February 2001 Gasification Archive

From LINVENT at aol.com Tue Feb 6 13:51:14 2001
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:06 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Dual fuel mode
Message-ID: <94.fc467a4.27b1925c@aol.com>

Dear Mr. Martin and others,
Different engine manufacturers state that different diesel fuel
replacement levels are feasible. We have seen 5%-15% remaining diesel use
from producer gas as a base.
Tom Taylor

From owner-gasification at crest.org Tue Feb 6 14:00:08 2001
From: owner-gasification at crest.org (by way of Tom Miles <tmiles@teleport.com>)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:06 2004
Subject: BOUNCE gasification@crest.org: Non-member submission from [Gene Zebley <zebley1@email.com>]
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010206084322.00e69bb0@mail.teleport.com>

Approved: stubb1e
From: Gene Zebley <zebley1@email.com>
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Upside down world

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 6:32:00
Organization: Hurst Boiler and Welding Co., Inc.
To: gasification@crest.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=PMail:=_0000@@cGswGSGsLNPa0JK9eQxV"

--=PMail:=_0000@@cGswGSGsLNPa0JK9eQxV
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The reason California is short of electricity is that almost 35% of their
electrical production is off-line for scheduled and "unsceduled" maintenanc=
e.
How convenient for their pricing structure. The newly created "middlemen"
aren't helping pricing either.
I heard one "expert" say last night that the .com industries in CA are
consuming up to 100 kW per square foot to operate their server farms and
they are expected to consume up to 50% of the US electrical production
capacity by 2005.

Best regards,
Gene Zebley
International Project Marketing and Management

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

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

From: gasification@crest.org
To: Internet Mail::[gasification@crest.org]

Subject: GAS-L: Upside down world
Date: 2/8/01 11:12 AM

Dear Gassers,
The world is currently upside down. Natural gas is more expensive
than =

electricity in certain parts of the country. (US)
$5/mmbtu=3D$.045/kwhr for just the natural gas cost of power. Much of the

electricity is selling for less than that and gas is going at up to $8/mmbt=
u.

Deregulation in California has failed because the system is not =

deregulated, only capped. Texas deregulation and other areas of the country=

are very successful. Unfortunately, it will damage the entire process
of =

deregulation nationwide and I understand there is even impacts being felt

politically in Europe. =

--=PMail:=_0000@@cGswGSGsLNPa0JK9eQxV--

From owner-gasification at crest.org Tue Feb 6 14:09:54 2001
From: owner-gasification at crest.org (by way of Tom Miles <tmiles@teleport.com> by way of Tom Miles <tmiles@teleport.com>)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:06 2004
Subject: GAS-L: BOUNCE gasification@crest.org: Non-member submission from [Gene Zebley <zebley1@email.com>]
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010206100415.00e74100@mail.teleport.com>

Approved: stubb1e
From: Gene Zebley <zebley1@email.com>
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Upside down world

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 6:32:00
Organization: Hurst Boiler and Welding Co., Inc.
To: gasification@crest.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=PMail:=_0000@@cGswGSGsLNPa0JK9eQxV"

--=PMail:=_0000@@cGswGSGsLNPa0JK9eQxV
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Best regards,
Gene Zebley
International Project Marketing and Management

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

From: gasification@crest.org
To: Internet Mail::[gasification@crest.org]

Subject: GAS-L: Upside down world
Date: 2/8/01 11:12 AM

Dear Gassers,
The world is currently upside down. Natural gas is more expensive
than =

electricity in certain parts of the country. (US)
$5/mmbtu=3D$.045/kwhr for just the natural gas cost of power. Much of the

electricity is selling for less than that and gas is going at up to $8/mmbt=
u.

Deregulation in California has failed because the system is not =

deregulated, only capped. Texas deregulation and other areas of the country=

are very successful. Unfortunately, it will damage the entire process
of =

deregulation nationwide and I understand there is even impacts being felt

politically in Europe. =

--=PMail:=_0000@@cGswGSGsLNPa0JK9eQxV--

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

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Tue Feb 6 15:32:17 2001
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:06 2004
Subject: GAS-L: BOUNCE gasification@crest.org: Non-member submission from [Gene Zebley <zebley1@email.com>]
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010206084322.00e69bb0@mail.teleport.com>
Message-ID: <NEBBLHHHOLFOEGCILKHECEJMCFAA.kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>

Dear Gene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: by way of Tom Miles <tmiles@teleport.com>
> [mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 12:44 PM
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: BOUNCE gasification@crest.org: Non-member submission
> from [Gene Zebley <zebley1@email.com>]
>
>
>...del...
> I heard one "expert" say last night that the .com industries in CA are
> consuming up to 100 kW per square foot to operate their server farms and
> they are expected to consume up to 50% of the US electrical production
> capacity by 2005.

This "expert" should be questionsd further....
100kW is a lotta power. Even a 100 HP motor occupies more than 1 square
foot!!

How big would a 100kW electric resistance heater be? How big would the fans
be, to get rid of all the resistance heat?

Kevin Chisholm
>
> Best regards,
> Gene Zebley
> International Project Marketing and Management
>
> Hurst Boiler and Welding Co., Inc.
> 21971 US Hwy 319 North
> Coolidge, GA 31738
>
> Phone: (229) 346-3545, ext. 139
> (877) 99HURST (4-8778)
> Fax: (229) 346-3874
> http://www.hurstboiler.com/multi.htm
> mailto:boilrmkr@surfsouth.com
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> From: gasification@crest.org
> To: Internet Mail::[gasification@crest.org]
>
> Subject: GAS-L: Upside down world
> Date: 2/8/01 11:12 AM
>
> Dear Gassers,
> The world is currently upside down. Natural gas is more expensive
> than =
>
> electricity in certain parts of the country. (US)
> $5/mmbtu=3D$.045/kwhr for just the natural gas cost of power. Much of the
>
> electricity is selling for less than that and gas is going at up
> to $8/mmbt=
> u.
>
> Deregulation in California has failed because the system is not =
>
> deregulated, only capped. Texas deregulation and other areas of
> the country=
>
>
> are very successful. Unfortunately, it will damage the entire process
> of =
>
> deregulation nationwide and I understand there is even impacts being felt
>
> politically in Europe. =
>
>
>
> --=PMail:=_0000@@cGswGSGsLNPa0JK9eQxV--
>
>
> Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> -
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
>
>
>

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Feb 6 20:40:03 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:06 2004
Subject: To Jim Arcate Re Torrefied wood study...
Message-ID: <6f.10cd6a4d.27b1f26e@cs.com>

I have misplaced your website URL. Bhattacharya says you have his paper on
torrefied wood there.

Please provide to us again...

Thanks, TOM REED

In a message dated 2/6/01 5:43:44 AM Mountain Standard Time, bhatta@ait.ac.th
writes:

Dear Prof. Reed, I undertand that the full paper is available in the site
of Mr. Arcate.

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Feb 6 20:40:07 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:06 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Dual fuel mode
Message-ID: <71.a967ecd.27b1f26d@cs.com>

Dear Gassers and Tom:

It is generally accepted that about 20% pilot diesel is necessary when
running producer gas in diesel engines.

I was present at a major difference of opinion between Mike Graboski and
Prof. P. P. Parikh (IITBombay). Mike, (Pres. SYn-Gas Inc, head of the CSM
large engine lab) claimed that Waukeshaw said the 20% lower limit on pilot
diesel fuel with producer gas was caused by poor spray at that low level.
Put in smaller injectors to get 5% pilot. (But then you can't get full
power.) Prof. Parikh did not agree...

I could believe either.

TOM REED

From nova at org.ktu.lt Tue Feb 6 20:56:57 2001
From: nova at org.ktu.lt (nova)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:06 2004
Subject: Gasification information.
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20010207024946.007b5c20@vingis.sc-uni.ktu.lt>

Dear Dr. Thomas Reed,

Thank you for your response and the list of books.
I have selected four books and I shall order them (including payment) in the
nearest future. I shall inform by poiinted address.
I would like to inform you that Lithuanian Parliament has passed the Law on
Biofuel on July 18, 2000, and the programme "The Lithuanian Biofuel
industry: creation and development. 2001 - 2004" has been prepared. The
technical requirements, standards, commerce and account regulations, and
other documents are prepared too. It is very important that there is no
excise for all kinds of biofuel, and VAT equals only for 5%.
I add the summary of Biofuel programme for you too.

Yours sincerely,
Gediminas Petrauskas

Introduction1.doc

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: doc00025.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 95232 bytes
Desc: ""
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20010207/9fddbfe5/doc00025.obj
From nova at org.ktu.lt Tue Feb 6 20:57:45 2001
From: nova at org.ktu.lt (nova)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:06 2004
Subject: Re letter
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20010207025052.007b48a0@vingis.sc-uni.ktu.lt>

Dear Mr. Thomas Koch,

Thank you for response.
We are very interested in gasificator usable together with automobile
engine. We should like please you to help for getting of cartoon drafts of
it.
We plan to modify concrete engine ourselves.

Yours sincerely,
Gediminas Petrauskas

Kaunas Science & Technology Park "NOVA"
Griunvaldo str. N 22
LT-3000 Kaunas
Lithuania

From mlefcort at compuserve.com Wed Feb 7 01:31:30 2001
From: mlefcort at compuserve.com (Malcolm D. Lefcort)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:06 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification for combustion?
Message-ID: <200102070027_MC2-C48B-8D01@compuserve.com>

Dear Andries,

You wrote

> Dear Malcom,

>You wrote on 6 februari 2001 6:44 with respect to the EnvirOcycler:

>> From what I've seen it would appear that the costs of the two types
>> of combustors are similar.

> Do you have approximate numbers to substantiate this? For instance
> on a per unit basis?
No and no

> If not investment costs constitute the main financial difference, what is
> the actual financial trigger of the EnvirOcycler over AFB/CFB's (apart
> from some avoided operational costs due to lack of bedding)?
More expensive cleanup downstream of the boiler (and, perhaps,
before the boiler)

>> The EnvirOcycler .....
>> If permitted levels are tight then the amount of stack cleanup
>> required on an EnvirOcycler (downstream of the heat
>> exchanger) is much less onerous than that required on an
>> AFB/CFB

> Can you expand a little on the qualification "onerous"? Do you refer
> to the bedding material of the AFB/CFB or to other aspects as well?

By onerous I mean more burdensome, more oppressive, more
labourous; i.e. more complicated and, hence, more expensive

>> 2 Since the EnvirOcycler's grate temoerature does not exceed
>> 1,200F (650C), the amount of alkali vaporizing in the first stage and
>> reaching the 2nd stage is minimal. Potassium vaporizes at 1,400F
>> (760C) and sodium vaporizes at 1,616F (880C). Thus the bulk of
>> alkali material in the biommass being processed stays in the
>> EnvirOcyler's 1st stage and is removed by its built in ash removal
>> system

> This is interesting. Have you done combustion tests on straw (being
> notorious for high potassium content)? And measured residual effects
> on the htex piping?
No and no

Regards,

Malcolm Lefcort

From joacim at ymex.net Wed Feb 7 13:38:43 2001
From: joacim at ymex.net (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:06 2004
Subject: sawdust to fluid fuel?
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10102070700140.1720-100000@localhost>

[This is slightly off-topic, but not entirely; producing gasifier fuel
generates rest products, which also should be put to use I think]

What other options are there to make use of sawdust, as energy, besides
making pellets from it? Making block wood for the gasifier with a circular
saw inevitabely produces some sawdust.

One thing I could have use for though, is small amounts of fuel for the
chainsaw. A chainsaw is something you drag around with you in the woods,
and should be, including fuel, light. The air-fuel mixture must have a
fairly high energy content, to work with available chainsaws; to get
sufficient power. It would be rather inconvenient to attach a gasifier to a
chainsaw (however tempting it may be ;).

I understand there are methods to produce synthetic petrol, or similar
fuels, from biomass. I reckon anything from methanol and up (in energy
density) should do, with octane numbers above 80 or so. Which method is
the simplest? I would like to avoid expensive materials; preferrably
something that can be built from junk, essentially.

With, say, 15--30kg sawdust (dry weight, and counting low) from cutting up
1 m³ pulpwood (staple measure) to block wood, using a circular saw at home,
and a need for chainsaw fuel of 0.5 litre petrol, for cutting up the same
amount of pulpwood in the woods, or 20 MJ, i.e. about the amount of energy
from 1 kg dry wood, I could do with a process efficiency as low as 5--10%.
(There are also other forms of scrap wood which isn't suitable for gasifier
fuel that can be used for producing heat for the process, if necessary.)

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

From tmiles at teleport.com Wed Feb 7 21:51:27 2001
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:06 2004
Subject: Biomass Conference of America Abstracts Due March 16
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010207174349.00d9bc90@mail.teleport.com>

> From: BIOMASS_CONF@FSEC.UCF.EDU [SMTP:BIOMASS_CONF@FSEC.UCF.EDU]
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 11:51 PM

> Subject: International Biomass Conference
>
> We are pleased to announce the "Fifth International Biomass
> Conference of the Americas -- Bioenergy and Biobased Products:
> Technologies, Markets, and Policies." The program is organized
> by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
> Natural Resources Canada, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
>
> Extended abstracts are due by March 16 for presentation at the conference
> to be held in Orlando, Florida, September 17-21, 2001.
>
> You can get all the information on papers, posters and preliminary
> topics at the conference web site: http://www.nrel.gov/bioam. The site is
>
> being updated and will soon have more general information and other
> details. Proposed paper topics include Biomass Resources, Bioenergy
> Products, Integrating Emerging Technologies, Biobased Products, Biomass
> Refineries, Environmental and Ecological Impacts, Public/Private
> Partnerships,
> Social Acceptability, and Policies for Market Development.
>
> A comprehensive program with oral presentations, interactive poster
> clusters, exhibits, technical tours and more is planned for this event.
> The conference will be held at the Rosen Centre Hotel near Walt Disney
> World
> and the many exciting tourist attractions in Orlando. Plan to bring the
> whole
> family to enjoy this conference. More than 650 people from 35 different
> countries attended the last conference, and Orlando promises to build on
> this
> success with the best program ever.
>
> Check out the web site now and please submit your abstract by March 16.
> You won't want to miss this conference, and we hope you will participate.

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

From tmiles at teleport.com Wed Feb 7 22:46:34 2001
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:06 2004
Subject: Gasification List Administrative Commands
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010207183853.037d0690@mail.teleport.com>

--- Administrative commands for the gasification list ---
I can handle administrative requests automatically. Please
do not send them to the list address! Instead, send
your message to the correct command address:

For help and a description of available commands, send a message to:
<gasification-help@crest.org>

To subscribe to the list, send a message to:
<gasification-subscribe@crest.org>

To remove your address from the list, just send a message to
the address in the ``List-Unsubscribe'' header of any list
message. If you haven't changed addresses since subscribing,
you can also send a message to:
<gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>

or for the digest to:
<gasification-digest-unsubscribe@crest.org>

For addition or removal of addresses, I'll send a confirmation
message to that address. When you receive it, simply reply to it
to complete the transaction.

If you need to get in touch with the human owner of this list,
please send a message to:
<gasification-owner@crest.org>

Please include a FORWARDED list message with ALL HEADERS intact
to make it easier to help you.

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Feb 8 10:31:54 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:06 2004
Subject: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density...
Message-ID: <4f.72d69e7.27b406e8@cs.com>

Especially, Tom Miles and Andries Weststeijn:

Andries Weststeijn recently said that a limiting factor in co-firing biomass
with coal was the low density of typical biomass (~50-400 kg/m3). Biomass
overloads the volume capacity of the feed system originally designed for coal
( bulk density ~700 (brown coal) to ~850 (anthracite) kg/m3).

Others have talked here recently about pelletizing switchgrass (density < 100
kg/m3 to ~700 kg/m3 after pelletizing which would solve this problem in part.

These are practical problems which affect the use of all fuels, and
particularly biomass. A major advantage of densification of biomass to
pellets, cubes and logs is that it then takes up 1/10 to 1/2 the amount of
space for shipping and storing.

ROAD LIMITS:

In shipping, some materials (ie, steel) are weight limited on the highway,
while other materials (straw bales) are volume limited. Each country and
each state/province may have different limits, but every roal has a legal
weight limit for trucks. I remember that Tom Miles's father made major
contributions to shipping wood when chipping was first developed in the 1930s
(?). I hope he will give us a short essay on the desirability of increasing
the density of biomass.

We often speak of the MASS ENERGY DENSITY of fuels, Btu/lb or MJ/kg or
GJ/ton(ne) . We should also speak of the VOLUME ENERGY DENSITY OF FUELS,
GJ/m3 (= GJ/ton X ton/m3), since this has very important implications in the
value and use of any new fuel.

FEEDING
I hope Andries Weststeijn can give us a short essay on the effect of energy
volume density on storing and feeding fuels.

In summary, most biomass suffers from having not only a low MASS ENERGY
DENSITY (compared to coal, oil etc.) but also a low VOLUME ENERGY DENSITY.
Densification greatly reduces the latter penalty and sometimes justifies the
costs of processing.

