom -- show me where a gasifier is putting out such
clean product using as supplied -- in the "raw" -- fuel.

Meaning -- you need fuel perfectly conditioned to allow a gasifier to make
low tar product.

OK -- the sugar factory boilers here take "raw" bagasse from the conveyer
and produce 300,000 lbs of steam per hr.

Bagasse of 50 to 55% humidity -- 6 plus percent ash.

And produces power! Year after year after year -- economically and for the
minimum of fuss.

Correct me if I am off-base here -- but it is my understanding that in
order to have a low tar product to run an IC motor you guys require
perfectly conditioned fuel.

That is such and such a size -- and such and such a humidity -- with very
little room for variation.

This might well be a "minor" detail to you people -- but it is a major
hassle to all the rest of us here in "real" world.

Ergo -- my interest in tar laden product running an IC -- as in those
gasifiers that produce a product from "fresh" unconditioned -- biomass --
and as such -- do have higher levels of tar.

You guys are talking "pellets" as if biomass is manna from the sky --
falling as "pellets".

Your systems work fine as long as pellets are a given.

Kevin brings up the other direction to investigate -- changes to the
present gasifier "system" of operation.

Well, as it stands now -- the gasifiers in existence -- require well
conditioned fuel (pellets are best) -- they then pyrolize followed by
partial combustion -- and a combination of both products -- sometimes in
highly variable concentrations -- are fed to an IC motor.

You are missing the 3rd step -- if you steam reformed your product -- you
could burn unconditioned fuel -- and have a steady supply of a relatively
uniform heat value product with extremely low tars.

But no -- everything is OK now -- why bother rock the boat.

From snkm at btl.net Fri Aug 3 00:53:52 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tar Dewpoints and TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010802214137.0096e140@wgs1.btl.net>

Dear Tom Reed and listers;

At 11:16 AM 8/2/2001 -0600, you wrote:

>Updraft gasification can produce 20% condensible tars at room temperature,
>(beginning to condense at ~400 C ?).

Yes -- but can accept biomass with almost no "conditioning"???

>
>Fluidized beds produce 1-5% condensible tars at room temperature (condensing
>at maybe 300 C?).

And also can accept high humidity fuels -- and all fine-ground fuels --
simpler mechanical conditioning???

>
>Downdraft gasifiers produce 0.05 to 0.2 % condensable tars at room
>temperature (condensing at 100 to 150 C?) .

But needs fuel at a very tight humidity and particle size??

>
>Improved downdraft gasifiers (IISc, Bangalore, and CPC types) produce
>0.00001 to 0.000002% tars (condensing at 30 to 100 C?) .

And probably only works on pellets at 15% humidity???

>
>So choose your gasifier type carefully for the application you have in mind!

OK -- what I have in mind is avoiding the "cost" of fuel conditioning!!

>
>> 1: "The best way to solve a problem is to eliminate it in the first
>place."

In that case -- my problem being the expense of fuel conditioning -- use
the updraft??

>>
>> Aren't downdraft gasifiers inherently less tarry than updraft? Can a
>> "downdrafter" be modified to contain an increased depth of charcoal, to
>> absolutely minimize the escape of tars in the gas product?
>>
>> 2: If there are indeed sufficient residual tars to be a concern, then why
>> not run the system in a way that ENCOURAGES DROP-OUT of tars BEFORE they
>> have a chance to create nuisance, or do damage?
>>
>Yes: It's called gas cleanup and can cost more than the gasifier itself.

But of course -- fuel conditioning is a "give-me"???

> _________
>One you have gotten rid of the tars, it is easy to eliminate the
>particulate. If you don't get rid of tars first,
> TAR + PARTICULATE ===> ASPHALT

Asphalt -- as coke -- is an ideal fuel for steam reformation!

Does any of this make any sense to any of you?? Sometimes I really wonder ---

Well, in a couple of more years you will be able to pick up a state of the
art gasifier -- in a car scrap yard -- that will eat tars for breakfast and
spit out a rich, clean fuel.

But then -- why waste that running an IC?? Feed it to the same fuel cell
you'll find it attached to at that same car in that same scrap yard.

But somehow I still doubt that this list will pickup on that technology!!

You know -- dinosaurs went extinct because they were over specialized and
could no longer adapt to changes.

Pyrolize -- Gasify -- Steam Reform = synthesis gas plus lots of nitrogen
plus traces

Pyrolize -- gasify with pure O2 -- Steam reform -- pure synthesis gas (but
expensive pure O2)

Pyrolize -- burn volitiles to power Steam reforming char = pure synthesis gas

Lose the partial combustion gasifier! It's a dinosaur.

Peter Singfield / Belize

>
>> Kevin Chisholm
>
>Yours truly, TOM REED
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>
>To: "gasification" <gasification@crest.org>
>Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 1:39 PM
>Subject: RE: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...
>>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From snkm at btl.net Fri Aug 3 00:55:24 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:32 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Tar resistant engine - steam reforming -- the whole works!
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010802224434.00972690@wgs1.btl.net>

Mark --

Here are some Urls that will bring you up to speed on this partial
combustion using atmospheric air vs steam reforming.

And if you go to the "roots" of Gasification -- say 150 or so years ago --
gasification was a 3 stage process -- mostly using coal -- but sometimes
asphalt or crude oil.

The dance went this way:

Pyrolizing coal to coke --- product -- coal gas

Then a combination cycle:

Heat the coke up using partial combustion --- producer gas

Steam reform the heated coke ---- synthesis gas

Heat the coke up using partial combustion --- producer gas

Etc -- etc---

Another word for pyrolization is destructive distillation.

Now -- some Urls:

http://www.fetc.doe.gov/publications/factsheets/ewm/mw/32091.pdf

http://www.pyne.co.uk/pdf/hyroden2.pdf

Those should put some "numbers" to the concept.

http://www.r-t-o-l.com/learning/steamref.htm

http://www.lurgi.com/englisch/programm/synthesegas/steam_ref_details.html

Steam reformation is a major industrial process -- the above Urls shows
some examples.

http://www.delphiauto.com/pdf/techpapers/2000-01-0369.pdf

That Url will put some bite behind my automotive references

And just search my name is the list archives -- you'll find tons more of
hard numbers.

I have been bugging these partial combustion guys for years on this list!

And over the years -- steam reformation -- a field they refuse to recognize
as a viable gasification process -- that is they know it exists -- but do
not believe it can exist and be practical -- has been advancing in leaps
and bounds.

But not by anyone associated with this mail list!!

Oops -- that is not so true --

http://www.pyne.co.uk/pdf/hyroden2.pdf

This url from Pyne Co. UK -- they were on this list -- may still be.

Though this list is called gasification -- it is mostly only about partial
combustion gasification. One segment of the members are avid wood burning
car affectionarios. And were desperately hoping that the world could become
a better place to live if one and all did the same -- that is gasified wood
to make fuel to operate a car IC engine.

But right now -- gasification in the car industry is making a big come back
-- but not as partial combustion units fueling an IC -- rather steam
reforming for fuel cells.

And from there -- as you will read at the Pyne site -- only a short hop to
using biomass ---

Little hairy apes like me are coming to chase the dinosaurs away --

But generally speaking -- though this list has to accept steam reformation
as a biomass gasification process -- they do not like to spend time, money
of research there.

I keep trying to point out how it can intermesh with their technology --
but they keep on resisting.

You can bring a dinosaur to water -- but can you make them drink??

They are very committed to their ways -- but still are fun to play around
with. And have a huge amount of collective data available -- derived mostly
from hands on experience.

The big snafu with atmospheric partial combustion of biomass is this tar
issue. The get a good "product" gas from a gasifier -- one must really have
an ideally "conditioned" biomass fuel -- such as pellets at 15% humidity.

But it is like pulling teeth to get them to admit that.

Still -- pelletizing is a viable process --

The question is -- more viable than the alternatives I suggest and they
"resist"??

And here is the real "kicker"!!

If your fuel is to dry the gasifier will not work. Why??

Because even in their partial combustion devices -- it can only work if
enough humidity is there to support some steam reformation.

My stand is this -- if the collective represented on this list had spent
1/10 the time and resources investigating partial combustion gasification
on steam reformation -- this list would only be talking about steam
reforming today.

But they wrote steam reformation off as to exotic -- to complicated -- and
focussed on WWII technology -- when millions of cars actually had to burn
wood gas to move around.

Now -- technology is passing them by --- or at least in my humble opinion.

Steam reformation is by far the worlds most used method of gasification. It
is a major industrial process -- extremely well developed -- in the
petrochemical industry -- alone -- with branches now spreading out in all
directions.

But rarely discussed on this mail list -- unless I bring it up.

Peter Singfield / Belize

At 11:19 AM 8/3/2001 +0800, you wrote:
>My aircraft design mentor Ladislao "Paz" Pazmany is known by two sayings
>of which he is very fond:
>
>"De lows of Physics - dey do not change!" and
>"Poot some nombers to it!"
>
>Both colorful aphorisms speak to the same point - the need for hard data
>to settle a technical question. The first tells us not to disdain "old"
>data just because of their age, or because they were couched in archaic
>language or use obsolete notation. The second says that we don't really
>know anything as engineers unless we can attach numerical values to it.
>
>I haven't been on the list long enough to know whether steam reforming
>is idea non grata, but on the other had I see nobody leaping in to
>condemn Mr. Singfield for heresy. Yet aside from tantalizing hints and
>rhetorical questions, what are we getting?
>
>To determine whether steam reforming of a complex substance can be
>integrated with the mechanical cycle of an engine, we need empirical
>data - equilibrium constants at various temperatures and pressures,
>reaction rates and so on. The only literature I have on steam reforming
>applies to simple, fully characterized substances and steady-state
>processes. That won't help us. So if this discussion is to progress
>beyond the nudge-wink stage, somebody needs to come forward with hard
>data. I'm afraid that isn't me, because in my outpost of civilization in
>the southern Philippines access to technical data is via Internet only.
>
>Best to all,
>
>Marc de Piolenc
>Iligan, Philippines
>
>Peter Singfield wrote:
>>
>> At 11:24 AM 8/2/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>
>> Kevin brings up the other direction to investigate -- changes to the
>> present gasifier "system" of operation.
>>
>> Well, as it stands now -- the gasifiers in existence -- require well
>> conditioned fuel (pellets are best) -- they then pyrolize followed by
>> partial combustion -- and a combination of both products -- sometimes in
>> highly variable concentrations -- are fed to an IC motor.
>>
>> You are missing the 3rd step -- if you steam reformed your product -- you
>> could burn unconditioned fuel -- and have a steady supply of a relatively
>> uniform heat value product with extremely low tars.
>
>
>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From mfock at dk-TEKNIK.dk Fri Aug 3 02:53:51 2001
From: mfock at dk-TEKNIK.dk (Martin Wittrup Fock)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...
Message-ID: <792C83154B0CD311AF1B0004AC4CD276D94343@EXCHANGE>

Dear list members

Why are a significant part the world's energy/electricity production not
based on small scale non polluting gasifiers ?

At the 5th Biomass Conference in Orlando in September, TK Energi, CIRAD and
dk-TEKNIK will present a new, patented regenerative dry gas cleaning
technology and an open core gasifier.

One of the major reasons - in my mind - is the problem related to gas
cleaning in respect to tars. The definition between tar and fuel is: when a
producer gas can be converted in an engine without causing problems is it a
clean gas without tars - a fuel - and if problems occur the producer gas is
contaminated with tars, and has to be cleaned - a waste fraction.

Of course the solution is to construct gasifiers producing a clean gas
without any needs for cleaning, but it is not that simple (else it would
have been done long time ago, and commercial available).

The typical gas cleaning (wet scrubbing) produces a stream of polluted
wastewater, which has to be taken care off, often with a decrease in
efficiency and an economical expense as a result.

We (TK energi, dk-TEKNIK and CIRAD) are working on a project within the
European 5. Framework programme, where the aim is to verify a patented
technology cleaning any tar contaminated producer gas. The tar components
are accumulated and returned to the gasifier, with an increased efficiency
as a result. The major obstacle in the project right now is that we have a
gasifier, (downdraft, open core - two staged), producing less than 20 mg
tar/Nm3, when operating on good quality wood chips.

We are running the test plant (500 kW) for the next three weeks and
performing a very detailed measuring and verification programme. The process
and the results will be presented in Orlando in September at the 5. Biomass
Conference of the Americas - hope to see lots of you ...

Best regards.

Martin W. Fock
M. Sc. M/E, project manager - ph (+45) 39 555 999 - dir (+45) 39 555 951-
cel (+45) 40 85 50 62 - mwf@dk-teknik.dk
dk-TEKNIK ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT - Gladsaxe Møllevej 15 - DK2860 Søborg -
Denmark www.dk-teknik.dk

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchishol@fox.nstn.ca]
Sent: 2. august 2001 21:39
To: gasification
Subject: RE: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...

The problem of tars depositing out in an engine system is indeed an
interesting one.

1: "The best way to solve a problem is to eliminate it in the first place."

Aren't downdraft gasifiers inherently less tarry than updraft? Can a
"downdrafter" be modified to contain an increased depth of charcoal, to
absolutely minimize the escape of tars in the gas product?

2: If there are indeed sufficient residual tars to be a concern, then why
not run the system in a way that ENCOURAGES DROP-OUT of tars BEFORE they
have a chance to create nuisance, or do damage?

Kevin Chisholm

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Fri Aug 3 09:39:09 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Authorisation for gasification systems
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F510B@sp0016.epz.nl>

Cordner Peacocke writes August 2nd, 2001

> I have noticed that little comment is made about the actual ''procedures''
> for implementing a gasification system in the ''real'' world and would
> like
> to raise it as a topic, as it has proved a hurdle in too many instances
> for
> the deployment of systems and in the European Union, it is not likely to
> get any better.
>
Dear Cordner,

Meeting emissions regulations has always been an issue for every combustion
or gasification plant of a relevant size.
Fortunately, we are just coming out of a period of a few years, during which
expectations of European regulatory emission standards were less than clear,
both for new and existing plants.
So, perhaps, things are looking up (?).

What about the "proved to be a hurdle in too many instances"?
Question: do you mean technical or economical or procedural? (or all of the
above)

> One of the major issue now pertaining to installations in the European
> Union relates to the authorisation of both gasification and pyrolysis
> technologies.
>
The major issue is with combustion plants and waste issues (MSW, sewage and
other).

Gasification -and especially pyrolysis- is relatively speaking not a major
issue, unless "waste" gets involved, but then, that has less to do with
gasification per se and more with the use of waste as a cheap resource
(negative value).

> The European Union approved a Dorective implementing
> Integrated Pollution and Prevention Control IPPC [1st August 2000] which
> will necessitate new installations having approval from the national
> Environmental Agency before operation is possible.
>
> Existing installations have a lead tiome to implement the Directive, but
> it
> is an additional cost to consider in the establishement of the process,
> and
> the annual subsistence fees to show the relvant authorities that emission
> limits are being met are significant.
>
Yes, no free lunch for any plant.
Combustion plants are having to deal with the stricter emission issues for
at least 10-15 years already.
Licensing fees are not new either, you pay them even for wind turbines!
Licensing is an integral part of the business and has to be budgeted for,
both in time and money.

> I have had three involvements [one on fast pyrolysis and two on gasifiers]
> in this area and was wondering what experiences others have had in meeting
> the requirments of IPPC in the EU.
>
> General or specific comments appreciated.
>
This is the Gasification List allright.
But otherwise I would say: you must be running into the classic scale-up
problem:
what is condoned for lab size or small experimental set-up equipment, is not
acceptable for a somewhat larger design anymore.
That holds true for virtually every sector of industry, "green power"
included!
Indeed, welcome to "the real world".

best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From tombreed at home.com Fri Aug 3 11:14:06 2001
From: tombreed at home.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oxygen "high cost" only in small quantities...
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010802214137.0096e140@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <002101c11c2d$8ecd2680$18e5b618@lakwod3.co.home.com>

Dear Peter and all:

Lots of questions below, but you say

> Pyrolize -- gasify with pure O2 -- Steam reform -- pure synthesis gas (but
> expensive pure O2)

Medical oxygen in small tanks IS very expensive; so is gasoline in cigarette
lighters. Bulk oxygen at a biomass fuel plant will cost ~ $50/ton, and one
ton of oxygen will gasify 5 tons of biomass to make 4 tons of methanol,
ammonia, gasoline or other useful products.

So, don't rule O2 gasification out.

Cheers, TOM REED

Dr. Thomas Reed
The Biomass Energy Foundation
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
303 278 0558; tombreed@home.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@btl.net>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Tar Dewpoints and TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...

>
> Dear Tom Reed and listers;
>
> At 11:16 AM 8/2/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>
> >Updraft gasification can produce 20% condensible tars at room
temperature,
> >(beginning to condense at ~400 C ?).
>
> Yes -- but can accept biomass with almost no "conditioning"???
>
> >
> >Fluidized beds produce 1-5% condensible tars at room temperature
(condensing
> >at maybe 300 C?).
>
> And also can accept high humidity fuels -- and all fine-ground fuels --
> simpler mechanical conditioning???
>
> >
> >Downdraft gasifiers produce 0.05 to 0.2 % condensable tars at room
> >temperature (condensing at 100 to 150 C?) .
>
> But needs fuel at a very tight humidity and particle size??
>
>
> >
> >Improved downdraft gasifiers (IISc, Bangalore, and CPC types) produce
> >0.00001 to 0.000002% tars (condensing at 30 to 100 C?) .
>
> And probably only works on pellets at 15% humidity???
>
>
> >
> >So choose your gasifier type carefully for the application you have in
mind!
>
> OK -- what I have in mind is avoiding the "cost" of fuel conditioning!!
>
>
> >
> >> 1: "The best way to solve a problem is to eliminate it in the first
> >place."
>
> In that case -- my problem being the expense of fuel conditioning -- use
> the updraft??
>
> >>
> >> Aren't downdraft gasifiers inherently less tarry than updraft? Can a
> >> "downdrafter" be modified to contain an increased depth of charcoal, to
> >> absolutely minimize the escape of tars in the gas product?
> >>
> >> 2: If there are indeed sufficient residual tars to be a concern, then
why
> >> not run the system in a way that ENCOURAGES DROP-OUT of tars BEFORE
they
> >> have a chance to create nuisance, or do damage?
> >>
> >Yes: It's called gas cleanup and can cost more than the gasifier itself.
>
> But of course -- fuel conditioning is a "give-me"???
>
> > _________
> >One you have gotten rid of the tars, it is easy to eliminate the
> >particulate. If you don't get rid of tars first,
> > TAR + PARTICULATE ===> ASPHALT
>
> Asphalt -- as coke -- is an ideal fuel for steam reformation!
>
>
> Does any of this make any sense to any of you?? Sometimes I really
wonder ---
>
> Well, in a couple of more years you will be able to pick up a state of the
> art gasifier -- in a car scrap yard -- that will eat tars for breakfast
and
> spit out a rich, clean fuel.
>
> But then -- why waste that running an IC?? Feed it to the same fuel cell
> you'll find it attached to at that same car in that same scrap yard.
>
> But somehow I still doubt that this list will pickup on that technology!!
>
> You know -- dinosaurs went extinct because they were over specialized and
> could no longer adapt to changes.
>
> Pyrolize -- Gasify -- Steam Reform = synthesis gas plus lots of nitrogen
> plus traces
>
> Pyrolize -- gasify with pure O2 -- Steam reform -- pure synthesis gas (but
> expensive pure O2)
>
> Pyrolize -- burn volitiles to power Steam reforming char = pure synthesis
gas
>
> Lose the partial combustion gasifier! It's a dinosaur.
>
> Peter Singfield / Belize
>
>
> >
> >> Kevin Chisholm
> >
> >Yours truly, TOM REED
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>
> >To: "gasification" <gasification@crest.org>
> >Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 1:39 PM
> >Subject: RE: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...
> >>
>
>
> -
> Gasification List Archives:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
> www.webpan.com/BEF
>
> Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Gasification Events and Information:
> http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>
>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Aug 3 11:21:47 2001
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...
Message-ID: <127.2630ce8.289c1aba@aol.com>

Dear all,
Thermogenics has had for a long time a gas cleaning system with no moving
parts
(except for removal of collected contaminants), no pressure drop, very little
maintenance and will absolutely clean to the dewpoint of the contaminants.
The gasifier output characteristics have no bearing on the system other than
size. It continues to amuse me as to the ongoing issues discussed over tar
properties, formation and the like as they are irrelevant to our system.

Sincerely,
Leland T. Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
7100-2nd St. NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107
phone 505-761-1454 fax 505-761-1456
Attached files are zipped and can be decompressed with <A
HREF="http://www.aladdinsys.com/expander/">www.aladdinsys.com/expander/ </A>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From sigma at ix.netcom.com Fri Aug 3 11:46:39 2001
From: sigma at ix.netcom.com (sigma)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_Unattached_attachments__=3C=28=A9=BF=A9=29=3E?=
In-Reply-To: <127.2630ce8.289c1aba@aol.com>
Message-ID: <009901c11c32$43940080$23d5f7a5@ix.netcom.com>

Hello Leland:

In as much as the list is not transmitting attachments, is there a website
where the attachments in question can be read?

I am looking for a very simple way to clean up diesel exhaust for use in a
"Thermal Bank" tm (heat storage system) we are developing ( status:
prototypes in progress).

Regards, Len

Len Walde, P.E.
Sigma Energy Engineering, Inc
Recycling Problems into Opportunities
for Agriculture, Industry and Commerce
through "Symbiotic Recycling" tm

Contact:
140 Spring Road, Orinda, CA
94563-3311
Ph: 925-254-7633
Fax: 925-253-9108 (Nite is best)
E-mail: sigma@ix.netcom.com

----- Original Message -----
From: <LINVENT@aol.com>
To: <mfock@dk-teknik.dk>; <kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>; <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 8:18 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...

> Dear all,
> Thermogenics has had for a long time a gas cleaning system with no
moving parts (except for removal of collected contaminants), no pressure
drop, very little maintenance and will absolutely clean to the dewpoint of
the contaminants.