From tmiles at teleport.com Thu Feb 8 14:39:53 2001
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density...
In-Reply-To: <4f.72d69e7.27b406e8@cs.com>
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010208084619.00e7ae30@mail.teleport.com>

Tom,

A comment about energy densities. I'll post some information later on my
website.

Industrial and institutional boilers

In our experience the low density of biomass (wood sawdust or chips,
200-300 kg/m3) limits direct blending with coal to about 5% in existing
stoking equipment. In 1979 when we first cofired wet sawdust (up to 67%)
with coal in an institutional boiler (steam 8,000 lb/hr, 1 kg/s) we
designed a separate stoker for firing the wood that gave us control over
the distribution of the wood on the grate, which is important for
combustion control. At the time direct fired wood (including capital and
operating costs, efficiencies, etc.) had a cost advantage of $.32/MMBtu
compared with coal, or about 14% of the coal cost. Wood pellets had a cost
disadvantage compared with coal of $.43/MMBtu, or about 18% more than coal.
The institution used the wood firing tests to negotiate a lower price for
coal. We do have clients who manufacture densified biomass for cofiring
with coal but only in circumstances where disposal costs offset the cost of
densification and delivery to the industrial user.

We recently completed initial tests (1200 tons) of grass in a large
pulverized coal boiler (700 MWe ~900 kg/s). The milled switchgrass weighed
160 kg/m3 (10 lb/ft3) and was fired at rates of 12 to 16 tons per hour. We
displaced 9 tons of coal with 12 tons of grass. Again a separate feed was
used. The justification for co-firing grass or wood with coal today in the
US is environmental (greenhouse gas reduction, regulatory mandates, etc.)
rather than economic.

Domestic and small scale

There are clearly advantages to densification at the small scale if you can
afford it. Densified fuels provide good porosity and control for combustion
at any scale. Densification provides a way of diluting difficult fuels
(high ash, or high in alkali) with cleaner fuels.

Cubing or pelletizing adds about $15-30/ton to the cost of the fuel. In the
US homeowners pay $120-$160/ton for bagged wood stove pellets in our area
and $120-200/ton from sixty plants across the country (See Pellet Fuels
Institute "What do Pellets Cost?"
http://www.pelletheat.org/fuel/fuel.html). (Wood fuel is delivered to
biomass power plants at about $14-$16/ton. Clean wood at $30-40/ton is
bought by the board processing industry and not available for fuel.)

The US production of pellets is about 0.7 million tons per year. (Pellet
Fuels Institute :Where do Pellets Come From?
http://www.pelletheat.org/fuel/fuel.html )

Densities run from 20-35 lb/ft3 (320-560 kg/m3). The effective bulk density
of pellets or cubes in a combustor or gasifier is about 16 lb/ft3 (256
kg/m3). Wood pellets have been used in US coal stokers during periods of
high energy prices (1975-1985).

We have local nurseries that use natural gas and propane for heating
greenhouses. They have been paying about $4.50/MMBtu (GJ) for gas, equal to
about $70/dry ton of wood. The recent 35% increase in natural gas (to
$6/MMBtu equal to about $96/ton of wood) should make wood attractive at
$20-30/ton. But the wood heated greenhouses have been shut down for
pollution control. Densified wood pellets could reduce emissions but are
too expensive at $120/ton ($7.50/MMBtu) even if they have wood burning
equipment.

But in other areas the economies may be different. We have a client in
India who has made firelogs from native grasses and wood for many years.
And in Europe there have been many manufacturers of densification equipment.

Transportation

The optimum density for hauling materials in the US is about 20 lb/ft3 (320
kg/m3). At that point an increase in density does not make use of the
available volume due to payload limits in road transportation.

While densification aids transportation the savings do not usually justify
the cost for fuel applications. We bale and compact 500,000 tons of straw
from our area for export. Our cost of harvesting and transporting the straw
to an industrial plant is about $50/ton at 10 lb/ft3 (160 kg/m3). We
increase the density of the straw from 160 kg/m3 to 320 kg/m3 so that we
can get 20-25 mt in a shipping container. The operation adds about
$30-40/ton in cost which is easily paid for by the feed markets in Asia.
Fuel markets do not support this level of processing costs.

Regards,

Tom

At 09:27 AM 2/8/01 -0500, Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:
>Andries Weststeijn recently said that a limiting factor in co-firing biomass
>with coal was the low density of typical biomass (~50-400 kg/m3). Biomass
>overloads the volume capacity of the feed system originally designed for coal
>( bulk density ~700 (brown coal) to ~850 (anthracite) kg/m3).
>
>Others have talked here recently about pelletizing switchgrass (density < 100
>kg/m3 to ~700 kg/m3 after pelletizing which would solve this problem in part.
>
>
>These are practical problems which affect the use of all fuels, and
>particularly biomass. A major advantage of densification of biomass to
>pellets, cubes and logs is that it then takes up 1/10 to 1/2 the amount of
>space for shipping and storing.
>
>ROAD LIMITS:
>
>In shipping, some materials (ie, steel) are weight limited on the highway,
>while other materials (straw bales) are volume limited. Each country and
>each state/province may have different limits, but every roal has a legal
>weight limit for trucks. I remember that Tom Miles's father made major
>contributions to shipping wood when chipping was first developed in the 1930s
>(?). I hope he will give us a short essay on the desirability of increasing
>the density of biomass.
>
>We often speak of the MASS ENERGY DENSITY of fuels, Btu/lb or MJ/kg or
>GJ/ton(ne) . We should also speak of the VOLUME ENERGY DENSITY OF FUELS,
>GJ/m3 (= GJ/ton X ton/m3), since this has very important implications in the
>value and use of any new fuel.
>
>FEEDING
>I hope Andries Weststeijn can give us a short essay on the effect of energy
>volume density on storing and feeding fuels.
>
>In summary, most biomass suffers from having not only a low MASS ENERGY
>DENSITY (compared to coal, oil etc.) but also a low VOLUME ENERGY DENSITY.
>Densification greatly reduces the latter penalty and sometimes justifies the
>costs of processing.

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

From snkm at btl.net Thu Feb 8 16:23:20 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification for combustion?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010208120344.009f0d30@wgs1.btl.net>

At 11:56 AM 2/5/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>Dear Peter,
>
>Chiptec does not have a web site. You can have a (very) short description of
>their activities at this adress :
>
>http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/pollprev/Technology/TechAlpha/Articl
>es/Chiptec.html
>
>I confirm you the adress of Chiptec (see below), I have had documentation of
>their technology by contacting them directly. They have many references of
>their "close coupled gasification" system. They work exclusively with clean
>wood, but can take high moisture contents (ups to 60 %).
>
>Best regards.
>
>Joseph Fonio

Hi Joseph;

Here is what I found:

From:

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/pollprev/technology/techalpha/articl
es/chiptec.html

(That url "works")

Technical Articles

Chiptec Wood Energy Systems
Application: Heating System for Wood Furniture/Cabinet Manufacturers

CHIPTEC (chiptec@together.net) gasifiers differ from other wood burning
systems in that the fuel (wood chips)enters a hot refractory lined chamber
where the volatile pyrolysis gas is released into an oxygen deprived
environment. Once released, these gases then travel through the burner
nozzle where they are superheated and mixed with air for complete
combustion leaving little or no waste such as ash, creosote or stack
effluent. These units burn less fuel for the same energy output, as
compared to other wood-fired boilers and stokers. The increased efficiency,
safety and cleanliness of this advanced two stage process produces
tremendous economical and environmental benefits. High temperature
combustion, a 20:1 turn down ratio, refractory heat storage and controlled
air allows the CHIPTEC gasifier not only respond quickly to boiler demand,
but also idle efficiently for economical operation during the spring and
fall.

FUEL SPECIFICATIONS-Clean, uncontaminated wood chips. Contaminates will
affect combustion quality and refractory life. Particle size: 2"x 2" x ½"
minus. No fines, dirt, sander dust or wood flour.(<1/8") Moisture content,
wet basis: 6% to 45% M.C.
Note: 6% to 15% M.C. fuel requires specialized equipment. Consult
manufacturer.

Peter Singfield / Belize

From fractional at willmar.com Thu Feb 8 17:02:22 2001
From: fractional at willmar.com (fractional@willmar.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: small scale pelletisers
Message-ID: <3A8308F1.ADC05CAA@willmar.com>

Is there any one on this list that has produced small scale (5-20-100
hp) pelletisers or has an interest in them? I am not talking of 'lab'
machines but personal use pelletisers or cubers. 1" squares or rounds.
Perhaps smaller but that would make for more work most likely. I am not
trying to simulate production from big machines.

The rotary 1200 hp pelletisers are beyond my needs thank you. A
stuffer type would be the simplest perhaps. Using existing junk farm
equipment for drives.

A fellow on the Stoves list, from Africa, has made a charcoal log
extruder for charcoal dust out of what looks like a large meat grinder.
Uses starch or something as a binder. An English company makes a log
extruder for waste bio materials, could a 1" log extruder be built along
those lines with out machining a complex screw?

At 20-100 hp I am speaking of gas engine power.

Thanks,

Alan

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Feb 8 17:54:55 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: Newspaper Stove and Wood chip/pellet stove
Message-ID: <bb.b9031cb.27b46e95@cs.com>

What a lovely description of a significant experiment that we can all build
on. What was the outer chimney diameter?

Richard seems to have solved the problem caused by the fact that each sheet
of burning paper makes a low density sheet of charcoal that pulls away from
the mass and prevents further reaction. I'll have to try it, but here are a
few comments I hope Richard and others will try.

1) Isopropyl alcohol is an excellent fire starter. It has a higher boiling
point than methanol or ethanol, so doesn't evaporate as fast. It has a
higher heat content but not enough to produce yellow flames like charcoal
lighter fluid (refined kerosene or fuel oil).

2) The fact that you have an 18 inch flame means that you have pyrolysed the
paper and converted char to producer gas, but don't have complete combustion.
See my gasifier garage heater stove see below. We are having a cold winter
here in Golden, so I work on this stove in my garage on Saturdays (while
listening to Click and Clack, the Car Guys).