> The gasifier output characteristics have no bearing on the system other
than size. It continues to amuse me as to the ongoing issues discussed over
tar properties, formation and the like as they are irrelevant to our
system.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Leland T. Taylor
> President
> Thermogenics Inc.
> 7100-2nd St. NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107
> phone 505-761-1454 fax 505-761-1456
> Attached files are zipped and can be decompressed with <A
> HREF="http://www.aladdinsys.com/expander/">www.aladdinsys.com/expander/
</A>
############ SNIP #############

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From tmiles at teleport.com Fri Aug 3 12:19:11 2001
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: Fwd: Re: GAS-L: Gasifier soot
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010803091403.00d571b0@pop3.norton.antivirus>

>
>Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:22:20 +0530 (IST)
>From: Prof P P Parikh <parikh@me.iitb.ac.in>
>To: Thomas Reed <tombreed@home.com>
>Subject: Re: GAS-L: Gasifier soot
>
>Dear Dr. Reed
>
>Utilisation of pulvarised coal is a direction in which reasonable amount
>of engine/fuels R&D is being carried out. What is necessaru is to
>charecteise soot in producer gas and find method of consuming it within
>engine in some amounts. I would not worry about soot, but when it is
>accompanied with TAR. Our studies show that TAR too can be handled by
>following certain engine starting and stopping methodology and revising
>the maintainence schedule of the engine.
>Mrs Parikh
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Prof. (Mrs.) P.P.Parikh Phone Office : 5723496, 5767548
>Dept. of Mechanical Engg. 5722545 Ext. 7548 / 8385
>I.I.T. Bombay Home : 5704646
>Mumbai 400 076 INDIA Fax Office : 5723496, 5723480
>
> email : parikh@me.iitb.ac.in
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Thomas Reed wrote:
>
> > Dear Ben Russelland Jerry Scott:
> >
> > I am the moderator at the gasification site at Crest.org and a question
> came up about soot in producer gas. I met Ben Russell at NREL about 1978
> and told him who to visit in Sweden to learn about gasifiers for cars.
> >
> > My memory is that Ben built a gasifier to run his '78 Malibu wagon. He
> spent a whole summer trying to get the soot out of the gas for a coast to
> coast energy contest. Gave up and ran with the soot, no problemo.
> >
> > I visited Ben's energy site at http://www.econcompany.com/. Lots of
> pictures of car gasifiers. (Sounds like Ben is having as much fun as I
> am with wood energy.)
> >
> > We would all be grateful if you would give more details of the ECON
> car/soot problems and your current interests in gasification. Address me
> and gasification@crest.org.
> >
> > Thanks, TOM REED
> >
> >
> > Dr. Thomas Reed
> > The Biomass Energy Foundation
> > 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
> > 303 278 0558; tombreed@home.com

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

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Fri Aug 3 12:39:10 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Oxygen "high cost" only in small quantities...
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F510D@sp0016.epz.nl>

Tom Reed writes August 3rd, 2001 in response to Peter Singfield:

> > Pyrolize -- gasify with pure O2 -- Steam reform -- pure synthesis gas
> (but
> > expensive pure O2)
>
> Medical oxygen in small tanks IS very expensive; so is gasoline in
> cigarette
> lighters. Bulk oxygen at a biomass fuel plant will cost ~ $50/ton, and
> one
> ton of oxygen will gasify 5 tons of biomass to make 4 tons of methanol,
> ammonia, gasoline or other useful products.
> So, don't rule O2 gasification out.
>
Dear Tom, Peter and all,

For reliable cost data on bulk manufactured oxygen for gasification, look at
the coal gasification plants (Texaco, Shell, Dow processes etc).
> Now up to the 250 MWe level (that will do for biomass for a while).
>
One experience from the coal gasification world, is, that it takes quite
some attention to properly adapt the oxygen plants to adequate "load
following" behavior. And lots of additional control systems.
Whereas large biomass gasifiers may come on line in local grids, the need
for "load following capability" will definitely play a roll.

Another thing: making oxygen with these oxygen plants is rumored not to be
cheap....
If it were not for the fact that the "nitrogen avoided" helps much in
reducing the product gas volume (which needs to be desulpherized before
fired in a GT), oxygen would be even less attractive.
And biomass does not have to have sulpher filtered out of the product
gas.......so, no advantage to be gained there..

Perhaps KISS applies to air over oxygen?

best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From tmiles at teleport.com Fri Aug 3 13:06:30 2001
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: Fwd: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010803100250.00d5bee0@pop3.norton.antivirus>

>Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:26:20 +0530 (IST)
>From: Prof P P Parikh <parikh@me.iitb.ac.in>
>To: Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net>
>Subject: Re: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...
>
>Dear Mr. Singfield and all
>
>This certainly is not as bad!! Our engines here have logged upto 5000h
>without major maintainence!! Surely it will be ideal not to have TAR.
>Mrs Parikh
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Prof. (Mrs.) P.P.Parikh Phone Office : 5723496, 5767548
>Dept. of Mechanical Engg. 5722545 Ext. 7548 / 8385
>I.I.T. Bombay Home : 5704646
>Mumbai 400 076 INDIA Fax Office : 5723496, 5723480
>
> email : parikh@me.iitb.ac.in
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> >
> > Hey Guys!!
> >
> > Between changing oil twice per day. Oil filter every day. Absurdly
> > increased wear on the engine even with all this -- plus all the extra labor
> > involved --
> >
> > There just has to be a better way ---
> >
> > Tom -- tell us more about that specially adapted Chinese diesel.
> >
> > Also -- it takes blow by from the compression rings to contaminate oil --
> > right?
> >
> > Also -- where is it written in stone that only poppet valves can be used??
> >
> > I can certainly demonstrate a motor with a piston seal that is 100%
> > efficient -- ergo -- no blow-by.
> >
> > I can also demonstrate valving along the same line -- and not requiring
> > seats to be glued to once motor stops.
> >
> > How corrosive is the combustion atmosphere for cylinder walls, cylinder
> > head and piston materials?
> >
> > An for using hot product -- and not losing volume efficiencies -- steam or
> > water injection.
> >
> > Wait -- once refined fuels get as expensive as all that -- maybe you all
> > will be more concerned about putting so much wasted heat to the sky?
> >
> > For now -- it looks like partial combustion gasification followed by steam
> > reformation to directly power a fuel cell -- is what we will be probably
> > seeing in the future.
> >
> > And buy the way -
> >
> > Pyrolization, then Partial combustion, then steam reformation -- of Coal --
> > is how all of this started -- way back then!
> >
> > I just love all these comments regarding -- "well, we stay with what we got
> > because development is so expensive"
> >
> > What happened to the "moderns" folks?? Banned innovation and free
> > thinkers?? Made it impractical for your society to "change".
> >
> > Sure looks that way -- well good luck to the mess of you -- you'll
> > certainly need "luck" -- as you don't believe in technical innovation
> so much.
> >
> > Wheel turns -- where it stops -- nobody knows. Maybe next spin -- but in
> > case you did not notice -- you lost this stop. Place your bets and spin the
> > wheel again -- or move aside and let the next player in.
> >
> > And you see that booth next door?? No gambling -- just pure scientific
> > evolution of designs. So don't waste your time there!
> >
> > All right folks -- step right up and spin this wheel -- how is your "luck"
> > today?
> >
> > Sure -- you guys are spinning wheels -- you actually make gas from biomass
> > and run an IC engine with it. Wow!
> >
> > So now what -- all engines stop -- trip over??
> >
> > Surely folks -- onward ---
> >
> > Pyrolization, then Partial combustion, then steam reformation -- then a
> > fuel cell.
> >
> > Which -- if you check the archives -- is what I was saying when I joined
> > this list a few years back.
> >
> > Place your bets ---
> >
> > (I have nothing against museums -- and that appears to be where the
> > gasifier and IC engine is headed unless some people start doing a little
> > innovation)
> >
> > Such as starting on another fuel to heat everything up -- and also shutting
> > down in that manner -- cleaning the engine. I find it shocking nobody has
> > even tried that!
> >
> > What -- to expensive to research and probably not worth the effort??
> >
> > Boy -- what good excuses people have!
> >
> > Peter Singfield / Belize
> >
> > -
> > Gasification List Archives:
> > http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
> >
> > Gasification List Moderator:
> > Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
> > www.webpan.com/BEF
> >
> > Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> > -
> > Other Gasification Events and Information:
> > http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> >
> >

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

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From snkm at btl.net Fri Aug 3 15:10:15 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: "KISS-me"
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010803130357.0097ccb0@wgs1.btl.net>

>Perhaps KISS applies to air over oxygen?
>
>best regards,
>Andries Weststeijn

Hi Andries --

Yes -- Keep It Sweet and Simple?? (KISS)

Like in feeding fresh cut boiler cord wood -- 3 ft lengths -- manually into
the firebox of an old fire tube boiler -- but with some slight modernization.

Replace water in that boiler with thermal oil coming out at 300 C -- zero
pressure and have that piped to an Ormat 250 kwh -- hermetically sealed --
unit.

Will get the same over all efficiencies as the gasifier IC setup -- will
last forever and one day -- pricing comes in slightly more expensive at
this time -- but the savings in maintenance alone!!

But oops -- we lost the gasifier!!!

Call that a "KISS_OFF" ????

No fuel conditioning, no gas product conditioning, no IC engine to maintain.

Ormat promises 20 years maintenance free (tear down and rebuild) operation
at 98.5% or better availability.

That is 24 * 365 = 8760 * .985 = 8,628.6 hrs per year.

20 years = 172,572 hrs.

They have case examples -- still operating -- with over 30 years no tear
down and overhaul.

But then -- we are in another area of technology not popular among the mind
set of this list -- using a refrigerant as working fluid rather than water.

Yet the technology exists -- is applied and is well proven.

Want to hybrid a unit??

"Dirty" up draft gasifier same boiler system.

Ergo -- as in using a Hurst hybrid boiler. Now you can meet all pollution
codes as well as say "Gasifier" -- and be fully automated -- losing the
labor of throwing cord wood into a fire box -- but you need a chipper or hog.

Some Urls you say? Sure:

http://www.ormat.com/

http://www.hurstboiler.com

And you just know I have had in depth discussions with both.

So "KISS" me Andries??

Technology is ever changing --

And -- can you run a car along these lines??

Sure -- how many steam car urls do you want to browse???

All old technology -- but granted -- invisible to a large extent at this
mail list ---

Now -- I am waiting for some convincing replies regarding how it can be
done better "KISS" using a down-draft gasifier -- with perfectly
conditioned fuel -- and perfectly conditioned product gas -- running an IC
motor -- where if you get 5000 hrs between rebuilds (less than one year
power plant operation) -- wow!!

So "KISS" me again!

Peter Singfield / Belize

At 06:36 PM 8/3/2001 +0200, you wrote:
>Dear Tom, Peter and all,
>
>For reliable cost data on bulk manufactured oxygen for gasification, look at
>the coal gasification plants (Texaco, Shell, Dow processes etc).
>> Now up to the 250 MWe level (that will do for biomass for a while).
>>
>One experience from the coal gasification world, is, that it takes quite
>some attention to properly adapt the oxygen plants to adequate "load
>following" behavior. And lots of additional control systems.
>Whereas large biomass gasifiers may come on line in local grids, the need
>for "load following capability" will definitely play a roll.
>
>Another thing: making oxygen with these oxygen plants is rumored not to be
>cheap....
>If it were not for the fact that the "nitrogen avoided" helps much in
>reducing the product gas volume (which needs to be desulpherized before
>fired in a GT), oxygen would be even less attractive.
>And biomass does not have to have sulpher filtered out of the product
>gas.......so, no advantage to be gained there..
>
>Perhaps KISS applies to air over oxygen?
>
>best regards,
>Andries Weststeijn

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From snkm at btl.net Fri Aug 3 15:52:05 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Burning Tars???
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010803132136.0097c370@wgs1.btl.net>

At 09:09 AM 8/3/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>Peter:
>
>There is lots of appropriate RAW fuels for low tar gasifiers - wood chips,
>wood pellets, nut hulls, corn cobs all fine, should be less than 20 %
>moisture.
>
>The secret to downdraft tar free (< 50 ppm gas) is to burn the tars
>generated during the pyrolysis process with the excess charcoal remaining
>from the pyrolysis (5-20%). Three groups at least are doing it now.
> ~~~~~~~~~`
>Remember:
>
>BIOMASS is a great source of renewable energy.
>
>MOST BIOMASS is a terrible fuel - unless processed. We spend billions of
>dollars to process petroleum into gasoline, diesel, lpg, oil, ...... Why
>resist it for biomass?
>
>
>TOM
>
>
> Dr. Thomas Reed
> The Biomass Energy Foundation
> 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
>303 278 0558; tombreed@home.com

Dear Tom;

Yes -- your right for the most part. But burning results in CO, CO2 and H2O
as products of "combustion".

In the above example -- is it not better to say "steam-reforming" the tars
generated during the pyrolysis process with the excess charcoal remaining
from the pyrolysis (5-20%) -- using the humidity of the fuel??

Is is not also true that if humidity levels are two low this process will
not work?

And even in Andries's big plant -- they have to inject steam into the
gasification process as the humidity levels of coal is to low -- using pure
O2 makes no difference.

All of these processes are dependent on steam reformation!!

Getting gasifiers to admit that however --

If no humidity (steam) is present then you get mostly CO -- little H2.

Peter Singfield / Belize

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From snkm at btl.net Fri Aug 3 15:53:00 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: "KISS-me" -- and I'll turn into a "Prince"
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010803134052.0097a100@wgs1.btl.net>

One point I forgot to mention.

Just how many oil and filter changes in 5000 hrs of gasifier to IC motor
are required??

How many gallons and dollars??

Over a period of 20 years = 172,572 hrs??

Figure in downtime and labor costs.

Also -- anyone have any idea how many tear-downs and rebuilds??

In my forestry days -- running diesels burning diesel -- we figured every
10,000 hours.

So -- 17 rebuilds -- at the very least!!

Add all the above together ---

Kiss Me -- I'll Turn into a Prince! And build you a uniflow refrigeration
working fluid device -- 5 to 50 kwh hr range -- hermetically sealed -- for
a fraction of the cost of that present IC engine. Ormat then can put that
in their box rather than their present -- inefficient (But readily
available) -- turbo expander.

What is a turbo-expander -- good question -- see:

http://www.atlascopco-act.com/turboexpand02.htm

Browse around --

Peter Singfield / Belize

>Perhaps KISS applies to air over oxygen?
>
>best regards,
>Andries Weststeijn

Hi Andries --

Yes -- Keep It Sweet and Simple?? (KISS)

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

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From pweitz at technology-catalysts.com Fri Aug 3 16:54:19 2001
From: pweitz at technology-catalysts.com (Paul Weitz)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Plastic Recycling Via Gasification
Message-ID: <3B6B0E6E.57765E59@technology-catalysts.com>

Dear Discussion Group:
Technology Catalysts Int'l Corp. (www.technology-catalysts.com) is a
consultancy that helps clients identify business and licensing
opportunities. A client is seeking technology for commercial-scale
processing of waste plastics via gasification and I am interested in
identifying companies or organization that have such technologies. I am
uncertain at this point as to whether this will be in the presence or
absence of oxygen but I need a starting point. I would welcome being
contacted by organizations having the technologies, or at the least,
learning about websites or sources of information.
Sincerely,
Paul Weitz

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Fri Aug 3 17:22:19 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Burning Tars???
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F5112@sp0016.epz.nl>

Peter Singfield writes August 3rd, 2001
> Is is not also true that if humidity levels are two low this process will
> not work?
> And even in Andries's big plant -- they have to inject steam into the
> gasification process as the humidity levels of coal is to low -- using
> pure
> O2 makes no difference.
> All of these processes are dependent on steam reformation!!
> Getting gasifiers to admit that however --
> If no humidity (steam) is present then you get mostly CO -- little H2.
>
Dear Peter et all,

That is correct for coal gasification (Shell process), although there must
be more to it than just avoiding a high percentage of CO.

On our Lurgi wood gasification (CFB) the biomass contains enough moisture
and the product gas is clean enough to first feed it through a waste heat
boiler before filtering in bag house filters (to keep chemicals in the ash
out of the main boiler).
Next the product gas is wet scrubbed for ammonia (to help reduce NOx
formation in the main boiler).

In case of the coal gasification, some of the nitrogen separated during
oxygen making, is added back later on to the product gas, just before
entering the burners of the GT. Gasifier vessel, heat recovery boiler and
desulpherization are sized to the lower "oxygen volume".

In case of the biomass gasification, the nitrogen is introduced with the
fluidizing air in the CFB and the (much larger) volume is "carried" straight
through the gasifier vessel, waste heat boiler, filters, wet scrubbing and
pre-heating sections, thereby increasing the size (and weight!) of the
respective equipment items.

----------------
I have a general question in this discussion:

Would it be relevant to consider -right from the start- the assumed duty and
potential for upscaling of the different gasifier designs, when discussing
their respective abilities for minimum tar formation?
I mean, the different gasification processes might very well not lead to the
same optimal application at all. In fact, it would be more logical to expect
that only certain gasifier designs would best qualify for certain duties.
And duties differ in end use like power class rating, fuel flexibility
requirements, start/stop flexibility, unattended service, design life, even
use as chemical building blocks. And more. Quite a range, really.

So, perhaps one could classify the different gasification technologies as
"having best potential for such and such end use...", next to rating them
academically relative to each other.

best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Fri Aug 3 18:46:47 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: "KISS-me"
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F5113@sp0016.epz.nl>

Peter Singfield writes August 3rd, 2001

> But then -- we are in another area of technology not popular among the
> mind
> set of this list -- using a refrigerant as working fluid rather than
> water.
> Yet the technology exists -- is applied and is well proven.
>
Whosayso... that another area of technology is not popular among the mind
set of this list?
How would you know? Perhaps that area differs too much from the purpose of
this List to get a wide a response?

Sure, geothermal plants are in existence for a while.
But I also recall our "butane heat extraction" discussion earlier this year,
when you stepped quite easily over the difference of using 120 C hot
geothermal steam (as a heat source) versus a 1000 C roaring flame. I would
know a few "licensing authorities" getting a heart attack over just this
minor practical difference...., that's the world I have to deal with.

So, in these List discussions -even assuming sufficient mental flexibility
of the participants- there always remains a personal judgment of what will
swing it in the short run versus what is useful brainstorming for the long
run.
Obviously, both the practical short term, as well as the free flowing long
term discussions have their place.
You are sure very good at both! But often switch back and forth.

<snip>

> All old technology -- but granted -- invisible to a large extent at this
> mail list ---
>
Indeed. You may expect too wide a field of technology to be discussed here.
That does not mean that nobody would know or would be interested...

<snip>

> Now -- I am waiting for some convincing replies regarding how it can be
> done better "KISS" using a down-draft gasifier -- with perfectly
> conditioned fuel -- and perfectly conditioned product gas -- running an IC
> motor -- where if you get 5000 hrs between rebuilds (less than one year
> power plant operation) -- wow!!
>
I am not at all into running IC engines on gasifiers, so I pass....

> So "KISS" me again!
>
I mentioned KISS with respect to using oxygen for biomass gasification.
Biomass gasification -for the time being, and in my opinion- does not need
the additional technical complication of an oxygen plant, possibly pricing
itself right out of the market.

You are quite welcome to disagree (and you may even be right), but please
don't give me the line that you can build such an oxygen plant yourself,
much cheaper than the rest of this world, if you just had the tools.......
:) :) :)
(I believe you could)

best regards,
Andries

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From calsch at montana.com Sat Aug 4 00:38:14 2001
From: calsch at montana.com (Cal)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gorse and sage
Message-ID: <3B6B6DA7.D8586F4E@montana.com>

Some of this stuff should be pelletized for fuel. There must be a couple
hundred thousand square miles of sage brush in the intermountain west.
I know sage burns good even wet in the wintertime. Don't know the
economics of gathering it and pelletizing but seems like a mobile
pelletizer along with agricultural type equipment should make it work.

What ever. When the oil is near gone, other things will be tried.

Cal

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From joacim at ymex.net Sat Aug 4 08:39:07 2001
From: joacim at ymex.net (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...
In-Reply-To: <3B6917D4.8CE59969@c2i.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10108041240010.12290-100000@localhost>

On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Arnt Karlsen wrote:

> ..what color is the tailpipe smoke?

Er... oil-smoke coloured. ;) It's definitely oil, not (just) soot.

> ..change oilfilter _often_, as in every day. Should catch more.
> On oil change, flush the engine, or remove and clean the oil pan.

I do change oil more often, but I think I prefer a regular soot filter to
changing oil /that/ often. ;) I found a B23E at the junk yard the other
day. The inlet mainfold on the injection motor bends in a higher path
compared to the carburettor models, leaving some room for additional
filtering gadgets underneath it. It also has better CR (10) than that '75
B21A (8.5), mainfold walls suited for gas, and a little more volume. They
are scrapping cars like mad in Sweden at the moment. Fully functional
motors, whole cars even, with plenty of mileage left in them are sent
directly to metal recycling. What a capital waste...

Speaking of CR: I have the impression that the car begun to run better
after a while on producer gas. I wonder if not soot built up in the
cylinder heads and increased the CR for me automagically.

>
> ..also, consider finding a good oil pressure driven centrifugal
> oil jet filter like those used in the old Scania Vabis trucks.

They used to have centrifugal oil cleaners on older Fiat motors too. 850
Sport Coupé had it in the early 70's; same motor as for the 127 model, only
mirrored. Since a new oil filter canister costs about as much as a 4 litre
can of cheap oil, I prefer something servicable.

I've been thinking of building some sort of waste oil cleaner - a garage
gadget - for filtering out soot from waste oil. Something similar to the
endlessly debated tesla turbine is what I have in mind: A disk in a housing
with two pipes on each side of the housing, near the centre of the disk;
let the oil flow through it from one can to another by its own weight, and
power it with an ordinary electric drill or so. Then open it and scrape out
the goo.

I calculate that I can never get the gas completely clean from the tiniest
soot particles, so I'll change oil when it looks too sooty, and hopefully
the oil can be cleaned out from soot good enough for another go. Worth a
try anyway. The oil still lubricates, it's just too dirty.

> ..you are sure you have no ammonia in your gas? Should smell.

Ah, well I sort of try to avoid sniffing the gas. But there could be
ammonia I suppose, or lye or salt from the ash, or carbonic acid.