3) One can buy perforated steel (or stainless steel) with millions of 1/16"
holes for this purpose, grates etc. It is sometimsometimes used to make
radiant heaters in restaurants etc. I bought a 4X 8 ft sheet a decade ago
for $100 and have found many uses for it. Beats drilling holes! The holes
might work better than your SS screen - or might not.
One call also buy stretched metal sheets with diamond shaped holes.

~~~~~
Being motivated by the cold winter, I have recently made a similar unit for
wood chips or pellets using a 1 foot length of 6 inch stove pipe containing a
6 in OD X 5 in ID riser sleeve. At the top I put a 5in to 4 inch reducer and
above the reducer a 2 foot length of pipe to provide draft. I drilled 2 rows
of 3/16 diameter holes and one row of 1/4 inch holes on the slope of the
reducer just before the chimney. I put a stove pipe cap with a movable flap
on the bottom to regulate the pyrolysis-gasification air.

I filled the unit with 360 g of wood chips and added 40 g of alcohol soaked
chips. I then threw in a match and put the burner-chimney on. The chips
burned about 15 minutes with 63 beautiful flamelets visible (with a metal
mirror) down the chimney.

I burned the stove in my garage with no flue vent, so presumably achieved
~100% heat efficiency. The chimney acts as a radiator and the radiant heat
could be felt several feet away. There was a moderate smell of wood
combustion in the garage - it has a peaked ceiling. The fuel burned at a
rate of ~20 g/min or ~20,000 Btu/hr. Pellets would of course burn much
longer.

The ratio of primary to secondary air is critical in maintaining clean
combustion. I don't at this level of development recommend burning without a
vent and improved heat exchanger or longer pipe. However, it may be possible
by insulating the combustion zone to get full combustion and use without a
vent for short periods.

This is a lot cheaper stove than the pellet stoves ($1,000 - $2,000), but not
as convenient, since it is a batch process. It makes ~20% charcoal, so when
the volatiles are gone it is important to increase air to burn it - or
extinguish it for later use.

I describe this in detail because heating is a major problem in many parts of
the world and could become so in the U.S. as the cost of propane and natural
gas rises. I hope many improvements will be made in this forum.

STOVERS:

The initial intent of this site was discussion of improved cooking stoves.
However, it seems to me that heating stoves are equally important. The above
gasifier-heater-stove is quite similar to the natural draft inverted
downdraft (top burning) cooking stove that I worked on from 1985-1998 and
that Ron Larson and I reported on at the Banff "Developments in
Thermochemical Biomass Conversion" conference in May, 1996.
In a message dated 2/8/01 8:58:34 AM Mountain Standard Time, rdboyt@yahoo.com
writes:

Subj:Newspaper Stove
Date:2/8/01 8:58:34 AM Mountain Standard Time
From: rdboyt@yahoo.com (Richard Boyt)
To: stoves@crest.org

Dear Wastepaper Stovers,

I very much enjoyed Dr. Reed's account of
experiences trying to burn or otherwise recycle
newspapers. I remember that when I delivered carefully
stacked and wrapped bundles of newspapers to the local
salvage center I saw them dumped into a semi trailer
along with great quantities of garbage and other trash
and then head off for the nearest landfill. I decided
to try a tightly rolled log of newsprint as fuel for a
stove. No attempts to adjust combustion air, roll
size, or compaction, caused anything but a few more
outer layers to burn, and that only at the price of
considerable smoke and an unsatisfactory thin layer of
black char before it self extinguished.

Remembering the feriosity with which I once saw a
standing hollow tree burn, and had having experienced
several scarry flue fires, I formed a hollow cylinder
of newspaper and stood it vertically inside a well
insulated section of stove pipe. I set it on a grate
to admit primary air and and lit it at the inside
bottom. It worked fine until the inside sheets began
to shrink and distort and eventually restrict the flow
of combustion air so completely that it soon flamed
out, smoked copiciously, and finally died out leaving
the bulk of the paper not even scorched. I found that
I could solve the shrink clogging problem by wrapping
the newsprint in multiple layers around a small open
cylinder of hardware cloth 2 1/2 in. diam. and 14 in.
long. It worked very well at first but the high
temperatures reached in this miniature reverberatory
furnace soon destroyed the iron mesh "breather tube".
A replacement tube of expanded stainless steel has now
stood up very well to many very hot firings.

Starting the inside of the paper roll to burn is
difficult but can be accomplished by coating the
inside layer of paper with a bit of cooking oil or by
dropping flaming strips of thin waxed cardboard down
from the top. I usually get smoke during the lighting
and initial flaming stage as the center cavity emits a
flaming torch about 18 inches high that at night
lights up the landscape. As the flame dies back, the
inside of the now charred chimney of charred paper
begins to glow as the char is converted to ash.
Looking down inside the cylinder you see a bright
orange column of glowing char/ash. Flowing, sometimes
rippling up the surface of this golden donut is a
faint nearly transparent pale blue/purple film .No
detectable smoke is given off though a good deal of
heat rises from the glowing tube. It has no odor, does
not sting the eyes, and though I have purposely
inhaled modest quantities of it I have detected no
hint of early carbon monoxide poisoning. Several times
I have brought the glowing stove inside to help heat
the kitchen where it left only a few small fragments
of fly ash.

Yet another surprise awaits, for after the stove has
cooled, when the now cold breather tube is carefully
removed it brings out with it a multiple of very thin
fragments of white translucent newspaper ash that even
as you watch, breaks away suspended on the slightest
breeze. Once, an unbroken quarter sheet of
diaphanousbreak up in the air. It would be most
difficult to weigh these filaments as they literally
float on air. Total conversion of char to ash is rare
but usually only a couple of palm sized pieces of
charred sheet remain.

It won't heat your home but it might make a useful
small batch-loaded space heater for a well ventilated
workshop. Hope this proves useful to someone,
Richard Boyt 20479 Panda, Neosho Mo 64850
rdboyt@yahoo.com

Dr. Thomas B. Reed, President, The Biomass Energy Foundation, 1810 Smith Rd.,
Golden, CO 80401
Email reedtb2@cs.com; 303 278 0558 home; 303 278 0560 Fax

From samuel.martin at epfl.ch Fri Feb 9 08:16:25 2001
From: samuel.martin at epfl.ch (samuel.martin@epfl.ch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tars again...
In-Reply-To: <42.103979d5.27ad758f@cs.com>
Message-ID: <981720744.3a83dea8836f3@imap.epfl.ch>

Dear Tom and all:

Quoting Reedtb2@cs.com:
> There are a number of tar measurement protocols. Most European
> protocols
> collect everything that condenses at 0 C and call it tar, so includes
> phenols, benzene etc.
>
> At CPC we collect everything that condenses at 90 C and call it tar. So
> our
> 20 ppm could be 100 - or even 700 by the European method. Those are the
>
> things that can stick on valve guides, cold pipes etc. and cause
> trouble.
>

Why did you choose 90C since generally, in order to get a better gas heating
value, gas is cooled to near atmospheric temperature, thus elements which
condense at 20C are also potentially dangerous for the engine ?

Can you evaluate what is the energy lost by removing tars (because tars increase
heating value of the gas), say for a 100 kWe plant ?
Won't be more efficient to fuel the engine with a hotter gas (say 100C) in order
to keep more tars (in their gaseous phase) ?

Do you consider that cleaning gas is still a problem or no ? Does anybody have
some data about engine problems regarding tar ? (In other words I all the
reports I read related: "our cleaning system is OK, no problems with the
engine have been noticed". But I am sure that there a lot of plant for which
tars was or still is a problem...)

Thanking you...

Samuel Martin

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: imap.epfl.ch

From fractional at willmar.com Fri Feb 9 13:52:47 2001
From: fractional at willmar.com (fractional@willmar.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: sketch of pelletiser
Message-ID: <3A842DC0.CED0AFD3@willmar.com>

Hi Joel,

I've posted a sketch of a test pelletiser at www.zing.com, enter
Ralph83 for my public photos, look for "pelletiser". It's among all
the photos of my roof rubber portable wood-gas bag. (grass-gas? It has
a ring to it)

Since working square balers are only $125 each, using the stroker and
spring over loads and flywheel make sense. Over kill for just one 1"
stuffer but perhaps it could be run off a 2 1/2 hp Fairbanks-Morse pump
house motor. I picked up two last year to try with wood gas, that's
what the gas bag was for. In order to run directly off an old Farmall M
perhaps a gang punch would be necessary for efficiency.

The sketch shows a horizontal plunger with it's own bushings or linear
bearings.
Initially I drew a vertical punch with a indexing stuffer wheel to feed
the punch, but since the balers are horizontal I posted the horizontal
drawing with only gravity feed of the punch, a indexable feeder might
still be necessary.

I have drawn in an excessive length of unsupported plunger rod so
ignore that. Whether to use close tolerance pipe or 1" schedule 80 is a
question. Compaction ratio should be adjustable with the mechanism on
the baler, never used one so I don't know how it works. Or if the
springs are on the backing plate or plunger side.

The length of the stuffing pipe is a question also. For starting
compression of the pellets a plug with shear pin (nail) might be used.
The natural restriction that they get from rolling alfalfa through a
press plate with small holes with a 7:1 length will not be there.
Perhaps at 1" it's not even do-able by the extrusion process without a
taper bore.

Alan (Ralph83)

http://www.zing.com/

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Fri Feb 9 19:11:44 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density...
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4E7E@sp0016.epz.nl>

Dear Tom Reed and List members,

Glad to comment on the issue of volumetric density. Tom invited me to give
an essay on the effect of energy volume density on storing and feeding.
Here it is.
My chain of thought goes from macro to micro and ends with fuel data and
example calculations of volumetric impact on maximum cofiring percentages.

1. VOLUMETRIC DENSITY

I fully support Tom Reed's suggestion to emphasize the volumetric energy
density of biofuels (GJ/m3 or MMBtu/ft3) and give it an equal place next to
the mass based energy density (CV in GJ/ton or MMBtu/lb). Volumetric energy
density is important both from a design and from an economics point of view.
And ought to be considered for the complete fuel cycle.

2. INTEGRATED FUEL CHAIN

Use of biomass fuels on a scale as required to impact the world's GHG
balance requires hugh material flows. Flows in tons, but in volume as well.
To manage this material flow (and keep it within financial constraints) an
integrated view of the complete fuel chain is required, much like the
overviews used for LCA's (Life Cycle Analyses).
The economical viability of any fuel chain will be determined by the partial
costs per link. Picking the right links to string a complete chain is what
matters most.
Given the comments by Tom Miles, I will not address the transportation
issue. I just like to add that also barge and blue-water ocean traffic
underly Tom Miles's observation stressing optimum loose bulk density as
based on volume versus weight transportation rates. Some biomass is crossing
blue water already.
The fuel chain requires to separate "new" from "existing" power plants.

3. NEW versus EXISTING PLANTS

Designing a dedicated plant for a dedicated (bio)fuel is one thing. Helping
to make a dent in the GHG increase world wide is another. I believe that
both routes need to be explored simultaneously to get meaningfull results
during the next decades.
(For those who don't like GHG concern, substitute regular fossil fuels
depletion, it leads to the same conclusion).

3A. New plants and new independent add-on fuel systems

For a new plant (or new independent fuel circuit feeding directly into the
boiler) there is the classic design choise: can more expensive (densified)
fuel provide for lower than proportional capital charges or not? The answer:
probably yes, but modestly in as far as sizing of the equipment is
concerned.
Unloading facilities, interim storage and feeding mechanism can all be more
compact, and somewhat less construction materials used. However, whereas
total weight to be transported and stored is unchanged, the savings on
construction materials (and related investment) will be modest. Clearest
case of lineair savings will be in the roofing of covered storage (not in
the foundations, weight is unchanged). No savings foreseen in automation,
process controls etc. No savings are foreseen in operations and maintenance.
Note: max. capacity is not a concern in this equation
For a new plant on an unconstricted site my guess is that the financial gain
by designing for densified fuel will only be modest.
With two exeptions:
1) site space limitations don't allow for undensified storage
2) densification of biofuel allows it to be handled
These two exeptions don't deal with a free cost/benefit choice, but rather
are a prime prerequisite for the execution of the particular project.

3B. Existing plants

Here physical constraints are to be faced in terms of steel and concrete.
Not just on the drawing board. Two options are open: "rebuild" or "make-do".
A complete rebuild of the existing fuel facilities will often be considered
not viable for an existing plant with limited residual life expectancy
(boiler, turbine/gen set etc). Where downtime of the unit is not desirable
due to contractual dispatch obligations or peak-power earnings potential, a
full rebuild can be ruled out and "make-do" will be the preferred option.
Remember, converting to biomass as cofiring fuel is usually a financially
marginal operation. In cases of an existing coal infrastructure, the
decision will often be based on a mix of reasons (certainly including
environmental incentives), hardly expecting to cover much more than costs.

That leaves to "make-do" with the existing facilities.
-For unloading of biomass the limitation will often not be so strict, if
unloading with help of the coal unloading facilities. Chances are good that
at present there is enough spare time for handling the incremental volume.
-For storage the same holds true as for the newly designed plant: cost of
foundations will change little, cost of roofing (if required) will decrease
almost linearly with degree of densification. If storage space is limiting
the project, densification might be a prerequisite.
-It is in feeding biomass with help of the existing coal feeding system that
the impact of volumetric density shows up most clearly. Conveying, storage
in the boiler house, feeders, pulverizers, classifiers (sieves) all can
become volume restricted.
Running conveyor belts more hours around the clock has its limitations due
to maintenance requirements. Not only for the belts and drives itself, but
also for the loading, weighing and unloading equipment at both ends. Loading
up belts higher is limited by angle (both cross-sectional and elevating
towards the boiler house), dump shoots may plug up.
Still it is also here that real potential for bulk biomass cofiring opens
up, due to the low degree of modifications required, with subsequent low
capital charges involved.

4. NUMERICAL COMPARION of FUEL DATA (in metric)

COAL
loose bulk density = 850 kg/m3 (in pile)
energy density CV= 24 MJ/kg = 24 GJ/ton
volumetric density = 850 kg/m3*24 MJ/kg
volumetric density = 20400 MJ/m3
volumetric density = 20.4 GJ/m3

LOOSE DRY SAWDUST
loose bulk density = 200 kg/m3
energy density CV= 18 MJ/kg (assume dry)
volumetric density =200 kg/m3*18 MJ/kg
volumetric density = 3600 MJ/m3
volumetric density = 3.6 GJ/m3

REGULAR WOOD PELLETS
"solid" density = 1.3 g/cc
"solid" density = 1300 kg/m3
in pile: void coefficient = 50%
loose bulk density = 650 kg/m3
energy density CV= 18 MJ/kg (assume dry)
volumetric density =650 kg/m3*18 MJ/kg
volumetric density = 11700 MJ/m3
volumetric density = 11.7 GJ/m3

THERMALLY UPGRADED WOOD PELLETS
"solid" density = 1.3 g/cc
"solid" density = 1300 kg/m3
in pile: void coefficient = 50%
loose bulk density = 650 kg/m3
energy density CV= 22 MJ/kg (assume)
volumetric density =650 kg/m3*22 MJ/kg
volumetric density = 14300 MJ/m3
volumetric density = 14.3 GJ/m3

Comparison:
coal = ..................................... 20.4 GJ/m3
loose dry sawdust = .............. 3.6 GJ/m3 or 18% of coal
regular wood pellets = ........ 11.7 GJ/m3 or 57% of coal
therm.upgraded pellets =......14.3 GJ/m3 or 70% of coal

Relative volumetric energy density:
coal = ..................................... 1.00
loose dry sawdust = .............. 0.18
regular wood pellets = .......... 0.57
therm.upgraded pellets =...... 0.70

5. EXAMPLE CALCULATION of volumetric impact
with wood pellets at 50% fuel flow volume increase

Suppose one handles in an existing (or slightly modified) plant a physically
maximum volume of mixed fuel of coal+regular wood pellets. And still feed
the boiler with an equal amount of energy (same # GJ's) on a 24-hour basis.
For the sake of this example calculation, assume that that physically
maximum volume equals 150% of the volume of 100% coal.
How does this work out on the allowable percentage cofiring of wood pellets,
the reduction in coal and the cofiring percentages.
The relevance of densification is shown in paragraph 6 when we scale back
from densified wood pellet to non-densified sawdust.

Whereas one now bunkers 150% of the original volume, the averige "volumetric
energy density" of the mixed fuel may now be reduced to 2/3 of what it was
for pure coal, i.e. may go down to 0.67*20.4 GJ/m3=13.7 GJ/m3.

*First consider from a mass flow + energy input point of view:

equation for coal energy per 24-hours:
coal X ton/24h*24 GJ/ton = 24X GJ/24h

equation for coal+wood pellets energy per 24-hour:
coal Y ton/24h*24 GJ/ton + pellets Z ton/24h*18 GJ/ton =
(24Y+18Z) GJ/24h

These fuels represent the same energy per 24-hours,
24X=24Y+18Z
pellet mass flow Z=(24/18)*(X-Y) tons/24h
(equation 1)

*Now from a volume point of view:

equation for coal volume per 24-hours:
coal U m3/24h

equation for coal+wood pellets volume per 24-hours:
coal V m3/24h + pellets W m3/24h
V+W m3/24h

*We assumed the mixed fuel to have a factor 1.5 higher volume:
therefore: 1.5*U=V+W m3/24h
pellet volume W=1.5U-V m3/24h
(equation 2)

For pellets the ratio Z tons/24h over W m3/24h = specific weight
Z/W = 0.650 or Z=0.65*W

For 100% coal the ratio X tons/24h over U m3/24h = specific weight
X/U = 0.850 or U=X/0.85
For reduced % coal the ratio Y tons/24h over V m3/24h = spec weight
Y/V= 0.850 or V= Y/0.85

Substitute the above ratio's in equation 2 and find:
W=1.5U-V
Z=0.65*(1.5X/0.85-Y/0.85)
(equation 3)

we had equation 1 as:
Z=(24/18)*(X-Y)

Follows from equation 1=equation 3:
> (24/18)*(X-Y) = 0.65*(1.5X/0.85-Y/0.85)
X-Y = (18/24)*(0.65/0.85)*(1.5X-Y)

for a better overview call factor F = (18/24)*(0.65/0.85)
X-Y = F*(1.5X-Y) = 1.5FX-FY
follows FY-Y = 1.5FX - X
Y(F-1) = X (1.5F-1)
Y = X*(1.5F-1)/(F-1)
(equation 4)

substitute in equation 1:
Z=(24/18)*(X-Y)
Z=(24/18)*(1- (1.5F-1)/(F-1))*X
Z=(24/18)*(-0.5F/F-1)*X
Z=(24/18)*(0.5F/1-F)*X
(equation 5)

In this particular case of coal and wood pellets:
F = (18/24)*(0.65/0.85) = 0.57

So that
Z=(24/18)*(0.5F/1-F)*X (equation 5)
Z=(24/18)*(0.5*0.57/0.43)*X = 0.88 X tons/24h

and
Y= X*(1.5F-1)/(F-1) (equation 4)
Y= X*(-0.14)/(-0.43) = 0.34 X tons/24h

Y+Z = 0.88+0.34 = 1.22 X tons/24h

where:
Z= wood pellets in tons/24h in mixed fuel
Y= adjusted coal in tons/24h in mixed fuel
X= original coal in ton/24h (as 100% coal)

Subconclusion:
when energy input stays the same
and volume of fuel is allowed to go up to 150%
then in case of densified wood pellets with CV=18 MJ/kg
total tonnage goes to 122%
and cofiring mixture on a mass/mass basis
can reach up to 0.88X / 1.22X = 72%
and cofiring mixture on energy basis
can reach up to (0.88*18) / (0.88*18 + 0.34*24) = 66%

6. NOW FOR THE INFLUENCE OF DENSIFACTION

Under the same assumption of a 150% higher fuel flow volume we now scale
back from dry densified wood pellets with a loose bulk density of 650 kg/m3
to dry non-densified sawdust pellets with a loose bulk density of 200 kg/m3.
In both cases the CV is kept at 18 MJ/kg.

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Feb 10 10:11:53 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tars again...
Message-ID: <7a.1055a2fe.27b6a533@cs.com>

GOOD QUESTIONS.

Dear Tom and all:

Why did you choose 90C since generally, in order to get a better gas
heating
value, gas is cooled to near atmospheric temperature, thus elements which
condense at 20C are also potentially dangerous for the engine ?

YOUR COMMENT WOULD APPLY TO LOW TEMPERATURE PYROLYSIS (<500C) (AS IN UPDRAFT
GASIFIERS) WITH ACETIC ACID A PRIMARY CULPRIT.

HIGH TEMPERATURE PYROLYSIS AS IN DOWNDRAFT GASIFIERS PRODUCES PRIMARY PNAs OF
WHICH CRESOLS ARE THE MOST LIKELY TO CONDENSE AS SOLIDS.

WE DON'T WORRY SO MUCH ABOUT THINGS CONDENSING AS LIQUIDS AT <90 C, SINCE
THEY WILL RE-EVAPORATE IN A HOT ENGINE, AND AS YOU SAY THEY HAVE CONSIDERABLE
FUEL VALUE. WE WORRY ABOUT THOSE THAT ARE SOLID AT 90C, SINCE THEY COULD
VERY WELL CLOG THE VALVE STEMS, PIPES ETC.

Can you evaluate what is the energy lost by removing tars (because tars
increase
heating value of the gas), say for a 100 kWe plant ?

SINCE WE HAVEN'T DEFINED "TARS" IT WOULD BE HARD TO SAY, BUT IT'S HARD TO
HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. IF ALL TARS WERE OK, WE'D ALWAYS LEAVE THEM IN. THE FACT
THAT SOME CONDENSE AS SOLIDS MEANS WE HAVE TO REMOVE THEM DOWN TO 90 C.

Won't IT be more efficient to fuel the engine with a hotter gas (say 100C) in
order

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OPERATING THE ENGINE ON 60 C GAS AND 30 C GAS IS QUITE
SMALL, SO BETTER TO AVOID ALL THE PROBLEMS OF LIQUID CONEDENSATES BY STAYING
AT 60 C.

to keep more tars (in their gaseous phase) ?

Do you consider that cleaning gas is still a problem or no ?

ALWAYS, BUT WE KNOW HOW TO SOLVE IT.
Does anybody have
some data about engine problems regarding tar ? (In other words I all the
reports I read related: "our cleaning system is OK, no problems with the
engine have been noticed". But I am sure that there a lot of plant for
which
tars was or still is a problem...)

TARS ARE THE ACHILLES HEEL OF GASIFICATION. ALWAYS WORRY ABOUT THEM, BUT
THEY CAN BE REMOVED - OR PREFERABLY NOT GENERATED. OUR GASIFIER MAKES
REGULARLY < 50 PPM TAR(90C) IN THE RAW GAS (PROPRIETARY).

Thanking you...

Samuel Martin

GLAD YOU BROUGHT IT UP... I'M SENDING THIS TO THE GASIFICATION LIST.

TOM REED

Dr. Thomas B. Reed, President, The Biomass Energy Foundation, 1810 Smith Rd.,
Golden, CO 80401
Email reedtb2@cs.com; 303 278 0558 home; 303 278 0560 Fax

Dr. Thomas B. Reed, Principal Scientist,
The Community Power Corporation, 1810 Smith Rd., Golden CO 80401
Reedtb2@cs.com; 303 278 0558

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Feb 10 10:12:07 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density...
Message-ID: <8.1016544b.27b6a55f@cs.com>

We are not often rewarded with the expertise of Tom Miles, but I had the good
fortune to ask a question that he and few others could answer. The answer
below is as close as you can get to universal truth without passing through
the pearly gates (a one way trip).

Did you notice how many numerical facts Tom included - and how little
speculation? Wish all of us could do that.

Note all of Tom Miles qualifications on his fact-and-experience packed
answers. What's true at large scale may not be true at small scale; what's
true in the U.S. may not be true in India. And what's true in 2001 may not
be true in 2005. Times change, and we may be at an energy cusp right now,
and here at Crest we have the luxury of evaluating not only the present
(commercially necessary) but the future in terms of the past (necessary for
continuing civilization).

When it comes to questions on handling biomass, Tom Miles is the "end of the
line".

Thanks Tom Miles, we'll get back to you on this...

Tom Reed (Gasification moderator)

In a message dated 2/8/01 11:45:09 AM Mountain Standard Time,
tmiles@teleport.com writes:

Tom,

A comment about energy densities. I'll post some information later on my
website.

Industrial and institutional boilers

Domestic and small scale

The US production of pellets is about 0.7 million tons per year. (Pellet
Fuels Institute :Where do Pellets Come From?
http://www.pelletheat.org/fuel/fuel.html )

Transportation

Regards,

Tom

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Feb 10 10:12:34 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: Insulation Tests
Message-ID: <33.1082a714.27b6a55c@cs.com>

What a pleasure to read about your scientific insulating pottery tests.

I can hardly wait for Chapter 2.

~~~~
Meanwhile I am forwarding this to Gretchen (through Ron) Larson, because she
made similar tests for me last Fall.

She made two plates (better than cylinders for heat conduction tests? Pay a
torch on one side and see how long you can keep you finger on the other side)
for me incorporating

1) vermiculite (exploded mica, good to 1000 C?)

2) Perlite

We weren't impressed, but our tests were only qualitative.

Your fingers are moderately good at judging thermal condutivity. Touch a
piece of wood (poor condutor) at 100 C (in your oven). Then touch a piece of
aluminum (good conductor). Ouch!

We really do need a good, cheap, pottery insulation if pottery stoves are
going to compete with our nice metal stoves lined with riser sleeves (good to
1600C, rigidizable and about $2-$5 in sizes from 3inch to 12 inch diameter X
12 in tall).

Onward....... TOM REED

Onward.......... TOM REED

In a message dated 2/8/01 1:08:39 PM Mountain Standard Time, rdboyt@yahoo.com
writes:

Dear Dean Still, and other Stovers,

Countless past contributions on the subject of
insulations, and particularly the encouragements of
Dean Still and Larry Winiarski of Aprovecho, and Elsen
Karstad at CharDust, prompted explorations into low,
(no) cost, home made, high, medium, and low temp.
stove insulations. As a sometimes potter I saw clay as
a basic starting ingredient, and as we heat and cook
with wood, I saw wood ash and sawdust as promising
additions.

Thirty test samples were made, each starting with
earthenware clay dug from a pond nearby. Each test
sample contained 30 g. of dry crushed clay that was
then modified by adding quantities of 0 g. to 60 g. of
dry ash in 6 steps, and 0 g. to 20 g. of dry sawdust
in 5 steps. Each sample was then mixed and made
plastic with water, hand molded into a small cylinder,
weighed, measured, dried, weighed, measured, fired to
red heat, weighed, measured, soaked in water, weighed,
measured, and then suspended in water and weighed to
determine volume from which specific weight could be
determined.

The results were promising but incomplete as no tests
have yet been made on more sizable samples to
determine the insulative properties, strength,
abrasion resistance, thermal shock resistance, and
heat durability of the 30 formulas. In general
however, the clay served well as a plasticizer and
medium temp. binder. The ash served as a high temp.
and thermal shock modifier, and the sawdust burned to
char and/or ash to provide small air pockets that
served to reduce weight and so to increase insulative
properties. The tests were designed to permit the
examination of numerous linear and plane blends that
could suggest what might work best under certain
conditions.

I welcome suggestions on how the investigation
might have been better designed as I would like to
eventually explore combinations of a number of other
materials.

In the meantime I intend to send the test samples
and details of their compositions and testing to Dean
Still who is independentally trying to solve the same
insulation problems using much the same starting
materials that I used.

Hoping this might prove useful, sincerely,

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Feb 10 10:13:01 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: Vedr.: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density... for straw and grass
Message-ID: <cd.22de154.27b6a556@cs.com>

I have never been a great fan of straw and switchgrass as fuels, but I don't
live in Denmark either. Your point is well taken for this particular form of
biomass.

However, baling is a form of densification and may be sufficient for straw,
since you clever Danes have invented a number of "bale burners".

What isn't economical today may be a necessity some day, so we need to
investigate all possibilities.

Wood pellets cost ~ $50/ton, made using unimproved technology. Yet
homeownders are willing to pay ~$120/ton in the form of 20 kg bags of pellets
for the convenience of using pellet stoves. And a "wood pellet famine" is
developing here in the U.S. with this cold winter.

So, keep your straw options open. You may have to eat your words.

Onward........ TOM REED
Dear all

the alternative to densifying biomass is off course to use a system for
firing biomass that uses the un-densified biomass and then compare the
economics of the two options. We have found that it is very difficult to
justify the densification costs. One of the problems in our country is that
we have an effective working time in the field for densifying straw of only
about 300 hour per year (for switchgrass it may be higher when harvested
during winter time). Therefore we prefer to use Hesston bales and install a
dedicated handling system for Hesston bales. The bales are used either in a
biomass boiler plant or as fuel for co-firing.

It may be possible to densify the straw after baling but we do not consider
this option as feasible compared with the dedicated handling system for
baling

Jens Clausen
TECH-WISE (formerly ELSAMPROJEKT)
Denmark

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Feb 10 10:13:07 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: small scale pelletisers
Message-ID: <6e.7a794e3.27b6a558@cs.com>

I have dreamed about small scale pelletizers for 25 years, and I grind my
teeth every time I mow my lawn or discard my trash.

I bought a GE "Trashmasher" in the 1981 and made "grassbricks" to burn in my
fireplace. I woke up at midnight to the most awful stink from their
fermenting. Put them outside. Let them dry. Burned one in Winter. Another
awful stink and only smouldered. Maybe if I had tried my wastepaper it
would have been OK.

The little lab pellet mill needs a 2 hp motor to make 25-50 lb/hr of pellets.
This must tell you something about the power and strength needed to make
pellets. Others have tried with little success to beat this game.

On the other hand charcoal briquettes only require sticking together with
starch etc.

So.... if you find an easy way, let me know, because densification is an
important part of biomass energy utilization. Love my pellets.

TOM REED BEF

In a message dated 2/8/01 1:59:22 PM Mountain Standard Time,
fractional@willmar.com writes:

The rotary 1200 hp pelletisers are beyond my needs thank you. A
stuffer type would be the simplest perhaps. Using existing junk farm
equipment for drives.

At 20-100 hp I am speaking of gas engine power.

Thanks,

Alan

Dr. Thomas B. Reed, President, The Biomass Energy Foundation, 1810 Smith Rd.,
Golden, CO 80401
Email reedtb2@cs.com; 303 278 0558 home; 303 278 0560 Fax

Dr. Thomas B. Reed, Principal Scientist,
The Community Power Corporation, 1810 Smith Rd., Golden CO 80401
Reedtb2@cs.com; 303 278 0558

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Feb 10 11:08:36 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: GHG vs GC
Message-ID: <8b.23949bc.27b6b28b@cs.com>

(For those who don't like GHG concern, substitute regular fossil fuels
depletion, it leads to the same conclusion).

Dear AW and ALL:

I am very skeptical about the longrange affects of greenhouse gases on our
future ... could be good or bad.

I am absolutely commited to saving a little fossil fuel for my 7
grandchildren (GC) and finding long range substitutes.

So, this leads to the same conclusion. Develop alternative energy as fast as
possible to extend the birthright fossil fuels. (I doubt if Bush would
agree, having a more Decamaron attitude: Eat, drink and be merry, for
tomorrow we will die. Not me.)

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Feb 10 11:08:45 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: BioC: Re: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density...
Message-ID: <20.11dc6b10.27b6b28d@cs.com>

Wow! Two essays from two experts in one day. I'm learning to spell
"Weststeijin". I guess the Dutch are so smart because they had to learn to
speak and spell their own language.

I started out to make a similar table the other day when discussing Mass and
Volume fuel densities.

First I discovered that we don't even have these names in our vocabularies!
So, I fabricated "Mass Fuel Density" and "Volume Fuel Density" from a few
words I had on hand. Can it be that this far into the industrial revolution
no one has needed these names before. I would be happy to find better
substitutes.

Then I gave up on the table because MFD and VFD weren't in any indexes and I
could see that it would take a day to collect the data that was all over the
place. And it's mostly site specific, involving packing densities, fuel
variations, ... which need to be specified for a numberical answer.

Now comes the expert assessments. Thanks a big bunch Andreis Weststeijn and
Tom Miles ...

TOM REED

4. NUMERICAL COMPARION of FUEL DATA (in metric)

COAL
loose bulk density = 850 kg/m3 (in pile)
energy density CV= 24 MJ/kg = 24 GJ/ton
volumetric density = 850 kg/m3*24 MJ/kg
volumetric density = 20400 MJ/m3
volumetric density = 20.4 GJ/m3

LOOSE DRY SAWDUST
loose bulk density = 200 kg/m3
energy density CV= 18 MJ/kg (assume dry)
volumetric density =200 kg/m3*18 MJ/kg
volumetric density = 3600 MJ/m3
volumetric density = 3.6 GJ/m3

And examples and subconclusions and conclusions. Wow!

Thanks Andries, TOM REED

From samuel.martin at epfl.ch Sat Feb 10 12:09:35 2001
From: samuel.martin at epfl.ch (samuel.martin@epfl.ch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Drying
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10102070700140.1720-100000@localhost>
Message-ID: <981821175.3a8566f76eaa0@imap.epfl.ch>

Dear all,

does anybody have some values about heat requiring to dry biomass. Typically,
what heat quantity do I need to dry fresh cut wood until gasifier limits (20%
dry basis) ?

Thanking you

Samuel Martin

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: imap.epfl.ch

From snkm at btl.net Sat Feb 10 12:14:35 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: small scale pelletisers
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010210100903.0098e100@wgs1.btl.net>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 3488 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20010210/7a8f83d1/attachment.bin
From CAVM at aol.com Sat Feb 10 12:33:22 2001
From: CAVM at aol.com (CAVM@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: Pelleting
Message-ID: <f6.733f632.27b6c661@aol.com>

Peter,

Can an economical steam engine be found these days which will have the power
to produce wood pellets, or pellets from switchgrass, bagasse or whatever?

Neal Van Milligen
CAVM@AOL.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------
In a message dated 2/10/2001 10:13:39 AM Central Standard Time, snkm@btl.net
writes:

<<
Sometimes I really wonder about you guys. So out of touch with reality.

"Steam" folks is a lot more than just running a steam turbine for
electrical power. It is power in its own right -- plus a "hot" power. In
those button presses -- the steam also heated the molds. That certainly
would help make a better biomass pellet as well --

Peter Singfield / Belize
>>

From fractional at willmar.com Sat Feb 10 13:49:36 2001
From: fractional at willmar.com (fractional@willmar.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: Pelletiser sketch moved
Message-ID: <3A857EED.D6071F19@willmar.com>

Hello List,

I have created a file dump for use by the list.

http://www.driveway.com/

Use "gus,ifer" for the member name and "nosmoking" for the password.

You don't have to become a member, just use these to login.

My pelletiser sketch is under the "Alan" folio.

You may make your own folio and upload files of your choice. Just don't
delete others folios. The site is good for only 25megs free, so please
don't overload it.

Alan

From snkm at btl.net Sat Feb 10 14:40:18 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pelleting
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010210123043.00988ba0@wgs1.btl.net>

At 11:29 AM 2/10/2001 EST, CAVM@aol.com wrote:
>Peter,
>
>Can an economical steam engine be found these days which will have the power
>to produce wood pellets, or pellets from switchgrass, bagasse or whatever?
>
>Neal Van Milligen
>CAVM@AOL.com

Abstract:

Converting an old Colt 44 cal.. Peace-Maker (single action revolver -- cap
and ball model) into a small pelleting machine.

A steam press is simply a cylinder with a piston and gland arm in it --
just like a hydraulic cylinder -- in fact -- you could use a hydraulic
cylinder.

It strokes an awful lot quicker though.

You can easily proto-type a design using compressed air.

You can either directly make a briquette at the bottom of the stroke -- or
use this cylinder to directly apply pressure to a die set. Every "strike"
would produce a number of smaller pellets this way -- say 100.

As for reciprocating speed -- what would you want? 100 pellets per stroke
-- 1000 RPM -- 100,000 pellets per minute. But there would be massive
feeding problems I would imagine at that cyclic speed.

The button machine was very neat. An aluminum plate with at least 100
cavities was filled with material. This press was totally manual. You
lifted the cylinder by pushing a handle back. Inserted this aluminum plate
into the die -- setting it in the "registration" points. Then you pulled a
rod and it dumped the right amount of material in each die cavity. Then you
pulled out the aluminum die filling device -- pulled back on the lever.
This large cylinder -- under 100 PSI steam pressure -- forced the dies
together. At this point you hit the plunger of a simple timer -- waited the
appropriate period -- then pushed the press action handle back -- opened
the dies -- and hit a button that released a shot of steam blowing the new
made buttons out the back -- against a screen -- thence to the collection
hopper. 16 hours per day -- over and over again.

But for a small pelletizer -- bigger pellets would be easier to do --
single cavity mold per pellet -- and just power ram that cylinder. The
force would in many tons -- as one considers the inertia of this device --
and its great speed -- as well as cylinder pressure per area.

You could use the same rotary die as the standard pelletizers now use --
but rather than another wheel, notching, to press -- just have a smaller
steam cylinder pound each cavity as presented -- with a simple linkage
latching device to advance the cylinder one die after each stroke. Like an
old colt revolver if you will. The same stroke also operates a plunger to
eject the freshly turned cylinder of its pellet -- and also can be used to
charge that cylinder for the next cycle -- a real six-shooter. Look at an
old "Peace-maker" and think. Think about driving a rod real hard down the
barrel into each cylinder cavity which is loaded with loose biomass.

Actually -- the old colt had such a loading leaver at the bottom of the
barrel -- the later cartridge model also had a level for ejection. So it is
all there folks -- just waiting to be adapted into a pelleting device.

There is no need to use a steam engine and rotary motion for a pelletizing
process.

Just giving an "alternative" view here. But such a device as outlined so
crudely would still be simpler to maintain than a rotary motion engine --
except of course for those biomassers that are hooked up to a grid and can
use electrical power to run a motor to do all this.

But in my books -- that is defeating the process of a small gasification
process -- though obviously it is the way to go if you making and selling
pellets to people such as Tom -- in the US.

Now if you really want to walk on the wild side of this design -- use the
waste heat of a conventional gasifier power plant to boil a refrigerant to
actuate this piston pressing device. Need much lower temps this way.

Now your pellets cost no energy. One could use heat from the diesel
radiator and exhaust -- or the waste heat coming out the back of a
conventional steam turbine or piston engine -- or even the flue gasses --
or back to the diesel supplemented engine -- the cooling of the product to
condense tars.

Bang -- bang -- bang -- what more could you want?

I see in my old Cabela's "Hunting and Outdoor Fishing" Catalog (1998) that
a good "Walker Old West" Revolver in 44 caliber is $280 US. That having the
largest capacity chamber of all these old black gunpowder -- cap and ball
-- revolvers. Make up rod that just fits in the barrel -- with the end
facing the grip enlarged slightly to fit the cylinder.

Load sawdust by ramming in the bottom. Then strike the rod with a sledge.
Voila -- a pellet!

(tongue and cheek folks -- I would never waste a "Walker on this -- but
rather build a better device along these same lines and more suitable for
the purpose of making pellets. But just for the purpose of visualizing)

Hey -- is today Saturday or what?

Peter / Belize

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>
>----------------------------------------
>In a message dated 2/10/2001 10:13:39 AM Central Standard Time, snkm@btl.net
>writes:
>
><<
> Sometimes I really wonder about you guys. So out of touch with reality.
>
>
> "Steam" folks is a lot more than just running a steam turbine for
> electrical power. It is power in its own right -- plus a "hot" power. In
> those button presses -- the steam also heated the molds. That certainly
> would help make a better biomass pellet as well --
>
>
> Peter Singfield / Belize
> >>
>
>Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>-
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
>

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Sat Feb 10 15:59:58 2001
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Drying
In-Reply-To: <981821175.3a8566f76eaa0@imap.epfl.ch>
Message-ID: <NEBBLHHHOLFOEGCILKHEAEOACFAA.kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>

Dear Samuel

100 pounds of "wet" wood would typically contain 50% moisture. This is the
first problem: 50% of what???

If it was "50% moisture wet basis", then you would have 50 pounds of bone
dry wood, and 50 pounds of water. On the other hand if it was "50% moisture
dry basis, then you would have 66.66 pounds dry wood, and 33.3 pounds of
water. Lets assume "wet basis" all the way.