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

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From tombreed at home.com Sat Aug 4 13:37:46 2001
From: tombreed at home.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: Fw: GAS-L: Gasifier soot
Message-ID: <003801c11d0a$919f4fe0$18e5b618@lakwod3.co.home.com>

Cc: "gasification" <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 10:03 AM
Subject: RE: GAS-L: Gasifier soot

> Well hello Tom & Dr Parikh;
>
> It is very good to here from you after so long, Tom! We're glad to see
that
> you still are involved in Gasification. Since this last gasoline price
bout
> we have also considered revitalizing some of our efforts.
>
> About Soot and our engines...
> On the original '78 Malibu wagon, we rebuilt the small block V8 engine
> before we ever ran it on producer gas, taking time to mic cylinders,
shafts,
> pistons, etc. After the cross country trip, ~2,500 miles, we sent an oil
> sample to one of the aviation oil testing labs. The results: PARK THE
PLANE
> IMMEDIATELY! DO NOT FLY IT UNTIL IT IS COMPLETELY INSPECTED BY..... Well,
> you get the picture. On this vehicle our filtration system consisted of a
> cyclone separator and a canister filled with wire mesh, or as you might
> imagine, relatively little filtering at all. However, we did disassemble
> the engine at 6,600 miles and remeasured all the components and they
showed
> no measurable wear.
> On our 4th generation gasifier or marketable??? unit, we took advantage of
> the availability of hi-temp fabric filter materials and installed a dual
> filter immediately after the gas exits the gasifier unit. A this point we
> can filter without the danger of any condensation that would tend to clog
> the filters. The filter units had a patented cleaning system and the
> duality of allowed us to clean the filters while driving down the road.
We
> ran a truck on this system with dual gasoline for well over 10,000 miles
> before we removed the gasifier. The truck remained in our fleet on
> gasoline until we sold it a few years ago.
> I hope this information is of some use to you. Please feel free to
contact
> me at any time for more info.
> I am,
>
> Jerry W. Scott
> 2544 Willow Point Road
> Alexander City, AL 35010
> 256.212.1403 tel
> 256.212.1453 fax
> jws@russelllands.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prof P P Parikh [mailto:parikh@me.iitb.ac.in]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 10:52 PM
> To: Thomas Reed
> Cc: jws@russelllands.com; gasification
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Gasifier soot
>
>
> Dear Dr. Reed
>
> Utilisation of pulvarised coal is a direction in which reasonable amount
> of engine/fuels R&D is being carried out. What is necessaru is to
> charecteise soot in producer gas and find method of consuming it within
> engine in some amounts. I would not worry about soot, but when it is
> accompanied with TAR. Our studies show that TAR too can be handled by
> following certain engine starting and stopping methodology and revising
> the maintainence schedule of the engine.
> Mrs Parikh
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~
> Prof. (Mrs.) P.P.Parikh Phone Office : 5723496, 5767548
> Dept. of Mechanical Engg. 5722545 Ext. 7548 / 8385
> I.I.T. Bombay Home : 5704646
> Mumbai 400 076 INDIA Fax Office : 5723496, 5723480
>
> email : parikh@me.iitb.ac.in
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~
>
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Thomas Reed wrote:
>
> > Dear Ben Russelland Jerry Scott:
> >
> > I am the moderator at the gasification site at Crest.org and a question
> came up about soot in producer gas. I met Ben Russell at NREL about 1978
> and told him who to visit in Sweden to learn about gasifiers for cars.
> >
> > My memory is that Ben built a gasifier to run his '78 Malibu wagon. He
> spent a whole summer trying to get the soot out of the gas for a coast to
> coast energy contest. Gave up and ran with the soot, no problemo.
> >
> > I visited Ben's energy site at http://www.econcompany.com/. Lots of
> pictures of car gasifiers. (Sounds like Ben is having as much fun as I
am
> with wood energy.)
> >
> > We would all be grateful if you would give more details of the ECON
> car/soot problems and your current interests in gasification. Address me
> and gasification@crest.org.
> >
> > Thanks, TOM REED
> >
> >
> > Dr. Thomas Reed
> > The Biomass Energy Foundation
> > 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
> > 303 278 0558; tombreed@home.com
> >
>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From renertech at xtra.co.nz Sat Aug 4 15:59:38 2001
From: renertech at xtra.co.nz (renertech)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Don't waste your Oil!!!
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10108041240010.12290-100000@localhost>
Message-ID: <000c01c11d1f$e0281740$2ac636d2@p3coppermine>

Heh there, don't worry if your oil is black. Yes it is full of carbon but
its not gritty diamonds or soot, it is GRAPHITE!!! I can't remember where,
Tom or someone in the game full time may help here but there is a reference
somwhere on the analysis of carbon formed in the reverse gas reaction. The
presence of that graphite, good lubrication that it is, does also indicate
however that the charcoal in the grate, or underneath the throat is not hot
enough to continue the cracking process. So, you have two choices, run on
good lubrication, or up the temperature a bit and run on cleaner oil!
Ken Calvert. renertech @ xtra.co.nz
>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joacim Persson" <joacim@ymex.net>
To: "Gasification" <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 12:32 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...

> On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>>
> I calculate that I can never get the gas completely clean from the tiniest
> soot particles, so I'll change oil when it looks too sooty, and hopefully
> the oil can be cleaned out from soot good enough for another go. Worth a>
try anyway. The oil still lubricates, it's just too dirty.
>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From arnt at c2i.net Sat Aug 4 20:03:14 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Don't waste your Oil!!!
Message-ID: <3B6C871A.BCCC547B@c2i.net>

On Sun, 5 Aug 2001 07:58:47 +1200, "renertech" <renertech@xtra.co.nz>
wrote in <000c01c11d1f$e0281740$2ac636d2@p3coppermine>:

> Heh there, don't worry if your oil is black. Yes it is full of carbon but
> its not gritty diamonds or soot, it is GRAPHITE!!! I can't remember where,
> Tom or someone in the game full time may help here but there is a reference
> somwhere on the analysis of carbon formed in the reverse gas reaction. The
> presence of that graphite, good lubrication that it is, does also indicate
> however that the charcoal in the grate, or underneath the throat is not hot
> enough to continue the cracking process. So, you have two choices, run on
> good lubrication, or up the temperature a bit and run on cleaner oil!
> Ken Calvert. renertech @ xtra.co.nz
> >
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joacim Persson" <joacim@ymex.net>
> To: "Gasification" <gasification@crest.org>
> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 12:32 AM
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...
>
>
> > On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Arnt Karlsen wrote:

..I did _not_! Joacim did!
Perils of quoting wintendo-style. ;-)

> >>
> > I calculate that I can never get the gas completely clean from the tiniest

..anything smaller than 1/3 of the lube film thickness,
leave it alone. If it's graphite, it's bonus lube. If
it's diamonds, it's safely embedded in the lube film and
will not harm in any way until the oil pressure drops,
and can be sold as industrial diamonds.

> > soot particles, so I'll change oil when it looks too sooty, and hopefully
> > the oil can be cleaned out from soot good enough for another go. Worth a>
> try anyway. The oil still lubricates, it's just too dirty.
> >
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)

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

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From arnt at c2i.net Sat Aug 4 20:03:53 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...
Message-ID: <3B6C871F.661A9E92@c2i.net>

On Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:32:21 +0100 (GMT-1), Joacim Persson
<joacim@ymex.net> wrote in
<Pine.LNX.4.10.10108041240010.12290-100000@localhost>:

> On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>
> > ..what color is the tailpipe smoke?
>
> Er... oil-smoke coloured. ;) It's definitely oil, not (just) soot.

..so you can lay a blue smoke screen.

> > ..change oilfilter _often_, as in every day. Should catch more.
> > On oil change, flush the engine, or remove and clean the oil pan.
>
> I do change oil more often, but I think I prefer a regular soot filter to
> changing oil /that/ often. ;) I found a B23E at the junk yard the other
> day. The inlet mainfold on the injection motor bends in a higher path
> compared to the carburettor models, leaving some room for additional
> filtering gadgets underneath it. It also has better CR (10) than that '75

..going beyond 12, quit using gasoline, or spray in a wee dose water
too.

> B21A (8.5), mainfold walls suited for gas, and a little more volume. They
> are scrapping cars like mad in Sweden at the moment. Fully functional
> motors, whole cars even, with plenty of mileage left in them are sent
> directly to metal recycling. What a capital waste...
>
> Speaking of CR: I have the impression that the car begun to run better
> after a while on producer gas. I wonder if not soot built up in the
> cylinder heads and increased the CR for me automagically.

..everything kept identical, gas runs smoother than gasoline.

> > ..also, consider finding a good oil pressure driven centrifugal
> > oil jet filter like those used in the old Scania Vabis trucks.
>
> They used to have centrifugal oil cleaners on older Fiat motors too. 850
> Sport Coupé had it in the early 70's; same motor as for the 127 model, only
> mirrored. Since a new oil filter canister costs about as much as a 4 litre
> can of cheap oil, I prefer something servicable.
>
> I've been thinking of building some sort of waste oil cleaner - a garage
> gadget - for filtering out soot from waste oil. Something similar to the
> endlessly debated tesla turbine is what I have in mind: A disk in a housing
> with two pipes on each side of the housing, near the centre of the disk;
> let the oil flow through it from one can to another by its own weight, and
> power it with an ordinary electric drill or so. Then open it and scrape out
> the goo.

..drop the Fiat and Tesla toys and go with the truck jet centrifuge.
Or, become our toy guru. ;-)

> I calculate that I can never get the gas completely clean from the tiniest
> soot particles, so I'll change oil when it looks too sooty, and hopefully
> the oil can be cleaned out from soot good enough for another go. Worth a
> try anyway. The oil still lubricates, it's just too dirty.

..here I side with Ken.

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

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

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From JackProot at aol.com Sat Aug 4 21:19:48 2001
From: JackProot at aol.com (JackProot@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Plastic Recycling Via Gasification
Message-ID: <c9.137d78de.289df881@aol.com>

<< A client is seeking technology for commercial-scale
processing of waste plastics via gasification >>

Just a doubt : some plastics are quite nasty and the commercial
process may involve a very elaborate plant.
PVC for instance contains more than 50 % chlorine ...
One could add a flux that will react with Cl and produce chlorides
but most chlorides are volatile anyway at a normal gasification temperature.

Jacques

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From claush at et.dtu.dk Sun Aug 5 09:17:59 2001
From: claush at et.dtu.dk (Claus Hindsgaul)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Don't waste your Oil!!!
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10108041240010.12290-100000@localhost>
Message-ID: <200108051323.JAA00355@crest.solarhost.com>

lørdag den 4. august 2001 21:58 skrev renertech:
> Heh there, don't worry if your oil is black. Yes it is full of carbon but
> its not gritty diamonds or soot, it is GRAPHITE!!! I can't remember where,

Well, you are a little right and a little wrong on the nature of solid carbon
in wood gas.

The particles from a gasifier with occurences of high temperatures
(>900-1100C) certainly *do* contain soot similar to that found in e.g. diesel
exhaust and boilers. See e.g. Doug Williams electron microscope pictures on
his web site or my reports on particles from our web site (link below).

It is true, that these are not diamonds (unfortunately :-) ), but graphite
like structures known as carbon black. Carbon black is graphite structures
with disorders. The primary soot particles are spheres with diameters of
~100nm but can agglomerate to multi micron sized agglomerates.

Graphite is a well known lubricant, but its presence in ordinary engines
cause the oil to thicken. Some soot agglomerates will exceed sizes fo 5 and
even 10 microns, which may be harmful to your engine.

If you cool wood gas containing tars and soot, the tars will condense on your
soot particles. Even the very low tar contents of the two-stage gasifier here
at DTU (~25 mg/Nm3) leaves us with soot coated with ~6% tars by mass. So I
find it hard to see a way to feed the engine *with* soot and *no* tars.

But... if you remove the soot from the wood gas in e.g. a baghouse filter
after cooling (causing the tars to condense on the soot), the residual tars
in the gas are hardly measureable by any method (<5 mg/Nm3).
Btw, it is our experience, that soot with 6% tar still appear as non sticky,
dry dust. It is easy to handle, but beware of its toxicity if inhaled!

Also, do not forget to prepare your engine for ash particles, if you want to
save yourself the expense of a particle filter.

Sincerely,

Claus Hindsgaul

--
Ass. Researcher Claus Hindsgaul
Dep. Mechanical Engineering, Danish Technical University (DTU)
Phone: (+45) 4525 4174
http://www.et.dtu.dk/Halmfortet

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From snkm at btl.net Sun Aug 5 09:44:39 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: "KISS-me"
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010805073516.0096f760@wgs1.btl.net>

At 12:43 AM 8/4/2001 +0200, Weststeijn A <A.Weststeijn@epz.nl> wrote:
>Peter Singfield writes August 3rd, 2001
>
>> But then -- we are in another area of technology not popular among the
>> mind
>> set of this list -- using a refrigerant as working fluid rather than
>> water.
>> Yet the technology exists -- is applied and is well proven.
>>
>Whosayso... that another area of technology is not popular among the mind
>set of this list?
>How would you know? Perhaps that area differs too much from the purpose of
>this List to get a wide a response?