To get to 20% moisture, you would have to remove some water, but how much?
If you removed 30 pounds of water, you would be left with 20 pounds of water
and 50 pounds of bone dry wood; the wood would then have a moisture content
of:
20/(20 + 50) = 20/70 = 28.57%
and not the 20% one would guess at intuitively.

To get to 20% moisture, you would have to remove 37.5 pounds of water,
leaving 12.5 behind with the 50 pounds of bone dry wood. (I won't bore you
with the elemental math...)

Very roughly, it takes 1000 BTU to evaporate 1 pound of water.... in this
case, it would take 37,500 BTU. However, you also have to heat the 50 pounds
of wood and 12.5 pounds of water, but, at a specific heat of say .6, the
"wood sensible heat" is about 60 BTU/Degree.... say 6000 BTU for 100
degrees. This is small, in comparison to the theoretical water heat load,
but brings the theoretical total to about 43,500 BTU.

The major heat loss is in connection with the air required to
convey the heat to the wood, and heating furnace losses. It generally works
out that the heat input into the drying furnace is about 1.7 times the heat
required for water evaporation. In this case, the "General Rule of Thumb"
would indicate 1.7 x 37,500 = 63,750 BTU

This can be more or less depending on the specifics of the situation.

Hope this is helpful.

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

> -----Original Message-----
> From: samuel.martin@epfl.ch [mailto:samuel.martin@epfl.ch]
> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 12:06 PM
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: Drying
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> does anybody have some values about heat requiring to dry
> biomass. Typically,
> what heat quantity do I need to dry fresh cut wood until gasifier
> limits (20%
> dry basis) ?
>
> Thanking you
>
> Samuel Martin
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP: imap.epfl.ch
>
> Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> -
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
>
>
>
>

From fractional at willmar.com Sat Feb 10 16:51:00 2001
From: fractional at willmar.com (fractional@willmar.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: Pellets, pills, stars
Message-ID: <3A85A951.E61C1A95@willmar.com>

Hello,

Pellets can be made by many different processes, but getting dry
biomass to stay in a pellet with a sub-second strike is another. I used
to make fireworks stars using a gang punch, using just hand pressure for
100 3/8" stars at a time. The powders and alcohol made a temporarily
stable pellet, good enough till the binder set. There is a mix of
mechanics and molecular binding forces at work there as there is in
high-pressure feed/fuel pellets. A different set no doubt. I'll leave
that to the physicists and chemists.

Was reading in one of the prior posts that sawdust goes from
200kg/cu-m to 1300kg/cu-m when densified. I would be satisfied with
900kg/cu-m as long as the process was simple to build and cost effective
to run. I'm not 'running' anywhere with them but to an old corn crib.
It is my presumption that this less than fully densified fuel pellet
would gasifiy well, I see no reason why it wound not.

If soyflour or some other fast heat setting (cheap) binder could be
incorporated prior to molding, the extrusion pipe could be lengthened to
as long as needed to develop sufficient back pressure, then expanded for
easy passage through an additional 20' length for further cooking by a
3" coaxial "tailpipe".

I was talking to an engineer from Minnesota Valley Alfalfa a year ago
about binders for woody material as they were about to make their stems
into a fuel pellet, using the conventional pelletisers. Told him of the
English company that makes these 4" log extruders for waste bio
products. That machine is for commercial purposes of course, but it
seamed to make cost effective logs for fireplaces in England. For all I
know a burnable log is worth $5 in England! Anyway if the engineer I
talked to is still on this list perhaps you could suggest a binder for a
slow extrusion process with chopped grass???

I mentioned the soyflour in the Phoenix Composite patent as while they
didn't get into extrusion in their patent, they did mention it. They
use a high pressure platen and heat to set thermoset the panels/counter
tops.

If you had to put 40' of extension on the pump to get more residency
time it would be cheap and quick to do.

Anybody know where a soybean flour processor is in Minnesota? The
phoenix process called for 325 mesh soy flour.

Thanks,
Alan

From fractional at willmar.com Sat Feb 10 17:42:49 2001
From: fractional at willmar.com (fractional@willmar.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: Gas bags/ beached whales
Message-ID: <3A85B56E.2D846EAA@willmar.com>

Hello,

I have uploaded some photos of my EPDM gas bag to the "Alan" folio on

http://www.driveway.com/

Member name: gus,ifer
password: nosmoking

I obtained a used piece from a roofer doing a reroof. I told him 30 x
30 but his helpers didn't know how to read a ruler, so it came out 25' x
29' after trimming square. He had a market for his used stuff for pond
liners so I paid him 10 cents/sq-ft for the trouble of cutting it up in
bigger than normal pieces, plus he through in 1a 00' roll of adhesive
tape with 6 times the stick of the rubber cement process, plus a partial
pail of adhesive primer, a tube of rubber caulk and a personal lesson on
it's use. Well worth it. The rubber is free from some roofers, but
then you need the materials too.

25' x 29' was all I could handle alone. I had help for a minute to
fold it up after washing, and for one more minute to fold over the
lengthwise seam. Otherwise I did it myself: construction, transport and
assembly. The thing roles up on it's end clamps (two 16' pt 2"x4" pine
each end) and drags about with my garden tractor.

The clamps turned out to be an excellent way to quickly build the bag,
and really turned out to be an excellent way to move, store and use the
bag. It inflates/deflates so nicely and has held up to heavy winds. In
the open a 6" strap looped around the center of the bag and staked
would keep in place for really heavy winds. There is no stress in the
corners. The ports are rubber roof jacks that sell for $20.

The pinched ends were a quick thought while attempting to make a
pillow lap on the ends by myself. That thing is heavy, it takes a farm
jack to lift one end onto the tractor or dolly. If you can imagine a
400 lb greased pig. Takes two people to wriggle that mass into the back
of a pickup. The rubber was over 300 lb. alone.

The 3/4" holes in the 'poles' ends fix the bag to the tractor and
dolly with hitch pins and also serve as bolt holes for the mounting
posts.

Wrote the assembly process up but it's on my junked computer. If
anyone is interested I'll retrieve it and post it to the driveway site.

Alan

From snkm at btl.net Sat Feb 10 18:16:07 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pellets, pills, stars
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010210161000.008d6d80@wgs1.btl.net>

At 02:49 PM 2/10/2001 -0600, fractional@willmar.com wrote:
>Hello,
>
> Pellets can be made by many different processes, but getting dry
>biomass to stay in a pellet with a sub-second strike is another. I used
>to make fireworks stars using a gang punch, using just hand pressure for
>100 3/8" stars at a time. The powders and alcohol made a temporarily
>stable pellet, good enough till the binder set. There is a mix of
>mechanics and molecular binding forces at work there as there is in
>high-pressure feed/fuel pellets. A different set no doubt. I'll leave
>that to the physicists and chemists.
>

Yes -- the same thought hit me immediately after I posted. Tell me, anyone
-- any hydraulic pelletizers out there?

Very easy to make an oil hydraulic pressure source -- to extremely high
pressures -- if so required -- using steam cylinder -- and that can be
easily adjusted to any rate of hold and release.

Peter / Belize

From costaeec at kcnet.com Sat Feb 10 18:25:44 2001
From: costaeec at kcnet.com (Jim Dunham)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pellets, pills, stars
Message-ID: <000b01c093af$49c85700$2565f0d1@default>

Why pellets? Briquettes are far cheaper and easier to make and to maintain.
Briquettes can be made with hydraulics, ram & die, or screw presses. Power
source can be virtually anything with sufficient muscle.

Jim Dunham
EEC

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net>
To: Gas List <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Saturday, February 10, 2001 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Pellets, pills, stars

>At 02:49 PM 2/10/2001 -0600, fractional@willmar.com wrote:
>>Hello,
>>
>> Pellets can be made by many different processes, but getting dry
>>biomass to stay in a pellet with a sub-second strike is another. I used
>>to make fireworks stars using a gang punch, using just hand pressure for
>>100 3/8" stars at a time. The powders and alcohol made a temporarily
>>stable pellet, good enough till the binder set. There is a mix of
>>mechanics and molecular binding forces at work there as there is in
>>high-pressure feed/fuel pellets. A different set no doubt. I'll leave
>>that to the physicists and chemists.
>>
>
>Yes -- the same thought hit me immediately after I posted. Tell me, anyone
>-- any hydraulic pelletizers out there?
>
>Very easy to make an oil hydraulic pressure source -- to extremely high
>pressures -- if so required -- using steam cylinder -- and that can be
>easily adjusted to any rate of hold and release.
>
>
>
>
>Peter / Belize
>
>Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>-
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

From tmiles at teleport.com Sat Feb 10 19:50:50 2001
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: Test for Duplicate Messages
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010210130047.02b415c0@mail.teleport.com>

I have received complaints about people receiving duplicate messages on the
gasification list.

If you receive two copies of this message please send a simple short YES
reply to:

tmiles@trmiles.com

It may be due to the recent change in CREST software. If I receive less
than 500 replies I'll know that we have a general problem and find a way to
fix it. :-)

Kind regards,

Tom Miles
Bioenergy Lists Administrator
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

From snkm at btl.net Sat Feb 10 20:04:50 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pellets, pills, stars
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010210175915.008d6660@wgs1.btl.net>

At 04:17 PM 2/10/2001 -0600, Jim Dunham wrote:
>Why pellets? Briquettes are far cheaper and easier to make and to maintain.
>Briquettes can be made with hydraulics, ram & die, or screw presses. Power
>source can be virtually anything with sufficient muscle.
>
>Jim Dunham
>EEC
>

Hi Jim;

Love the briquettes idea. OK gasifiers -- what size "briquette" would you
like to have??

Also -- one would think that with properly heated molds of correct design
(to vent) one could pyrolize the biomass resulting in many wonderful little
"Torrefied" briquettes. The gasses of torrefaction could be burned to
supply the steam, super heat the molds -- and probably extra electrical
power -- all at the same time.

Now gasifiers -- can you "work" a gasifier with torrefied briquettes -- or
are they to dry? (Shades of charcoal gasifiers as of WWII design??)

Peter / Belize

>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net>
>To: Gas List <gasification@crest.org>
>Date: Saturday, February 10, 2001 4:13 PM
>Subject: Re: GAS-L: Pellets, pills, stars
>
>
>>At 02:49 PM 2/10/2001 -0600, fractional@willmar.com wrote:
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>> Pellets can be made by many different processes, but getting dry
>>>biomass to stay in a pellet with a sub-second strike is another. I used
>>>to make fireworks stars using a gang punch, using just hand pressure for
>>>100 3/8" stars at a time. The powders and alcohol made a temporarily
>>>stable pellet, good enough till the binder set. There is a mix of
>>>mechanics and molecular binding forces at work there as there is in
>>>high-pressure feed/fuel pellets. A different set no doubt. I'll leave
>>>that to the physicists and chemists.
>>>
>>
>>Yes -- the same thought hit me immediately after I posted. Tell me, anyone
>>-- any hydraulic pelletizers out there?
>>
>>Very easy to make an oil hydraulic pressure source -- to extremely high
>>pressures -- if so required -- using steam cylinder -- and that can be
>>easily adjusted to any rate of hold and release.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Peter / Belize
>>
>>Gasification List is sponsored by
>>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>>-
>>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>>http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
>>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>>
>
>

From tmiles at teleport.com Sat Feb 10 21:50:28 2001
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Test for Duplicate Messages
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010210180957.00984a60@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010210173528.00e4bba0@mail.easystreet.com>

Peter has a good explanation for the duplicate messages. Although I think
there is another cause that I have taken up with the technical
administrator. He will not be at work until Monday, so bear with us.

Tom

At 06:16 PM 2/10/01 -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:

>Tom -- the "simple" reply function for the list now sends to the original
>poster only -- and not the list.

This is commonly done on email lists to avoid endless message loops caused
by the "auto reply", e.g. "George will be out of the office until Monday."

>So people are using the reply to all function -- which sends it to the list
>-- the original poster and also back to themselves.
>
>Try it and see.
>
>Unless the list programming is changed -- this will continue to confuse all.
>
>In my case I have simple put the Gasify url in my address book -- so now
>when I reply -- I wipe out the address the list is giving (which is a solo
>response to that poster -- and put in the gasifier address from the "book".
>
>A few extra clicks though. Would be simpler just to go back to the old way.

From Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk Sun Feb 11 05:12:55 2001
From: Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: FW: GAS-L: Drying
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGIEDJCBAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>

Sam, and gasifiers,

I have been working on biomass drying for some time and have developed some
useful technology which is unfortunately not public domain.
However the basic principles are:

The heat input you require is the latent heat of evaporation of water at
your chosen drying temperature.
You need to transfer this heat to the chips in a medium (air) and carry away
the moisture in a medium (also air) The hydroscopic properties of air affect
its water carrying properties.

So without giving the whole game away! You warm up the air to a drying
temperature and pump enough of it through to remove the moisture.

There is also an element of residence time as the chips don't give up their
moisture instantly.

Without being too commercial and incurring the wrath of Tom I would be happy
to discuss any individual drying requirements

There are a range of solutions dependant on capacity, energy available, and
degree of automation. Etc. I may be able to post some specific examples at
a later date.

Best regards

Gavin Gulliver-Goodall

-----Original Message-----
From: samuel.martin@epfl.ch [mailto:samuel.martin@epfl.ch]
Sent: 10 February 2001 16:06
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: Drying

Dear all,

does anybody have some values about heat requiring to dry biomass.
Typically, what heat quantity do I need to dry fresh cut wood until gasifier
limits (20% dry basis) ?
Thanking you
Samuel Martin

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: imap.epfl.ch

From jmdavies at xsinet.co.za Sun Feb 11 17:09:30 2001
From: jmdavies at xsinet.co.za (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Newspaper Stove
In-Reply-To: <bb.b9031cb.27b46e95@cs.com>
Message-ID: <000c01c0946e$d361f6a0$86d4ef9b@p>

Hi All,
Now we see a variation of the sawdust stove!

To my mind, we see the fuel being totally gasified ( lack of a better term )
in one stage, with the resulting gas being burned very close to the source
and radiating heat back to gasification site to keep the reaction going.

This leads me to the thought that it should also work with, wood chips,
tightly packed twigs or a host of other bio-mass. So simple, and yet total
combustion. I feel that with a little advancement, this could be the
forerunner of a simple domestic heating system, burning what ever bio-mass
is available.

The combustion container could be made to connect to the underside of the
heating appliance, with a quick coupling device. With several charges on
standby, this could be changed and re-lit when necessary. A little more
trouble than changing an empty propane cylinder, but the fuel is free.

This will definitely be my first project in bio-mass heating, It will be
interesting to see what fuels will work, and in what form.

Has anybody done any tests with the sawdust stove ?

Regards,
John Davies.

> > Subj:Newspaper Stove
> > Date:2/8/01 8:58:34 AM Mountain Standard Time
> > From: rdboyt@yahoo.com (Richard Boyt)
> > To: stoves@crest.org
> > Remembering the feriosity with which I once saw a
> > standing hollow tree burn, ..............

. As the flame dies back, the
> > inside of the now charred chimney of charred paper
> > begins to glow as the char is converted to ash.
> > Looking down inside the cylinder you see a bright
> > orange column of glowing char/ash. Flowing, sometimes
> > rippling up the surface of this golden donut is a
> > faint nearly transparent pale blue/purple film .No
> > detectable smoke is given off though a good deal of
> > heat rises from the glowing tube. It has no odor, does
> > not sting the eyes, .....................

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Feb 11 21:29:17 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: Briquettes vs Densified pellets, cubes, logs..
Message-ID: <a7.ba39dfe.27b8957c@cs.com>

Why pellets is a good question, but briquettes are not the answer.

I'm not sure this definition is official, but I understand "briquette" to
mean a compact shape made from a semi liquid mix - as in making rolls from
dough, or as in making charcoal briquettes from charcoal and starch. A
"pillow briquetter" requires very little power to turn out those pillow
shapes.

Wood is 2/3 air, 1/3 fuel. Pellets, cubes and logs are made by applying
about 10,000 psi to force the feed through small enough holes to squeeze out
the air and generate enough heat to soften the lignin and other components to
hold the final item together. Typically requires 100 hp-hr/ton.

for the gory details and costs, visit

http://www.reap.ca/Reports/pelletaug2000.html

So, sorry, but briquetting is in another amateur league.

TOM REED

In a message dated 2/10/01 5:02:44 PM Mountain Standard Time, snkm@btl.net
writes:

At 04:17 PM 2/10/2001 -0600, Jim Dunham wrote:
>Why pellets? Briquettes are far cheaper and easier to make and to
maintain.
>Briquettes can be made with hydraulics, ram & die, or screw presses. Power
>source can be virtually anything with sufficient muscle.
>
>Jim Dunham
>EEC
>

Hi Jim;

Love the briquettes idea. OK gasifiers -- what size "briquette" would you
like to have??