Hey -- I'm just "bugging" people to start a little free thinking. Onward
and hopefully upward.

>
>Sure, geothermal plants are in existence for a while.
>But I also recall our "butane heat extraction" discussion earlier this year,
>when you stepped quite easily over the difference of using 120 C hot
>geothermal steam (as a heat source) versus a 1000 C roaring flame. I would
>know a few "licensing authorities" getting a heart attack over just this
>minor practical difference...., that's the world I have to deal with.
>

But Ormat is selling units into Europe (meeting all the "codes) --
installing them to conventional boilers. They like to operate these at 300C
and use thermal oil in the fire pit heat exchanger.

>So, in these List discussions -even assuming sufficient mental flexibility
>of the participants- there always remains a personal judgment of what will
>swing it in the short run versus what is useful brainstorming for the long
>run.
>Obviously, both the practical short term, as well as the free flowing long
>term discussions have their place.
>You are sure very good at both! But often switch back and forth.

As mentioned above -- just twisting tail to get some movement --

>
><snip>
>
>> All old technology -- but granted -- invisible to a large extent at this
>> mail list ---
>>
>Indeed. You may expect too wide a field of technology to be discussed here.
>That does not mean that nobody would know or would be interested...
>

Well -- that is why I supply some refs -- so people can learn
"alternatives" if interested.

>>
>I mentioned KISS with respect to using oxygen for biomass gasification.
>Biomass gasification -for the time being, and in my opinion- does not need
>the additional technical complication of an oxygen plant, possibly pricing
>itself right out of the market.

These are exactly the kind of responses we need. There is a huge amount of
collective knowledge and experience on this mail list. It may simply be a
matter of triggering this critical mass.

>
>You are quite welcome to disagree (and you may even be right), but please
>don't give me the line that you can build such an oxygen plant yourself,
>much cheaper than the rest of this world, if you just had the tools.......
>:) :) :)
>(I believe you could)

No -- like you -- I tend to put the use of pure O2 in the realm of super
plants with extremely specific objective to over come.

For my part -- I see refrigerant vapor systems as an excellent method to
recover "waste" heat (of any gasification -- or IC engine) into mechanical
energy -- and wish we had more work being done on total steam reforming of
biomasses -- as represented in the appended (which I am sure to have posted
many times in the past few years)

I believe that IC engines are certainly an extremely viable way to get high
efficiency at a "right" price but wish we had a higher heating value
product -- a cleaner product -- and a system of producing same that does
not require so much fuel conditioning.

Steam reforming shows us one way to develop such -- read -- again -- the
appended.

I can see such a small reactor now -- you open it once per day -- fill is
with house hold wastes (plastic, paper, food wastes, sewage, lawn
clippings, old tire -- etc) close the hatch and produce the H2 you need to
run your fuel cell -- the methanol you need to run your car -- etc -- for a
couple of days to one week.

Waste heat can be used to power directly your air-conditioning -- or heat
your water and house.

Sounds all to expensive right now -- but imagine "thinking" about a vehicle
such as we use these days back in 1911 or so?

And -- the car makers area already reaching into that area of technology --
with gasifiers and fuel cells in cars. How "blind" to changes in technology
should we be on this list??

Using the system below one can actually understand that Delorian(spell??)
power plant in the Movie "Back from the Future" -- or something like that.
Where the man puts some garbage in the reaction vessel and zoom -- of he
goes!!

Hey -- we "dreamed" of getting to the moon for a long time as well ---

Peter Singfield / Belize

>
>best regards,
>Andries

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

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

Hydrogen Production/Recovery/Storage

DOE (Government) Funded

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

HYDROGEN PRODUCTION FROM HIGH-MOISTURE CONTENT BIOMASS IN
SUPERCRITICAL WATER
[IMAGE]

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

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is investigating the use of water as the medium for
converting biomass to gas. Previous work showed that low
concentrations of a model compound (glucose) and various wet biomass
species could be completely gasified in supercritical water at 600C
and 34.5 MPa (5,000 psi) after 30 seconds. But higher concentrations
of glucose resulted in incomplete conversion. For this reason, flow
reactors have been constructed that accommodate packed beds of
catalyst. The goal is to identify active catalysts for steam
reforming biomass slurries in supercritical water. Carbon-based
catalysts promote complete conversion (>99%) of high-concentration
glucose (up to 22% by weight) to a hydrogen-rich synthesis gas. The
catalyst is stable over a period of several hours, is inexpensive,
and exists in a wide variety of forms. The gaseous products
(primarily hydrogen, CO2, and methane) separate from the water upon
cooling at the reactor exit and are then available for storage or
further processing at a pressure of 34.5 MPa.
PARTICIPANT

University of Hawaii

STATUS
Project is ongoing

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

FUNDING PROFILE

Funding Source: DOE/Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy-Office of
Utility Technologies

Funding Mechanism: Grant
Funding Level (in thousands):Funding Level (in thousands):
------------------------------------------------
FY94 FY95 FY96 TOTAL
________________________________________________
U of Hawaii $140 $150 $200 $490
------------------------------------------------

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/
POINT OF CONTACT

U. OF HAWAII
M. Antal
Phone: 808-956-8346
Fax : 808-956-2335

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

6-23

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

*** References from this document ***

[orig]
http://search.dis.anl.gov/plweb-cgi/idoc_oit.pl?231+unix+op+no+_free_user_+s
earch.dis.anl.gov+oit-db+oit-db+oit+oit+++++1%20minute+3+http://refining.dis
.anl.gov/oit/toc/h2proc_8.html+Return_to_Hydrogen_Production/Recovery/Storag
e_TOC

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From tombreed at home.com Sun Aug 5 10:39:26 2001
From: tombreed at home.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tar to soot, CO to Kisch
In-Reply-To: <3B6C871A.BCCC547B@c2i.net>
Message-ID: <00cc01c11dba$44a87da0$18e5b618@lakwod3.co.home.com>

Dear Arnt and All:

The reverse Boudouard reaction,

2 CO ===> C + CO2 at 400< T < 700

is catalysed by metals as in pipes. A danger zone to pass through rapidly
when cooling producer gas. It occurs in steel mills where the carbon makes
the floors slipery with "Kisch (shit) Carbon". I personally have never seen
it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I believe that "soot" (submicron particles produced in the gas phase - NOT
small particles from the solid) forms when the large high temperature tar
particles (PAHs, Napththalene and up) are roasted in the absence of enough
oxygen, steam or CO2. There is a "carbon saturation" line running
diagonally down through the Air/Fuel ratio vs temperature plot. More air and
you make CO/H2 from the tar; less air and you make soot.

TOM REED

From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt@c2i.net>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Don't waste your Oil!!!

> On Sun, 5 Aug 2001 07:58:47 +1200, "renertech" <renertech@xtra.co.nz>
> wrote in <000c01c11d1f$e0281740$2ac636d2@p3coppermine>:
>
> > Heh there, don't worry if your oil is black. Yes it is full of carbon
but
> > its not gritty diamonds or soot, it is GRAPHITE!!! I can't remember
where,
> > Tom or someone in the game full time may help here but there is a
reference
> > somwhere on the analysis of carbon formed in the reverse gas reaction.
The
> > presence of that graphite, good lubrication that it is, does also
indicate
> > however that the charcoal in the grate, or underneath the throat is not
hot
> > enough to continue the cracking process. So, you have two choices, run
on
> > good lubrication, or up the temperature a bit and run on cleaner oil!
> > Ken Calvert. renertech @ xtra.co.nz
> > >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joacim Persson" <joacim@ymex.net>
> > To: "Gasification" <gasification@crest.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 12:32 AM
> > Subject: Re: GAS-L: TarFree gas vs Tar resistant engine...
> >
> >
> > > On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>
> ..I did _not_! Joacim did!
> Perils of quoting wintendo-style. ;-)
>
> ..
>
> > >>
> > > I calculate that I can never get the gas completely clean from the
tiniest
>
> ..anything smaller than 1/3 of the lube film thickness,
> leave it alone. If it's graphite, it's bonus lube. If
> it's diamonds, it's safely embedded in the lube film and
> will not harm in any way until the oil pressure drops,
> and can be sold as industrial diamonds.
>
> > > soot particles, so I'll change oil when it looks too sooty, and
hopefully
> > > the oil can be cleaned out from soot good enough for another go. Worth
a>
> > try anyway. The oil still lubricates, it's just too dirty.
> > >
> --
> ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
>
> Scenarios always come in sets of three:
> best case, worst case, and just in case.
>
>
> -
> Gasification List Archives:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
> www.webpan.com/BEF
>
> Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Gasification Events and Information:
> http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From thomas at biopilze.de Sun Aug 5 13:29:45 2001
From: thomas at biopilze.de (Thomas Ziegler)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: use of wood as prefilter?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10108041240010.12290-100000@localhost>
Message-ID: <3B6D816A.4F9AC862@biopilze.de>

in a post called "Dont waste your Oil!!! claus hindsgaul wrote...

>...If you cool wood gas containing tars and soot, the tars will condense on your soot particles. Even the very low tar contents of the two-stage gasifier here at DTU (~25 mg/Nm3) leaves us with soot coated with ~6% tars by mass. So I find it hard to see a way to feed the engine *with* soot and *no* tars.
>
> But... if you remove the soot from the wood gas in e.g. a baghouse filter after cooling (causing the tars to condense on the soot), the residual tars in the gas are hardly measureable by any method (<5 mg/Nm3).
> Btw, it is our experience, that soot with 6% tar still appear as non sticky, dry dust. It is easy to handle, but beware of its toxicity if inhaled!
>
> Also, do not forget to prepare your engine for ash particles, if you want to save yourself the expense of a particle filter...

just an idea/ question from a newbie -i have seen the usual "downdraft
gasifier"...

how about that possible technology?!:

FIRST use the still waiting to get fired (thus cool) woody material as a
tar-/ soot-/ dust- PREfilter to (try to!?) minimize maintainance and
avoid disposal of such eg "baghouse filters"... THEN feed in this
collected tar/soot/ash trapped on the woody fuel in the gasification
process THUS gasifying most tar/soot sticking to the wood material AND
THEN just get rid of most remaining dirt by simply collecting ash in a
cyclone...
...sure you still need washing and cooling of the gas...

thomas

--
der kleine deutsche oeko-pilz-anbauer \
the small german organic mushroomer http://www.biopilze.de/wir.htm
le petit eco - champignoneur allemand /

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From LINVENT at aol.com Sun Aug 5 15:25:55 2001
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:33 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Don't waste your Oil!!!
Message-ID: <12c.278dcf0.289ef70d@aol.com>

â€œNothing splendid has ever been achieved except by those who dared believe
that something inside them was superior to circumstances.â€
-- Bruce Barton

Bonus Quote: "If you ever think you are too small to be effective, just
remember the last time you were bitten by a mosquito."
-- Unknown
have a nice week

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Sun Aug 5 15:37:26 2001
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: German Report Doug Replies
Message-ID: <001801c11de5$9e4c4780$2d9636d2@graeme>

Dear Colleagues

I really appreciate the private and public support since I posted the German
Report, as it appears to be a universal problem everywhere of bureaucratic
ignorance of what we are trying to achieve.

Many of the suggestions made to me are already in place which is why I have
become a little impatient. Anyway the summer holidays which rotate through
Germany is almost passed the peak, and maybe they can get the rubber stamps
working again!

Without wishing to sound fanatical about our chosen field of endeavour, it
does seem to me that we are an invisible group and we have to find a way to
buy a bigger drum to beat.