Now gasifiers -- can you "work" a gasifier with torrefied briquettes -- or
are they to dry? (Shades of charcoal gasifiers as of WWII design??)

Peter / Belize

From samuel.martin at epfl.ch Mon Feb 12 07:27:13 2001
From: samuel.martin at epfl.ch (samuel.martin@epfl.ch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tars again...
In-Reply-To: <7a.1055a2fe.27b6a533@cs.com>
Message-ID: <981977040.3a87c7d03febc@imap.epfl.ch>

Dear Tom and all,

Quoting Reedtb2@cs.com:

> >
> YOUR COMMENT WOULD APPLY TO LOW TEMPERATURE PYROLYSIS (<500C) (AS IN
> UPDRAFT
> GASIFIERS) WITH ACETIC ACID A PRIMARY CULPRIT.
>
> HIGH TEMPERATURE PYROLYSIS AS IN DOWNDRAFT GASIFIERS PRODUCES PRIMARY
> PNAs OF
> WHICH CRESOLS ARE THE MOST LIKELY TO CONDENSE AS SOLIDS.
>
> WE DON'T WORRY SO MUCH ABOUT THINGS CONDENSING AS LIQUIDS AT <90 C,
> SINCE
> THEY WILL RE-EVAPORATE IN A HOT ENGINE, AND AS YOU SAY THEY HAVE
> CONSIDERABLE
> FUEL VALUE. WE WORRY ABOUT THOSE THAT ARE SOLID AT 90C, SINCE THEY
> COULD
> VERY WELL CLOG THE VALVE STEMS, PIPES ETC.

What do you mean by "condense as solids" ? Does it mean that at 90C some tars
are already solid ? How is this possible ? And again, why did you choose as
reference temperature 90C. I imagine if you fuel your engine with a 30C gas
,more tars will "condense as solid".

Moreover I have a report about a Swiss gasification plant. They had to dismount
and clean all the engine after 72 hours of running, precisely because of
presence of condensed water and tars in the gas at the engine inlet. This
condensation was due to our could Swiss climate. Now they installed "purgins"
(purges in French, I don't know how if my translation is correct) to remove this
condensate before the engine and no more problems occurred with engine. It seems
that now, in the most updated plant version, a system to maintain gas
temperature constant after the wet scrubber was installed. All this seems to
mean that liquid presence in the gas is a problem for the engine.

>
> > Can you evaluate what is the energy lost by removing tars (because
> tars
> > increase
> > heating value of the gas), say for a 100 kWe plant ?
> >
> SINCE WE HAVEN'T DEFINED "TARS" IT WOULD BE HARD TO SAY, BUT IT'S HARD
> TO
> HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. IF ALL TARS WERE OK, WE'D ALWAYS LEAVE THEM IN. THE
> FACT
> THAT SOME CONDENSE AS SOLIDS MEANS WE HAVE TO REMOVE THEM DOWN TO 90 C.
>

>
> THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OPERATING THE ENGINE ON 60 C GAS AND 30 C GAS IS
> QUITE
> SMALL, SO BETTER TO AVOID ALL THE PROBLEMS OF LIQUID CONEDENSATES BY
> STAYING
> AT 60 C.

Can you quantify this "quite small" ?

> >
> > TARS ARE THE ACHILLES HEEL OF GASIFICATION. ALWAYS WORRY ABOUT THEM, BUT
> > THEY CAN BE REMOVED - OR PREFERABLY NOT GENERATED. OUR GASIFIER MAKES
> > REGULARLY < 50 PPM TAR(90C) IN THE RAW GAS (PROPRIETARY).

With which biomass ? How can you achieve to produce a gas with so low tars ?

Thank you

Regards,

Samuel Martin

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: imap.epfl.ch

From jaakko.saastamoinen at vtt.fi Mon Feb 12 09:01:05 2001
From: jaakko.saastamoinen at vtt.fi (Jaakko Saastamoinen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Newspaper Stove
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010212150029.009ca400@vttmail.vtt.fi>

Hi all,

the newpaper stove and the stove described below by
John Davies resemble much the so called (timber)
jack's candle. One can burn a single large
piece of wood outside on snow ground at cold weather.
Such wooden candles also sold at Christmas time
and burnt outside small houses. One construction is a
cylindric wood log with a hole in the centre, but other
constructions are also possible. The two important
things for good burning are that one has burning
surfaces opposing each other so that radiation losses
are low and that the density difference due to
heating of the gas causes a gas flow bringing fresh
air for the burning.

With similar principle it is also possible to construct
a large long stove to warm a group of people outdoors in
the winter from whole trunks. It is called "rakovalkea"
in Finnish. The first part of this word "rako" means a
crack and "valkea" means fire. The crack with two opposing
burning surfaces is essential to have good burning. This
is a simple stove that one constructs in situ from the
fuel itself needing no additional construction material.

Regards,

Jaakko Saastamoinen

At 20:18 11.2.2001 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi All,
>Now we see a variation of the sawdust stove!
>
>To my mind, we see the fuel being totally gasified ( lack of a better term )
>in one stage, with the resulting gas being burned very close to the source
>and radiating heat back to gasification site to keep the reaction going.
>
>This leads me to the thought that it should also work with, wood chips,
>tightly packed twigs or a host of other bio-mass. So simple, and yet total
>combustion. I feel that with a little advancement, this could be the
>forerunner of a simple domestic heating system, burning what ever bio-mass
>is available.
>
>The combustion container could be made to connect to the underside of the
>heating appliance, with a quick coupling device. With several charges on
>standby, this could be changed and re-lit when necessary. A little more
>trouble than changing an empty propane cylinder, but the fuel is free.
>
>This will definitely be my first project in bio-mass heating, It will be
>interesting to see what fuels will work, and in what form.
>
>Has anybody done any tests with the sawdust stove ?
>
>Regards,
>John Davies.
>
>
>
>> > Subj:Newspaper Stove
>> > Date:2/8/01 8:58:34 AM Mountain Standard Time
>> > From: rdboyt@yahoo.com (Richard Boyt)
>> > To: stoves@crest.org
>> > Remembering the feriosity with which I once saw a
>> > standing hollow tree burn, ..............
>
>. As the flame dies back, the
>> > inside of the now charred chimney of charred paper
>> > begins to glow as the char is converted to ash.
>> > Looking down inside the cylinder you see a bright
>> > orange column of glowing char/ash. Flowing, sometimes
>> > rippling up the surface of this golden donut is a
>> > faint nearly transparent pale blue/purple film .No
>> > detectable smoke is given off though a good deal of
>> > heat rises from the glowing tube. It has no odor, does
>> > not sting the eyes, .....................
>
>
>
>Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>-
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
>
>
__________________________________________
Jaakko Saastamoinen
VTT Energy
Box 1603, 40101 Jyvaskyla
Finland
phone +358 14 672 547, fax +358 14 672 596
__________________________________________

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Mon Feb 12 11:18:07 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tars again...
Message-ID: <7d.10d2cac4.27b957b9@cs.com>

Dear Tom and all,

Quoting Reedtb2@cs.com:

What do you mean by "condense as solids" ?

Naphthalene is a major constituent of the high temperature PNA tars and will
condense as a solid below 167 C, its melting point. Many of the other PNAs
have similar high melting points. In addition, phenols and aldehydes can
react to form phenol-formaldehyde like varnishes.

Does it mean that at 90C some tars

are already solid ? How is this possible ? And again, why did you choose as
reference temperature 90C. I imagine if you fuel your engine with a 30C gas
,more tars will "condense as solid".

We Chose 90 C because it is easy to maintain with a wet steamy rag around the
filter holder attached to the raw gas offtake.

Moreover I have a report about a Swiss gasification plant. They had to
dismount
and clean all the engine after 72 hours of running, precisely because of
presence of condensed water and tars in the gas at the engine inlet. This
condensation was due to our could Swiss climate. Now they installed
"purgins"
(purges in French, I don't know how if my translation is correct) to remove
this
condensate before the engine and no more problems occurred with engine. It
seems
that now, in the most updated plant version, a system to maintain gas
temperature constant after the wet scrubber was installed. All this seems
to
mean that liquid presence in the gas is a problem for the engine.

That's why we run a non condensing system and suffer the slight de-rating. >

> > Can you evaluate what is the energy lost by removing tars (because
> tars
> > increase
> > heating value of the gas), say for a 100 kWe plant ?
> >
> SINCE WE HAVEN'T DEFINED "TARS" IT WOULD BE HARD TO SAY, BUT IT'S HARD
> TO
> HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. IF ALL TARS WERE OK, WE'D ALWAYS LEAVE THEM IN. THE
> FACT
> THAT SOME CONDENSE AS SOLIDS MEANS WE HAVE TO REMOVE THEM DOWN TO 90 C.
>

>
> THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OPERATING THE ENGINE ON 60 C GAS AND 30 C GAS IS
> QUITE
> SMALL, SO BETTER TO AVOID ALL THE PROBLEMS OF LIQUID CONEDENSATES BY
> STAYING
> AT 60 C.

Can you quantify this "quite small" ?

The density of the gas at 60C would be 94% as dense as at 40C
((273+40)/(273+60), so maybe a 6% derating, easily compensated by running a
higher compression ratio.

> > TARS ARE THE ACHILLES HEEL OF GASIFICATION. ALWAYS WORRY ABOUT THEM,
BUT
> > THEY CAN BE REMOVED - OR PREFERABLY NOT GENERATED. OUR GASIFIER MAKES
> > REGULARLY < 50 PPM TAR(90C) IN THE RAW GAS (PROPRIETARY).

With which biomass ? How can you achieve to produce a gas with so low tars ?

Currently with wood chips, wood pellets and coconut shells. Method
proprietary.

Thank you

Regards,

Samuel Martin

Down with tars and condensate, up with gasification!

TOM REED

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: imap.epfl.ch

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Mon Feb 12 11:18:47 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: small scale pelletisers
Message-ID: <6d.f54c44c.27b957bb@cs.com>

While your charcoal was a "pellet" in the general sense, the current use in
fuels is for wood etc. extruded under very high pressure (10,000 psi) from
holes or through rotary knives to make pellets, cubes and logs.

I would call your charcoal fuel a "briquette" and they can be made by hand or
by rolling with starch solution. Little pressure required, since the
pyrolysis process has broken down the open spongy nature of wood.

However, I don't think most people make this distinction -until they buy a
briquetter and find it wont make pellets.

TOM REED

In a message dated 2/12/01 1:27:47 AM Mountain Standard Time,
reecon@mitsuminet.com writes:

Hallow Stovers,
While at IIT Delhi, we developed a very simple and very effective
pelletizer for charcoal dust that uses clay as a binder. The only problem
with the pelletizer is that the pellets need a specially made to fit stove.
If interested i could sent the drawing, although i would need to clear with
my professor first.
Musungu.

----- Original

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Mon Feb 12 11:18:56 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: Woodgas from wood pellets?
Message-ID: <9b.10bccfea.27b957b2@cs.com>

In 1978 we ran tests on wood pellet gasification with Richard Bailie in
Morgantown West Virginia. His passion was BIG fluidized beds, but we used
his test rig, gas analysis etc.

Dick had a 75 hp Hellelman gasifier that he imported from a scrap yard in
Sweden. (Gasifier cost, $100; shipping $1400). He used it to run a
lawnmower engine with his students. Bit of a load mismatch, probably VERY
tarry gas at such a low superficial velocity.

The gasifier ran at least as well on pellets as it did on chips and of course
one can go twice as far on the same volume of pellets as chips, so pelletized
fuels will be the fuel of choice for the next gasification renaissance.

We then operated the gasifier on increasing amounts of oxygen up to 100% and
were ASTOUNDED to find that the temperature of the gas/solids at the throat
only climbed from 800 to 850C. (Of course the gas HHV doubled). It took
several days for me to realize that the temperature in the char zone if
buffered by the presence of CO2 and H2O, so can't rise much until they
disappear.

Looking forward to the woodgas renaissance this Spring. Hoping to run a
gasifier truck on pellets in the next few weeks.

Yours truly, TOM REED
In a message dated 2/12/01 4:59:01 AM Mountain Standard Time,
Bo.Leijon@ssko.slu.se writes:

Dear Dr. Reed,

Wood pellets are produced at many places i Sweden. Some people seem to be
interested in small scale "woodgas" producktion from pellets.

I guess (i.e. I don´t know) that wood pellets would be suitable for
"woodgas enthusiasts", rebuilding ther cars etc or perhaps for small scale
electricity generation. However, my knowledge is very limited. Therefore i
would like to put two questions to you:

What is your opinion on wood pellets as a raw material for producing
"woodgas" for engines by pyrolysis?

Do you know of any test results or researh & devlopment work going on
anywhere?

Regards,

Bo Leijon
Researcher, forest energy & biomass
Swedish Univ of Agricult. Sciences

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Mon Feb 12 11:32:32 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Vedr.: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density... for straw and grass
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4E83@sp0016.epz.nl>

Hello Jens,

You commented:

> the alternative to densifying biomass is off course to use a system
> for
> firing biomass that uses the un-densified biomass and then compare
> the economics of the two options. We have found that it is very difficult
> to justify the densification costs.
>
I generally agree with you. To justify the added densification costs there
needs to be a clear trigger. Usually avoided capital costs.

Have you looked at densification of other biomasses but straw? Like wastes
from the food, paper or forest industries. And did you arrive at the same
conclusion, i.e. that densification does not pay?

What is the minimum price (cut-off price) to the farmer to make it
worthwhile for him to bale the straw rather than plow it under?

> Therefore we prefer to use Hesston bales and install a dedicated
> handling system for Hesston bales. The bales are used either in a
> biomass boiler plant or as fuel for co-firing.
>
Apart from burning or gasifying Hesston bales in dedicated boilers
(including Fluidized Beds), has there been a test with chipped straw as a
solid fuel (loose or pelletized) and cofiring it directly into a PC-boiler,
as mixed with coal?
I seem to remember such an experiment at Esbjerg power station about 3 years
ago but don't have the details at hand.

best regards,
Andries Weststeijn
EPZ

From samuel.martin at epfl.ch Mon Feb 12 11:34:55 2001
From: samuel.martin at epfl.ch (samuel.martin@epfl.ch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Derating versus efficiency
In-Reply-To: <7d.10d2cac4.27b957b9@cs.com>
Message-ID: <981991904.3a8801e007af5@imap.epfl.ch>

Dear all,

In India, prof Mukunda ran a modified 17:1 Diesel engine with a de-rating of 16%
compared with Diesel and a thermal efficiency of 21%. On the other hand, in
Switzerland a 12:1 modified Diesel engine (adapted for notural gas)has a
derating of more than 50% (compared with natural gas) but an efficiency of
31.9%. What does it mean??

Is this a question of engine technology, meaning that if in Switerland the
compression ratio is increased better derating properties will be found with the
same or even better efficiency or is there a problem with producer gas
properties and high compression ratio ?(due to none -adapted combustion chamber
design for example)

Thank you

Regards,

Samuel Martin

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: imap.epfl.ch

From costaeec at kcnet.com Mon Feb 12 12:18:08 2001
From: costaeec at kcnet.com (costaeec)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: Briquettes vs Densified pellets, cubes, logs..
In-Reply-To: <a7.ba39dfe.27b8957c@cs.com>
Message-ID: <000101c0950f$013e92e0$0f65f0d1@hppav>

I am not sure where to find the 'official'
definition of briquette, any more the an official definition of most terms used
in unconventional and/or evolving technologies such as those being
discussed and developed on this forum.

The briquettes we refer to are certainly not "rolls
made from dough"! They are simply large diameter pellets, or 'pucks'
formed with heat and pressure and can be as hard as concrete. Most raw materials
require no binder. They have been in use for at least 58 years. Most certainly
not applicable in all situations, but the key component in many.

So, if all those who use briquetting to great
advantage are "amateur's" , then please advise us all as to the professional way
to accomplish their objectives.
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
Reedtb2@cs.com
To: <A title=snkm@btl.net
href="mailto:snkm@btl.net">snkm@btl.net ; <A title=gasification@crest.org
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org
Cc: <A title=stoves@crest.org
href="mailto:stoves@crest.org">stoves@crest.org
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 7:25
PM
Subject: Briquettes vs Densified pellets,
cubes, logs..
Dear Peter, Jim and
All: Why pellets is a good question, but briquettes are not the
answer. I'm not sure this definition is official, but I
understand "briquette" to mean a compact shape made from a semi liquid mix
- as in making rolls from dough, or as in making charcoal briquettes from
charcoal and starch. A "pillow briquetter" requires very little
power to turn out those pillow shapes. Wood is 2/3 air, 1/3 fuel.
Pellets, cubes and logs are made by applying about 10,000 psi to
force the feed through small enough holes to squeeze out the air and
generate enough heat to soften the lignin and other components to hold the
final item together. Typically requires 100 hp-hr/ton.
for the gory details and costs, visit
http://www.reap.ca/Reports/pelletaug2000.html So, sorry, but
briquetting is in another amateur league. TOM REED In a
message dated 2/10/01 5:02:44 PM Mountain Standard Time, snkm@btl.net
writes: 
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
TYPE="CITE">At 04:17 PM 2/10/2001 -0600, Jim Dunham wrote: >Why
pellets? Briquettes are far cheaper and easier to make and to
maintain. >Briquettes can be made with hydraulics, ram & die,
or screw presses. Power >source can be virtually anything with
sufficient muscle. > >Jim Dunham >EEC >
Hi Jim; Love the briquettes idea. OK gasifiers -- what size
"briquette" would you like to have?? Also -- one would think
that with properly heated molds of correct design (to vent) one could
pyrolize the biomass resulting in many wonderful little "Torrefied"
briquettes. The gasses of torrefaction could be burned to supply the
steam, super heat the molds -- and probably extra electrical power --
all at the same time. Now gasifiers -- can you "work" a gasifier
with torrefied briquettes -- or are they to dry? (Shades of charcoal
gasifiers as of WWII design??) Peter / Belize

From snkm at btl.net Mon Feb 12 13:02:48 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Woodgas from wood pellets?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010212105046.00a122c0@wgs1.btl.net>

List -- here is that same message just sent -- but properly formatted for a
mail list.