I don't know how your energy conferences are, but most trade displays are of
ancillary technologies, and only a few biomass to energy manufacturers.
Those attending are usually already converts or professional conference
delegates, and maybe our elaborately prepared presentations are just too
boring to grab the attention of those we have to impress. Or is what we do
too little, too dispersed, or the issues too complex for the generations of
fossil fuel consumers who continuously demand more cheap energy? How about
some new ideas for our conferences and presentations, like free trade space
for those manufacturing actual energy conversion equipment?

Here in New Zealand the whole country is facing electrical power shortages
as our hydro lakes empty at an almost unprecedented rate. The spot market
for power went from $0.05 to $1.00/kWe overnight, and you can imagine how
everyone is passing the buck while making "big bucks".

Our main power grids are long and line losses are as high as 25% in some
areas, and we have a network of ageing uneconomic rural grids. There is
also a large rural population whose traditional work has been lost by
centralisation of many small sawmills and factories.

Thanks to some enterprising farm foresters, a plan is in the making to
reintroduce on farm or in forest milling and use the waste wood for power
generation. Using these rural grids as collectors, quite substantial
amounts of power can be generated all year for peak consumption times saving
the hydro for winter. It must be a good idea for it looks like a technical
workshop will be convened early September. The regional councils are likely
to be well represented as most have forests, rural populations and grids.
I will try to post a report on proceedings, but I may be in Canada when it
is convened.

Regards
Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification.

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From claush at et.dtu.dk Sun Aug 5 16:49:06 2001
From: claush at et.dtu.dk (Claus Hindsgaul)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: use of wood as prefilter?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10108041240010.12290-100000@localhost>
Message-ID: <200108052054.QAA27594@crest.solarhost.com>

søndag den 5. august 2001 19:24 skrev du:
> how about that possible technology?!:

You can use wood chips as a grannular filter, but I would not expect it to be
very efficient at removing submicron particles such as soot, since the wood
chips are too coarse. Textile and paper filters can do it due to the small
distances between the fibres.

Also, a wood chip filter will require a reasonably gas tight filter container
with continuous or batch renewal of the wood chips. I believe that this would
be quite expensive and require a lot of maintenance to be done safely.

But you would have the benefit gaining the otherwise wasted energy in the
soot and tar without additional steps.

Sincerely,

Claus Hindsgaul

--
Ass. Researcher Claus Hindsgaul
Dep. Mechanical Engineering, Danish Technical University (DTU)
Phone: (+45) 4525 4174
http://www.et.dtu.dk/Halmfortet

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From arnt at c2i.net Sun Aug 5 17:30:25 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: German Report Doug Replies
Message-ID: <3B6DB4CD.51ACAE67@c2i.net>

On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 07:32:54 +1200, "Graeme Williams"
<graeme@powerlink.co.nz> wrote in
<001801c11de5$9e4c4780$2d9636d2@graeme>:

> Here in New Zealand the whole country is facing electrical power shortages
> as our hydro lakes empty at an almost unprecedented rate. The spot market
> for power went from $0.05 to $1.00/kWe overnight, and you can imagine how
> everyone is passing the buck while making "big bucks".

..just like in California. Selling electricity at a buck
per kWh, from gasification, is a _legal_ get-rich-quick scheme.

..all I need is funding. Or a power sales contract. Anyone?
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)

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

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From woolsey at netins.net Sun Aug 5 18:59:39 2001
From: woolsey at netins.net (Ed Woolsey)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: use of wood as prefilter?
In-Reply-To: <200108052054.QAA27594@crest.solarhost.com>
Message-ID: <LPBBIJOLHNAMNECGNMPMAEHLDAAA.woolsey@netins.net>

I saw a wood chip filter like the one discussed back in the early 80's. The
small (~10kw) gasifier was manufactured in Missouri I believe. The producer
gas was drawn though a small removable container which was filled with wood
chips. The container was frequently removed, dumped into the fuel bin,
refilled and reinserted. The system seemed to do a good job of keeping the
little 4 cylinder engine clean. Oh yes, the gas was also bubbled through a
liquid and a spray mist. I think we were using water in the bath, but it
could have been #2 diesel fuel or ethanol.

Ed Woolsey
Iowa

-----Original Message-----
From: Claus Hindsgaul [mailto:claush@et.dtu.dk]
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 3:08 PM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: Re: GAS-L: use of wood as prefilter?

søndag den 5. august 2001 19:24 skrev du:
> how about that possible technology?!:

You can use wood chips as a grannular filter, but I would not expect it to
be
very efficient at removing submicron particles such as soot, since the wood
chips are too coarse. Textile and paper filters can do it due to the small
distances between the fibres.

Also, a wood chip filter will require a reasonably gas tight filter
container
with continuous or batch renewal of the wood chips. I believe that this
would
be quite expensive and require a lot of maintenance to be done safely.

But you would have the benefit gaining the otherwise wasted energy in the
soot and tar without additional steps.

Sincerely,

Claus Hindsgaul

--
Ass. Researcher Claus Hindsgaul
Dep. Mechanical Engineering, Danish Technical University (DTU)
Phone: (+45) 4525 4174
http://www.et.dtu.dk/Halmfortet

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From joflo at yifan.net Sun Aug 5 19:24:33 2001
From: joflo at yifan.net (Joel Florian)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: interesting biomass burner gasifier?
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20010805151727.0094ef00@yifan.net>

Dear gasifiers,

In searching for firebox designs for my woodchip-fired boiler, I ran across
an interesting link: http://www.naturesfurnace.com/explanation.htm

It overcomes some drawbacks that I've been puzzling over with burning
biomass: It can handle bridging and non uniform material (uses bridging to
advantage) The unburned biomass acts as refractory (renewed every time the
hopper is filled and somewhat self-regulating). However, it seems like it
might act as a gasifier -- the hot gasses of combustion have to pass up
through the unburned biomass. My guess is that some pyrolysis gasses and
CO would be in the smoke of this burner. Am I right? Your help is
appreciated.

Sincerely,
Joel Florian

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From claush at et.dtu.dk Mon Aug 6 03:29:56 2001
From: claush at et.dtu.dk (Claus Hindsgaul)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: use of wood as prefilter?
In-Reply-To: <LPBBIJOLHNAMNECGNMPMAEHLDAAA.woolsey@netins.net>
Message-ID: <200108060932958.SM00848@there>

mandag den 6. august 2001 00:56 skrev du:
> I saw a wood chip filter like the one discussed back in the early 80's.
> The small (~10kw) gasifier was manufactured in Missouri I believe. The
> producer gas was drawn though a small removable container which was filled
> with wood chips. The container was frequently removed, dumped into the
> fuel bin, refilled and reinserted. The system seemed to do a good job of
> keeping the little 4 cylinder engine clean. Oh yes, the gas was also
> bubbled through a liquid and a spray mist. I think we were using water in
> the bath, but it could have been #2 diesel fuel or ethanol.

You can even have continuous operation with two batch filters. I still
believe, that it is better at adsorbing tars than collecting submicron soot
from the gas. The same could be said about the spray mist. You will also end
up with very wet fuel, although you will not have problems with fungus, even
if you store it for a long time :-)

Now, imagine the same plant scaled up to just 500 kW. Can you build a good
safe wood filter which does not require too much maintenance?

I do not see it myself, but I may be proven wrong...

Claus

--
Claus Hindsgaul
Institut for Mekanik, Energi og Konstruktion, DTU Område 120
Tlf: 4525 4174, Fax: 4593 5761, http://www.et.dtu.dk/Halmfortet
claush@mek.dtu.dk (PGP-nøgle: http://www.image.dk/~claus_h/PGP.htm )

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From thomas at biopilze.de Mon Aug 6 03:44:30 2001
From: thomas at biopilze.de (Thomas Ziegler)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: use of wood as prefilter?
In-Reply-To: <LPBBIJOLHNAMNECGNMPMAEHLDAAA.woolsey@netins.net>
Message-ID: <3B6E49D3.135F44DA@biopilze.de>

claus hindsgaul wrote:
>... Now, imagine the same plant scaled up to just 500 kW. Can you build a good safe wood filter which does not require too much maintenance?
I do not see it myself, but I may be proven wrong...

am still waiting for ideas/ posts from / anyway counting on peter
singfield -our specialist in such things like climatisation/
ventilation/ vacuum tech...

just an idea: to evacuate this filter/ container or at least prefill it
with already cleaned gas could make it suitable for (a more) continuous
mode...?!, thomas

--
der kleine deutsche oeko-pilz-anbauer \
the small german organic mushroomer http://www.biopilze.de/wir.htm
le petit eco - champignoneur allemand /

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Mon Aug 6 08:07:48 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: what subjects on this Gasification List
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F511A@sp0016.epz.nl>

> Peter Singfield[SMTP:snkm@btl.net] writes zondag 5 augustus 2001 14:39
>
> But Ormat is selling units into Europe (meeting all the "codes) --
> installing them to conventional boilers. They like to operate these at
> 300C
> and use thermal oil in the fire pit heat exchanger.
and
> For my part -- I see refrigerant vapor systems as an excellent method to
> recover "waste" heat (of any gasification -- or IC engine) into mechanical
> energy --
>
Dear Peter and all,

These two items are very important, and of a fairly universal nature (i.e.
can be applied in many places).
They are most certainly worth debating with respect to optimum use of energy
input, in order to minimize waste of energy and minimize energy generation
related emissions. Both belongs in the "sustainable" category and are of
interest from a Kyoto point of view.
But they are not specific to biomass gasification, although they may help
gasification like any thermal system.
Therefore, perhaps comments of the List could be invited as to how and where
to debate these two themes?

> and wish we had more work being done on total steam reforming of
> biomasses -- as represented in the appended (which I am sure to have
> posted
> many times in the past few years)
and
> Steam reforming shows us one way to develop such -- read -- again -- the
> appended.
and
> and produce the H2 you need to run your fuel cell -- the methanol you need
> to run your car -- etc -- for a
> couple of days to one week.
>
Peter, steam reforming, hot isostatic pressure processing of biomass, and H2
making in general, appear to have a big future. And so has the fuel cell
technology, not just for road transportation, also for static power
applications.
These are theme's somehow connected to biomass gasification, but so is flash
pyrolysis, methanol /ethanol making etc.
Also here, some consensus must exist on how wide the definition of
gasification is to be on this List. And perhaps then discuss these items
-here or elsewhere- under separate, recognizable and retrievable headers.

I -for one- am of the opinion that the subjects you bring up are quite
relevant to the broader issue of sustainability, and -personally- I am very
interested in your "comparative approach" between the many green power
options, as you continue to stimulate. And in fact I find the variety of
subjects on this List attractive.
However, I also can visualize people solely involved in gasification per se,
finding the "comparative discussions" quite distractive.

Perhaps the answer lies in even clearer headers for the thread's?
Comments anyone?

best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From VHarris001 at aol.com Mon Aug 6 10:00:36 2001
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:34 2004
Subject: Fw: GAS-L: Gasifier soot
Message-ID: <7c.19940931.289ffc4f@aol.com>

> On our 4th generation gasifier or marketable??? unit, we took advantage of
> the availability of hi-temp fabric filter materials and installed a dual
> filter immediately after the gas exits the gasifier unit. A this point we
> can filter without the danger of any condensation that would tend to clog
> the filters. The filter units had a patented cleaning system and the
> duality of allowed us to clean the filters while driving down the road.

Hi Jerry,

Will you elaborate on the filtering setup you used? I'm particularly
interested in the high-temp and self-cleaning aspects of the filtering system.

Thanks,
Vernon Harris

From calsch at montana.com Mon Aug 6 11:01:02 2001
From: calsch at montana.com (Cal)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: unsubscribe gasification
Message-ID: <3B6EA2B6.8EA03355@montana.com>

unsubscribe gasification

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From snkm at btl.net Mon Aug 6 11:15:14 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Combustion Vs Gasification
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010806085400.008ff500@wgs1.btl.net>

At 02:04 PM 8/6/2001 +0200, Weststeijn A <A.Weststeijn@epz.nl> wrote:

>>
>Dear Peter and all,
>
>These two items are very important, and of a fairly universal nature (i.e.
>can be applied in many places).
>They are most certainly worth debating with respect to optimum use of energy
>input, in order to minimize waste of energy and minimize energy generation
>related emissions. Both belongs in the "sustainable" category and are of
>interest from a Kyoto point of view.
>But they are not specific to biomass gasification, although they may help
>gasification like any thermal system.
>Therefore, perhaps comments of the List could be invited as to how and where
>to debate these two themes?
>

OK -- the lets talk partial combustion gasification. There is one extremely
important topic that keeps getting avoided -- sidelined in discussions
regarding "tars" and "sooth" -- that being fuel conditioning!

For all the people talking about partial combustion gasification -- no one
is concerned with fuel conditioning -- even though it is the biggest block
to this technology ever being widely accepted!

Rough rule of thumb -- 1 kg biomass to produce 1 kwh power -- gasifier to
IC motor. And that is "giving" a lot to the gasifier -- meaning it will
normally be more than 1 kg biomass to make 1 kwh.

But what is not mentioned is that the biomass involved must be 20% or less
humidity! And of certain physical sizing.

The physical sizing is resolved in straight-forward manner -- though for a
"cost" -- pelletizing -- chipping -- hogging -- etc.

But drying from a "given" 55% "green" to 20% is not straight forward.

We never have discussions at this list regarding "drying" biomasses. It is
simply the forbidden subject. Neophytes are slyly led to believe that these
gasifiers are manna from heaven when it comes to producing power from
biomasses.

OK -- one contributor is concerned regarding producing 500 kwh of power.

Well -- not cheating -- the biomass fuel starts out at 55% (average)
humidity -- and all processing to make it 20% or less humidity has to be
included in the over all plan. If this form of biomass gasification is to
become a global panacea for replacing fossil fuels -- one can no longer
depend on the specialty fuels -- such as kiln dried saw dust wastes --
stored under a roof.

500 kwh = a very minimum of 500 kg of 20% humidity biomass per hour!!

Using 8000 btu per pound (ash free) -- or 2.34 kwh per pound -- as heat
value of biomass.

20% humidity biomass = 1.87 kwh + the rest as H20

55% humidity biomass = 1.05 kwh + the rest as H2O

So now the 500 kg per hour fuel requirements is really:

1.87/1.05 * 500 kg = 890 kg of real world biomass!!

390 kg per hour has to be evaporated!! At a thermodynamic cost of:

301.8 kwh

Plus -- no where under this sun can you find such a device that can dry --
of the run -- 390 kg per hour. And surely never at 100% efficiency!!

But giving every benefit of the doubt - drier efficiency of 80% -- so now
310.8 kwh invested in fuel conditioning -- just for drying (mechanical fuel
conditioning also sucks up kwh -- but later) -- is:

372.96 kwh required to dry "condition" fuel for a 500 kwh out put gasifier!!!

Yet these gasifier people do not tell you any of this!!

Buy our device. And you will get 20% or more over all efficiency from fuel
in to power out!!

Wow -- want one of those now!!

But that is efficiency after the fuel has been processed -- in this case
example -- from 890 kg to 500 kg -- how it is "dried" -- well -- that is
not "their" problem.

Cute -- so cute!!

And oh yes -- this is the sure solution for 3rd world power needs!! First
the gasifier -- then the IC engine -- then the drier -- but lets make the
drier a pelletizer. (Just one little "Give-me")

OK folks -- for 3rd world they cut the trees down with a machete -- they
haul the lengths of wood to a landing on their backs. But "give-me" a
multi-million dollar pelletizer plant and I'll show you how to advance in
3rd world!!

OK -- let's look at present state of the art.

Old style fire tube boiler attached to an Ormat refrigerent working fluid
device -- the thermodynamic connection made with a thermal oil -- no
pressure in the system.

Over all efficiencies are 15% at present. With green wood -- not dried
wood!! And lots of room for improvement.

There is no changing of motor oil (another "waste" of kwh -- or oil filters
(more waste) or engine tear downs and rebuilds (again -- more kwhr coming
in from off shore -- in fabricating those parts -- plus sales profits on
all 3 items)

I am going to break this off now -- I believe the point is made --

But I would believe that addressing fuel conditioning problems would be of
prime importance to this list if they were serious about introducing
partial combustion technology to the world at large.

So let us start --- how exactly would one drie that 500 kg of "final
conditioned" biomass -- say wood -- to run that 500 kwh gasifier power plant?

Rotary kiln using waste heat from gasifier and IC engine??

Sure -- it can be done. One quickly sees enough waste heat coming out to
accomplish this.

OK folks -- then describe the device that can do this and please give a
price quote!

Like in how much for a turn-key biomass gassification process to make 500 kwh?

Now -- the mechanical conditioning. The natives are back-packing lengths of
wood out on their backs. You need it in small chunks. How much energy costs
for that?? How much capital investment for that?

Again -- how much for a turn-key biomass gassification process to make 500
kwh?

And finally --

Ash of simple wood combustion is an excellent fertilizer around this area
of the world. Ergo -- all ash is readily redistributed back to the same
areas the biomass is harvested from -- where one or two crops are planted
before tree growth resumes -- to be harvested 6 years down the road again.
(a perfectly balanced energy production cycle)

Can we do the same with "char" and "tars"???

As for "smoke" -- natural combustion produces a "smoke" no different from
when the locals are clearing land for cultivation. This they have been
doing for 1000's of years. This is part of the ecosystem here.

Combustion of biomasses is green -- whether "Greens" believe that or not!!
If not man burning to plant -- forest fires. We may not like it -- but it
is part of the nature of things.

A combustion power plant operating along the lines I hint at above is a
natural event. Except instead of blowing heat to the skies -- we make
"power" out of it on its way there.

Yet we have people like Andries really believing this "Gasification"
process -- as discussed on this list -- will make our world "green" again
because less pollution in the exhaust gasses going up the flu!!

The "arrogance" of "moderns" is so shocking at all times!! I thought
America was something -- but Europeans are much worse!!

I am your 3rd world judge -- make no mistake about that! You present the
plans -- I can judge if feasible of not to adapt to 3rd world.

Until you solve the problems I point out above -- gasifier technology as
presented to this list is not 3rd world friendly! (or ecologically acceptable)

And please -- always remember this -- combustion of any "mass" at any time
is "gasification"!! We are simply trying to improve the "efficiencies" of
this process.

>However, I also can visualize people solely involved in gasification per se,
>finding the "comparative discussions" quite distractive.

I take that to mean:

"Ignore all the above -- keep pretending you have the world's best solution
to biomass power"

>
>Perhaps the answer lies in even clearer headers for the thread's?
>Comments anyone?
>

The answer lays in not avoiding the question of fuel conditioning involved
in this lists preferred discussion on biomass gasification systems --
followed by the toxic wastes produced with gasification -- and what to do
with these.

Which -- brings one full circle to steam reformation -- which does turn
tars back to gas energy -- and if that is the solution to tars -- why not
steam reform from the very get-go -- lose the partial combustion gasifier??

There -- certainly some thoughts for all to consider -- and I hope I have
managed to drag a few feet back to touch earth -- rather than their
floating around in dream land.

I have designs to finish drafting -- one is a simple village combustion
unit -- steam based -- along the lines Skip was so fond of. But of simpler,
much more economic design -- with about 4 times the over all efficiencies.
Ash for fertilzer -- heat for power.

(Simple Uniflow "steam" engine -- big piston -- long stroke -- low rpm --
and a super heating boiler -- along the lines of steam cars of past boilers
-- but not flash tube -- fire tube -- but flash (injection) boilers -- not
water pressure cookers -- but injection boilers with thick cast iron
castings to use "iron" as thermal "bump" conditioner rather than a water
reservoir in a "pressure-cooker".

Casting cast iron being one on the manufacturing processes 3rd world does
well.

No fuel conditioning at all!!

All this pompous -- we have the solution to 3rd world power needs -- use a
gasifier -- is distracting me to no end.

Show me how to fuel condition your biomass during the rainy season ----

How big a shed do you want these people to build to keep all that fuel dry??

All subjects never broached on this list -- all these secret "give-mees" --

Gasification power plants -- as presented -- require a huge amount of
mechanical devices (not the least being the IC engine) with a huge amount
of mechanical maintenance problems. With numerous areas -- such as fuel
conditioning -- not even "discussed".

As a hard headed engineer -- it all smells -- almost along the same lines
as the Tesla Turbine -- Gimee -- Gimee -- Gimee.

There are no give-me's in 3rd world.

A cast iron combustion furance/boiler, running a cast iron steam engine,
getting 5% over all efficiencies from gree -- unconditioned wood ---
running for ever and one day -- very basic maintenance. (in this design --
oiless steam engine -- and sealed bearing on crank -- no oil filters -- no
changing oil)

A young boy (or girl) feeding in wood as required. And adjusting water
injection to the boiler as required. That being the "micro-processor"
controler.

Now Andries -- point me to a mail list that is involved with reality
regarding 3rd world power production and I am out of here!

Then you all can start counting how many angels can dance of the head of a
pin to your hearts content!

I'm back to doing the technical drawings for a micro 500 watt power plant
-- such as does have real "3rd" world application -- using biomass.

These will be very handy once you moderns have self-destructed and no
"Give-me's" are left to hide behind!!

Give me multi mega watt coal gasifier plants -- give me "grid" -- give me a
consumer oriented society to sell the power to -- gimee -- gimee gimeeeeee!
And let the gimmes never stop rolling -- for ever!!

Aladin's lamp has nothing on you guys!!

Peter Singfield / Belize

>best regards,
>Andries Weststeijn

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk Mon Aug 6 12:02:45 2001
From: Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:34 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Combustion Vs Gasification
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010806085400.008ff500@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGOEDECDAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>

Peter,
Are you serious in wanting a quote for a 500kg/hr (at 20%wb) output biomass
chip dryer?

Do you have a potential fuel source- more biomass, waste heat? If so how
much at what temperature.
Do you want batch feed or continuous operation.

What temperature and humidity (average) do you get through the rainy season,
How much dry material do you want in your buffer store?

If you can answer these questions I can give you a price a FOB price for
guaranteed and demonstrated technology, simple, reliable and available now.

You are right - most people haven't considered fuel conditioning- but I
have!!
Kind regards

Gavin Gulliver- Goodall
3G Energi
St.Boswells
Melrose
UK

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Singfield [mailto:snkm@btl.net]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 15:10
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: Combustion Vs Gasification

At 02:04 PM 8/6/2001 +0200, Weststeijn A <A.Weststeijn@epz.nl> wrote:

>>
>Dear Peter and all,
>
>These two items are very important, and of a fairly universal nature (i.e.
>can be applied in many places).
>They are most certainly worth debating with respect to optimum use of
energy
>input, in order to minimize waste of energy and minimize energy generation
>related emissions. Both belongs in the "sustainable" category and are of
>interest from a Kyoto point of view.
>But they are not specific to biomass gasification, although they may help
>gasification like any thermal system.
>Therefore, perhaps comments of the List could be invited as to how and
where
>to debate these two themes?
>