I know that some people think the whole world has top level software that
can read any thing put out by any memeber from any country. But as a rule
-- most mail lists are international in nature -- with some people from
poorer countries subscribed -- that do not have bloat-ware software that
sends kbytes of message to long for no other purpose than impress the far
corners of this new Empire just how back-wards they are when compared to
the rich over lords at the center of this man made universe.

Most -- if not all bloat-wares do have a "button" somewhere that lets them
to send in the tradtional mail list format -- when meeting minds with the
world at large -- rather than just fellow bloat-ware users.

This button will be called "MS-DOS" "TEXT" -- or plain vanilla ASCII -- or
"Plain TEXT".

Most "moderns" are considerate enough to push this button. Some are more
agressive though -- and figure that anyone that is not rich enough to
afford good "BLOAT_WARE" should not be on the list.

Peter Singfield in Belize -- getting tired enough of reformating messages
to seriously consider quiting this list for a while -- and then maybe
finding another one instead.

Then you could all "dream" in peace -- of an empire that never ends --

*******original message -- properly formatted in stand text for mail lists
-- everywhere else -- but apparently not always here.**********

Dear Bo:

In 1978 we ran tests on wood pellet gasification with Richard Bailie in
Morgantown West Virginia. His passion was BIG fluidized beds, but we used
his test rig, gas analysis etc.

The gasifier ran at least as well on pellets as it did on chips and of
course
one can go twice as far on the same volume of pellets as chips, so
pelletized
fuels will be the fuel of choice for the next gasification renaissance.

Looking forward to the woodgas renaissance this Spring. Hoping to run a
gasifier truck on pellets in the next few weeks.

Yours truly, TOM REED
In a message dated 2/12/01 4:59:01 AM Mountain Standard Time,
Bo.Leijon@ssko.slu.se writes:

Dear Dr. Reed,

Wood pellets are produced at many places i Sweden. Some people seem to be
interested in small scale "woodgas" producktion from pellets.

What is your opinion on wood pellets as a raw material for producing
"woodgas" for engines by pyrolysis?

Do you know of any test results or researh & devlopment work going on
anywhere?

Regards,

Bo Leijon
Researcher, forest energy & biomass
Swedish Univ of Agricult. Sciences

From snkm at btl.net Mon Feb 12 13:03:13 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Vedr.: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density... for straw and grass
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010212105710.008af1b0@wgs1.btl.net>

If the main justification of "pellets" is cutting transportation costs --
then "bailing" certainly is the more economic solution. Or call it large
unit size compression packaging?

The other cost to calculate is the increased size of gasifier and gasifier
feeding mechanisms.

But I could never see that being justified for the cost of pellitizing!

Thanks for sending a message in plain ASCII -- but of course -- it is all
coming from Europe -- one of the "provinces" of this new Empire -- so of
course -- a little more "back-ward". (Thank God!!)

Peter / Belize

At 04:27 PM 2/12/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>Hello Jens,
>
>You commented:
>
>> the alternative to densifying biomass is off course to use a system
>> for
>> firing biomass that uses the un-densified biomass and then compare
>> the economics of the two options. We have found that it is very difficult
>> to justify the densification costs.
>>
>I generally agree with you. To justify the added densification costs there
>needs to be a clear trigger. Usually avoided capital costs.
>
>Have you looked at densification of other biomasses but straw? Like wastes
>from the food, paper or forest industries. And did you arrive at the same
>conclusion, i.e. that densification does not pay?
>
>What is the minimum price (cut-off price) to the farmer to make it
>worthwhile for him to bale the straw rather than plow it under?
>
>> Therefore we prefer to use Hesston bales and install a dedicated
>> handling system for Hesston bales. The bales are used either in a
>> biomass boiler plant or as fuel for co-firing.
>>
>Apart from burning or gasifying Hesston bales in dedicated boilers
>(including Fluidized Beds), has there been a test with chipped straw as a
>solid fuel (loose or pelletized) and cofiring it directly into a PC-boiler,
>as mixed with coal?
>I seem to remember such an experiment at Esbjerg power station about 3 years
>ago but don't have the details at hand.
>
>best regards,
>Andries Weststeijn
>EPZ
>
>
>
>Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>-
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
>

From snkm at btl.net Mon Feb 12 13:03:43 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: small scale pelletisers
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010212104137.00a08ac0@wgs1.btl.net>

Wow! Pretty heavy message here Tom --

It can be read it as:

Pellets are the only way to go. Forget briquettes -- that is not a topic
for discussion.

I personally would like to hear more from "Musungu" regarding clay as a
charcoal binder. Being that the small packaging of charcoal is so
problematic due to lack of a built in binder.

Now -- on to Pelleting process.

It requires a capital investment -- per ton production capacity -- ranging
from:

"The capital investment per tonne of production is $400,000 and $280,000
for the small and large wood pelleting facility"

The entire quote from "Assessment of Pelletized Biofuels" below:

"The main costs associated with pelleting biofuels are plant operating
costs and feedstocks costs. The Pellet Fuels Institute in the United States
has done some analysis of the costs of wood pelleting (Council of Great
Lake Governors, 1995). From a sample business plan estimate, the overall
cost of a wood pellet facility (adjusted to 1999 costs and converted to
Canadian dollars) producing 7-8 tonne per hour was estimated to be 2.1
million dollars while the cost of a 3-4 tonne per hour facility was 1.4
million dollars (Table 2). Based on average production rates of 3.5 and 7.5
at each of the facilities, the capital investment per tonne of production
is $400,000 and $280,000 for the small and large wood pelleting facility
(Figure 4). If the plants were producing higher throughput raw material
such as switchgrass or sunflower hulls, the investment would be further
reduced to an estimated 200,000 and 140,000 per tonne of production for the
small and large plant respectively."

Further -- beyond capital cost we have an operating cost of:

"direct pelleting costs should be in the range of $25.12-$39.33 for
switchgrass and $39.33-$50.57 for SRF willow"

(Again from: Assessment of Pelletized Biofuels)

This does not include price of transport and "packaging".

I am quite sure the "New Rome" is counting heavily on its more backward
"colonies" to pay for the ever increasing cost of Lions at the coliseums --
after all -- it is of the utmost benefit to the world that the "people"
stay happy in this New Rome -- and only fair the "empire" pays the costs.
so lets load them down with equipment that we contract to be made in one
corner of this empire and which we re-sell to these folks at the other end
-- making profit to buy lions at the same time. The people buying these
contraptions will become economic slaves to the suppliers of these great
and wonderful machines.

This is how I read it Tom -- because those costs put it beyond the reach of
any developing country -- if they know it or not.

I see we must avoid this word "pellet" -- and now consider a word to
describe fuel conditioning to a uniform packet size for combustion in a
standard (for this list anyway) gasifier.

I suggest the word "briquette ".

Obviously the modern countries have no intention to slacken their use of
electrical power -- so they must consider any project regarding generation
of power using biomasses at gigantic scales only.

As I said -- the price of lions is going up.

That we are repeating history again is not as confusing as realizing that
many people believe they will avoid the historic ending always attached
with these dynasties of mankind.

Presently reading the book:

"A Pillar of Iron" (By Taylor Caldwell)

Which deals with Cicero and the ancient Empire of Rome.

Makes me happy to be in the back-woods of this turn of the wheel
"civilization".

Car tires are basically pure carbon with a binder -- along with some steel,
zinc (plating) and glass/nylon/rayon (cording)

Wonder if a binder from charcoal "Briquettes" could not be produced from
scrap tires?? Kind of killing two birds with one stone. Extracting such by
boiling in old oil -- as example.

And -- can we call car scrap tires -- Lion "s*it"?? I hear they pay for
some one to get rid of it these days?

Peter / Belize

At 10:14 AM 2/12/2001 EST, you wrote:

>>>>
Dear Musungu:

I would call your charcoal fuel a "briquette" and they can be made by hand
or
by rolling with starch solution. Little pressure required, since the
pyrolysis process has broken down the open spongy nature of wood.

However, I don't think most people make this distinction -until they buy a
briquetter and find it wont make pellets.

TOM REED

In a message dated 2/12/01 1:27:47 AM Mountain Standard Time,
reecon@mitsuminet.com writes:

----- Original

From snkm at btl.net Mon Feb 12 14:08:53 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010212113953.00a10cb0@wgs1.btl.net>

At 04:27 PM 2/12/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>Hello Jens,
>
>You commented:

>Have you looked at densification of other biomasses but straw? Like wastes
>from the food, paper or forest industries. And did you arrive at the same
>conclusion, i.e. that densification does not pay?

>best regards,
>Andries Weststeijn
>EPZ

In municipal "wastes" it is the only way to go. Check out this Url to see a
prime example for such a system -- in operation.

Here they highly compress waste into rather large "blocks". Everything --
including the kitchen sink -- that old refrigerator -- etc.

Metals are retrieved as slag balls. Great stuff!

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

Talk about a hydraulic press! Along the lines of a scrap car compactor.

Peter in Belize -- looking for a 3rd world class mail list that discusses
gasification.

From snkm at btl.net Mon Feb 12 14:09:13 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: Briquettes vs Densified pellets, cubes, logs..
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010212115000.00a10570@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi "Costaeec"

I certainly am very interested in you briquettes! Can you supply some more
info?

By the way -- notice how this list now contributes to WWW "Bloatware" by
making double or more copies of the same reply??

Unless the "reply" is coming from me -- as I take the time to erase all the
addresses in the To: and CC: field and then tack in -- from the address
book -- the Gas list one.

Then there is reformatting these bloatware messages. That required
copy/paste into a special editor -- then copy pasting back in to the Email
message.

Great -- just Great!! Are we getting "TO" modern now or what??

Peter / Belize -- Wondering just what happened to this list??

At 09:50 PM 2/11/2001 -0600, "costaeec" <costaeec@kcnet.com> wrote:
>>>>
I am not sure where to find the 'official' definition of briquette, any
more the an official definition of most terms used in unconventional
and/or evolving technologies such as those being discussed and developed
on this forum. The briquettes we refer to are certainly not "rolls made
from dough"! They are simply large diameter pellets, or 'pucks' formed
with heat and pressure and can be as hard as concrete. Most raw materials
require no binder. They have been in use for at least 58 years. Most
certainly not applicable in all situations, but the key component in many.
So, if all those who use briquetting to great advantage are "amateur's" ,
then please advise us all as to the professional way to accomplish their
objectives. ----- Original Message ----- From:
<mailto:Reedtb2@cs.com>Reedtb2@cs.com To:
href="mailto:snkm@btl.net">snkm@btl.net ;
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org Cc:
href="mailto:stoves@crest.org">stoves@crest.org Sent: Sunday, February
11, 2001 7:25 PM Subject: Briquettes vs Densified pellets, cubes,
logs..
Dear Peter, Jim and All:

Why pellets is a good question, but briquettes are not the answer.

Wood is 2/3 air, 1/3 fuel. Pellets, cubes and logs are made by applying
about 10,000 psi to force the feed through small enough holes to squeeze
out
the air and generate enough heat to soften the lignin and other
components to
hold the final item together. Typically requires 100 hp-hr/ton.

for the gory details and costs, visit

http://www.reap.ca/Reports/pelletaug2000.html

So, sorry, but briquetting is in another amateur league.

TOM REED

In a message dated 2/10/01 5:02:44 PM Mountain Standard Time,
snkm@btl.net
writes:

FAMILY="SANSSERIF">
TYPE="CITE">
At 04:17 PM 2/10/2001 -0600, Jim Dunham wrote:
>Why pellets? Briquettes are far cheaper and easier to make and to
maintain.
>Briquettes can be made with hydraulics, ram & die, or screw presses.
Power
>source can be virtually anything with sufficient muscle.
>
>Jim Dunham
>EEC
>

Hi Jim;

Love the briquettes idea. OK gasifiers -- what size "briquette" would
you
like to have??

Also -- one would think that with properly heated molds of correct
design
(to vent) one could pyrolize the biomass resulting in many wonderful
little
"Torrefied" briquettes. The gasses of torrefaction could be burned to
supply the steam, super heat the molds -- and probably extra electrical
power -- all at the same time.

Now gasifiers -- can you "work" a gasifier with torrefied briquettes
-- or
are they to dry? (Shades of charcoal gasifiers as of WWII design??)

Peter / Belize

FAMILY="SANSSERIF">

From snkm at btl.net Mon Feb 12 14:22:27 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: ezmlm response
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010212121233.00a11e20@wgs1.btl.net>

Well List -- I have to say it -- this list's Robot at least know enougth
netiquette to respons in plain ASCII Text!

Read on -- Peter / Belize

Return-Path: <gasification-digest-return-@crest.org>
Mailing-List: contact gasification-help@crest.org; run by ezmlm
List-Help: <mailto:gasification-digest-help@crest.org>
List-Post: <mailto:gasification-digest@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-digest-subscribe@crest.org>
Date: 12 Feb 2001 19:07:53 -0000
From: gasification-digest-return-@crest.org
To: snkm@btl.net
Delivered-To: responder for gasification-digest@crest.org
Subject: ezmlm response

Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the
gasification-digest@crest.org mailing list.

I'm working for my owner, who can be reached
at gasification-digest-owner@crest.org.

This is a generic help message. The message I received wasn't sent to
any of my command addresses.

Here is a list of the command addresses supported:

Send mail to the following for info and FAQ for this list:
<gasification-info@crest.org>
<gasification-faq@crest.org>

Similar addresses exist for the digest list:
<gasification-digest-subscribe@crest.org>
<gasification-digest-unsubscribe@crest.org>

To get messages 123 through 145 (a maximum of 100 per request), mail:
<gasification-get.123_145@crest.org>

To get an index with subject and author for messages 123-456, mail:
<gasification-index.123_456@crest.org>

To receive all messages with the same subject as message 12345,
send an empty message to:
<gasification-thread.12345@crest.org>

The messages do not really need to be empty, but I will ignore
their content. Only the ADDRESS you send to is important.

You can start a subscription for an alternate address,
for example "john@host.domain", just add a hyphen and your
address (with '=' instead of '@') after the command word:
<gasification-subscribe-john=host.domain@crest.org>

To stop subscription for this address, mail:
<gasification-unsubscribe-john=host.domain@crest.org>

--- Administrative commands for the gasification-digest list ---

I can handle administrative requests automatically. Please
do not send them to the list address! Instead, send
your message to the correct command address:

For help and a description of available commands, send a message to:
<gasification-help@crest.org>

To subscribe to the list, send a message to:
<gasification-subscribe@crest.org>

or for the digest to:
<gasification-digest-unsubscribe@crest.org>

For addition or removal of addresses, I'll send a confirmation
message to that address. When you receive it, simply reply to it
to complete the transaction.

If you need to get in touch with the human owner of this list,
please send a message to:

<gasification-owner@crest.org>

Please include a FORWARDED list message with ALL HEADERS intact
to make it easier to help you.

--- Enclosed is a copy of the request I received.

Return-Path: <snkm@btl.net>
Received: (qmail 25939 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2001 19:07:53 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO crest.solarhost.com) (root@63.87.233.1)
by ns1.crest.net with SMTP; 12 Feb 2001 19:07:53 -0000
Received: from wgs1.btl.net (wgs1.btl.net [206.27.238.5])
by crest.solarhost.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23105
for <gasification-digest-help@crest.org>; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:05:01 -0500
Received: from [208.144.224.169] by wgs1.btl.net
(Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA75C
for <gasification-digest-help@crest.org>;
Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:06:50 +0600
Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010212113256.008cc530@wgs1.btl.net>
X-Sender: snkm@wgs1.btl.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:03:30 -0600
To: gasification-digest-help@crest.org
From: Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net>
Subject: Re: gasification Digest 12 Feb 2001 17:18:09 -0000 Issue 5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"

At 05:18 PM 2/12/2001 -0000, you wrote:

>>>>

gasification Digest 12 Feb 2001 17:18:09 -0000 Issue 5

Topics (messages 4098 through 4119):

</excerpt>

*************HUMONGOUS SNIP!!!******************

This gasification "Digest" is a super "Bloat" for the rickety mail server
here in Belize! Major hassle to down load. I am sure a lot of list
members in places such as India -- must also be experiencing misery from
this.

Do we really need a digest coming at us every day??

From snkm at btl.net Mon Feb 12 14:22:44 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: gasification Digest 12 Feb 2001 17:18:09 -0000 Issue 5
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010212120624.008c6360@wgs1.btl.net>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1969 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20010212/48753681/attachment.bin
From ericbj at club-internet.fr Mon Feb 12 14:23:56 2001
From: ericbj at club-internet.fr (Eric Bruce Johnston)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasifying green wood
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10102041440460.1720-100000@localhost>
Message-ID: <3A882ADC.7937781B@club-internet.fr>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20010212/3b0f64b8/attachment.html
From snkm at btl.net Mon Feb 12 15:17:14 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: Log gasifiers -- and cutting wood sawdustly.
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010212131101.00a05520@wgs1.btl.net>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 3026 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20010212/0e878493/attachment.bin
From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Mon Feb 12 15:41:08 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4E88@sp0016.epz.nl>

Dated: 12 februari 2001 19:03

on the issue:
> >Have you looked at densification of other biomasses but straw? Like
> wastes
> >from the food, paper or forest industries. And did you arrive at the same
> >conclusion, i.e. that densification does not pay?
>
Peter Singfield: [SMTP:snkm@btl.net]
writes:
> In municipal "wastes" it is the only way to go. Check out this Url to see
> a
> prime example for such a system -- in operation (Kearns, Nova Scotia).
> Here they highly compress waste into rather large "blocks". Everything --
> including the kitchen sink -- that old refrigerator -- etc.
> Metals are retrieved as slag balls. Great stuff!
>
While burning MSW (Municipal Solid Waste) in dedicated grate fired boilers
there normally is no compacting involved of the type indicated in the Kearny
link provided by Peter. Metal, inerts (brick) etc are normally retrieved
from the ashes. This is the common technology nowadays.

The compaction applied by Kearns is likely due to the special process
applied: pyrolysis in a rotating drum.
This special process probably justifies the added densification step, by
minimizing the size of the pyrolysis equipment involved.
I.e. savings on interest on capital applied (again).

In Germany there is a project planned for UNcompacted MSW pyrolysis on the
scale of 50,000 tons per rotating drum per year (about 150 tons/drum/day).
With pyrolysis gas from 2 of those drums/kilns to be co-fired in an utility
boiler (I can't find a specific and public url-link).

The largest example of rotating kiln capacity and industrial pyrolysis I
know off.
Uncompacted.
Think what you can do with biomass on this scale!

Andries Weststeijn

From fractional at willmar.com Mon Feb 12 16:00:10 2001
From: fractional at willmar.com (fractional@willmar.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: small scale nuggetizers
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010212104137.00a08ac0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3A884079.CE341427@willmar.com>

Considering there really isn't a name for 1" formed biomass maybe "nugget"
would differentiate between small pellets and low/med/high pressure
briquettes. Most peoples perception of briquettes are these lower pressure
formed charcoal briquettes. No doubt some are formed by stampers and rams with
higher pressure.

For my purposes "nuggets" will do well as it does not have a shape attached
to the term, which pellets, briquettes, and cubes do. It also sounds 'rich'.
Consumers, proles, subjects, what-have-you, associate 'pellets' with rabbit
feed and and these small fuel pellets.
Since many of these pellet stoves will be dedicated to 'small' pellet fuel,
there might as well be another term for larger fuel units that are short of a
charcoal 'briquette' .

Alan

Peter Singfield wrote:

> Wow! Pretty heavy message here Tom --
>
> It can be read it as:
>
> Pellets are the only way to go. Forget briquettes -- that is not a topic
> for discussion.
>
> I personally would like to hear more from "Musungu" regarding clay as a
> charcoal binder. Being that the small packaging of charcoal is so
> problematic due to lack of a built in binder.
>
> Now -- on to Pelleting process.
>
> It requires a capital investment -- per ton production capacity -- ranging
> from:
>
> "The capital investment per tonne of production is $400,000 and $280,000
> for the small and large wood pelleting facility"
>
> The entire quote from "Assessment of Pelletized Biofuels" below:
>
> "The main costs associated with pelleting biofuels are plant operating
> costs and feedstocks costs. The Pellet Fuels Institute in the United States
> has done some analysis of the costs of wood pelleting (Council of Great
> Lake Governors, 1995). From a sample business plan estimate, the overall
> cost of a wood pellet facility (adjusted to 1999 costs and converted to
> Canadian dollars) producing 7-8 tonne per hour was estimated to be 2.1
> million dollars while the cost of a 3-4 tonne per hour facility was 1.4
> million dollars (Table 2). Based on average production rates of 3.5 and 7.5
> at each of the facilities, the capital investment per tonne of production
> is $400,000 and $280,000 for the small and large wood pelleting facility
> (Figure 4). If the plants were producing higher throughput raw material
> such as switchgrass or sunflower hulls, the investment would be further
> reduced to an estimated 200,000 and 140,000 per tonne of production for the
> small and large plant respectively."
>
> Further -- beyond capital cost we have an operating cost of:
>
> "direct pelleting costs should be in the range of $25.12-$39.33 for
> switchgrass and $39.33-$50.57 for SRF willow"
>
> (Again from: Assessment of Pelletized Biofuels)
>
> This does not include price of transport and "packaging".
>
> I am quite sure the "New Rome" is counting heavily on its more backward
> "colonies" to pay for the ever increasing cost of Lions at the coliseums --
> after all -- it is of the utmost benefit to the world that the "people"
> stay happy in this New Rome -- and only fair the "empire" pays the costs.
> so lets load them down with equipment that we contract to be made in one
> corner of this empire and which we re-sell to these folks at the other end
> -- making profit to buy lions at the same time. The people buying these
> contraptions will become economic slaves to the suppliers of these great
> and wonderful machines.
>
> This is how I read it Tom -- because those costs put it beyond the reach of
> any developing country -- if they know it or not.
>
> I see we must avoid this word "pellet" -- and now consider a word to
> describe fuel conditioning to a uniform packet size for combustion in a
> standard (for this list anyway) gasifier.
>
> I suggest the word "briquette ".
>
> Obviously the modern countries have no intention to slacken their use of
> electrical power -- so they must consider any project regarding generation
> of power using biomasses at gigantic scales only.
>
> As I said -- the price of lions is going up.
>
> That we are repeating history again is not as confusing as realizing that
> many people believe they will avoid the historic ending always attached
> with these dynasties of mankind.
>
> Presently reading the book:
>
> "A Pillar of Iron" (By Taylor Caldwell)
>
> Which deals with Cicero and the ancient Empire of Rome.
>
> Makes me happy to be in the back-woods of this turn of the wheel
> "civilization".
>
> Car tires are basically pure carbon with a binder -- along with some steel,
> zinc (plating) and glass/nylon/rayon (cording)
>
> Wonder if a binder from charcoal "Briquettes" could not be produced from
> scrap tires?? Kind of killing two birds with one stone. Extracting such by
> boiling in old oil -- as example.
>
> And -- can we call car scrap tires -- Lion "s*it"?? I hear they pay for
> some one to get rid of it these days?
>
> Peter / Belize
>
> At 10:14 AM 2/12/2001 EST, you wrote:
>
> >>>>
> Dear Musungu:
>
> While your charcoal was a "pellet" in the general sense, the current use in
> fuels is for wood etc. extruded under very high pressure (10,000 psi) from
> holes or through rotary knives to make pellets, cubes and logs.
>
> I would call your charcoal fuel a "briquette" and they can be made by hand
> or
> by rolling with starch solution. Little pressure required, since the
> pyrolysis process has broken down the open spongy nature of wood.
>
> However, I don't think most people make this distinction -until they buy a
> briquetter and find it wont make pellets.
>
> TOM REED
>
> In a message dated 2/12/01 1:27:47 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> reecon@mitsuminet.com writes:
>
> Hallow Stovers,
> While at IIT Delhi, we developed a very simple and very effective
> pelletizer for charcoal dust that uses clay as a binder. The only problem
> with the pelletizer is that the pellets need a specially made to fit stove.
> If interested i could sent the drawing, although i would need to clear with
> my professor first.
> Musungu.
>
> ----- Original
>
> Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> -
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From ericbj at club-internet.fr Mon Feb 12 17:28:32 2001
From: ericbj at club-internet.fr (Eric Bruce Johnston)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Log gasifiers -- and cutting wood sawdustly.
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010212131101.00a05520@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3A885597.CFE97730@club-internet.fr>

Peter Singfield a écrit:

> At 07:26 PM 2/12/2001 +0100, you wrote:
> >>>>
>
> Joacim Persson a crit: I'm curious to know if they used green beech in gasifiers the year around?
> Even when the sap was rising in the spring?
>
> 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??
>
> Was this wood split of solid logs??

> This sounds very interesting!!

I shall have to get back to you on this one.

But I think I can say, as regards splitting, it was probably not
split. Lot of hard work splitting. Many people like nice thin logs for
their fire, but I go for the biggest I can get, then split them with a
"merlin" (French splitting axe with 3.5 kg - 7 to 8 lb. - head) : easy
if first of all cut into short lengths (used to be with a bow-saw, until
one day - thank God - I bought an electric chainsaw). Billets for
structural purposes I have sometimes split with wedges. Oak has a lot
of sap-wood, which is usually half-rotten by the time it has been
standing out for a year or two, so it does not "hold the fire in" the
way the heartwood does. And the smaller logs are more sapwood than
anything else. Green beech splits well. The old bodgers out in the
Buckinghamshire beech woods used to make their living doing this and
then turning it into chair parts on their pole lathes. They used a froe
for the splitting. I made one years ago out of an old car leaf-spring.
Works wonders on coppice stuff, but it would not be much use on a
decent-sized tree trunk. However scaled up, and with scaled up muscles
to match ... It works by driving the blade into the end-grain, then
levering the handle this way and that, running it into the developing
slit as you go. There are of course hydraulic log-splitters operating
on electric motors or petrol engines.

Now, after all this stream-of-consciousness stuff, for the exciting
news! Have just been given the name of someone who lives a few miles
away, and whose father and grandfather had a business producing gazogène
trucks, 3.5 tonners, in Paris, years ago. He was himself running a
wood-gas Ford Transit about fifteen or so years ago. For the moment I
can only get his answer-phone.

From ericbj at club-internet.fr Mon Feb 12 17:28:35 2001
From: ericbj at club-internet.fr (Eric Bruce Johnston)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: gasification Digest 12 Feb 2001 17:18:09 -0000 Issue 5
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010212120624.008c6360@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3A885667.67D8A10B@club-internet.fr>

Peter Singfield a écrit:

> At 05:18 PM 2/12/2001 -0000, you wrote:
> >>>>
>
> gasification Digest 12 Feb 2001 17:18:09 -0000 Issue 5
>
> Topics (messages 4098 through 4119):
>
> *************HUMONGOUS SNIP!!!******************
>
> This gasification "Digest" is a super "Bloat" for the rickety mail server here in Belize! Major hassle to down load. I am sure a lot of list members in places such as India -- must also be experiencing misery from this.
>

Regarding the Digest, I welcome this, if it is as an alternative rather than a supplement to the individual messages. Maybe with a more sophisticated e-mail client than Netscape Messenger v.4, the mail can be automatically sorted to separate folders on arrival. As things stand, am drowning under a welter of e-mail.

From snkm at btl.net Mon Feb 12 18:09:19 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010212150205.00980410@wgs1.btl.net>

At 08:37 PM 2/12/2001 +0100, Weststeijn A <A.Weststeijn@epz.nl> wrote:

>The largest example of rotating kiln capacity and industrial pyrolysis I
>know off.
>Uncompacted.
>Think what you can do with biomass on this scale!
>
>Andries Weststeijn

Yes -- exactly the point I was making ---

You can take those pellets and put them where the sun doesn't shine!
Another wasteful venture (pelletizing) from a group of people so "rich"
they can no longer understand what not wasting energy means.

Peter Belize

From snkm at btl.net Mon Feb 12 18:09:55 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: Bz-Culture: On Prime Ministers from the TAO
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010212150743.00945df0@wgs1.btl.net>

At 03:42 PM 2/12/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>The TAO Peter. Lot older than Rome or Greece by a couple or few thousand
>years.
>
> "When the nation is misled and in chaos, ministers mouth empty promises."
>
> "The highest form of government is what people hardly even realizes is
>there."
>
> from Civics and Government for Belizean Students 1994.
>

Figured you would get a kick in the head over that stuff Ray -- but you
never cuahgt this line:

"If a man seeks office because he secretly despises what he calls 'the
mass,' and wishes to control them into slavery, with promises of luxuries
they have not earned"

Certainly describes the PUP at the last election!

Boy -- are we in deep doo-doo or what now?

Peter

From cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Mon Feb 12 18:35:27 2001
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MSW Pyrolysis/Gasification
In-Reply-To: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4E88@sp0016.epz.nl>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20010212223202.00abf300@pop3.demon.co.uk>

Dear Andries et al.,

For those interested in the MSW processes referred to by Andries:

The MSW process that you are thinking of was the Siemens Furth plant, usng
a rotating kiln converting 5.5 t/h of MSW. This started development in
1994, and was prior to this owned by called the Kraftwerk
Union-Umwelttechnik GmbH (KWU)- and used a 70:30 mix of MSW and dried
sewage sludge. See:

Baumgartel, G, "The Siemens thermal waste recycling process - a modern
technology for converting waste into usable products", J. Anal. Appl. Pyr.,
1993, 27, 1, p 15-23.

This plant is now closed down, due to a serious accident in late 1999.
Siemens are no longer in the business, but it is licenced by a Japanese
company.

The other possibilities are the planned Thermoselect plants in Germany, but
these are oxygen blown systems to a very high temperature for gas and a
by-produce vitreous slag. Their status is:
º 4.2 t/h demonstration plant [Fondotoce, Italy]
º 3 MWe Ansbach, Germany
º 3 MWe Karlsruhe, Germany
º 3.2 MWe planned Hanau, Germany

but these are too small, compared to what you quoted. See:

Calaminus, B. and Stahlberg, R., ''Continuous in-line
gasification/vitrification process for thermal waste treatment: process
technology and current status of projects'', Waste Management, 18, 1998, p
547-556.

for further details.

I hope this helps.

Cordner

From snkm at btl.net Mon Feb 12 19:27:58 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Bz-Culture: On Prime Ministers from the TAO
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010212172202.008de560@wgs1.btl.net>

Aargh--- see what happens -- I punched in the wrong address -- so this
message ended up at the worng mail list.

It was so much nicer when we could just hit the reply --

Peter

At 04:05 PM 2/12/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>At 03:42 PM 2/12/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>>The TAO Peter. Lot older than Rome or Greece by a couple or few thousand
>>years.
>>
>> "When the nation is misled and in chaos, ministers mouth empty promises."
>>
>> "The highest form of government is what people hardly even realizes is
>>there."
>>
>> from Civics and Government for Belizean Students 1994.
>>
>
>Figured you would get a kick in the head over that stuff Ray -- but you
>never cuahgt this line:
>
>"If a man seeks office because he secretly despises what he calls 'the
>mass,' and wishes to control them into slavery, with promises of luxuries
>they have not earned"
>
>Certainly describes the PUP at the last election!
>
>Boy -- are we in deep doo-doo or what now?
>
>
>Peter
>
>Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>-
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
>

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Mon Feb 12 19:37:00 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MSW Pyrolysis/Gasification
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4E8D@sp0016.epz.nl>

Hello Cordner,

> Cordner Peacocke[SMTP:cpeacocke@care.demon.co.uk]
dated maandag 12 februari 2001 23:32
wrote:
> Dear Andries et al.,
> For those interested in the MSW processes referred to by Andries:
> The MSW process that you are thinking of was the Siemens Furth plant, usng
> a rotating kiln converting 5.5 t/h of MSW. This started development in
> 1994, and was prior to this owned by called the Kraftwerk
> Union-Umwelttechnik GmbH (KWU)- and used a 70:30 mix of MSW and dried
> sewage sludge.
>
The Siemens plant mentioned by Cordner was a stand alone plant, set up as a
demonstration plant as I recall. The process is known in Germany as the
"Schwellbrennverfahren".
I was not referring to this plant.
I quoted 50,000 tons/year (about 150 tons/day, which is slightly bigger per
singular rotating kiln, with 2 kilns in total) and on general MSW, not on
sewage sludge. And not by Siemens. First hand info from projectowner.
I'll come back to it after checking present status of project and public
domain info.

> The other possibilities are the planned Thermoselect plants in Germany,
> but these are oxygen blown systems to a very high temperature for gas and
> a by-produce vitreous slag. Their status is:
> º 4.2 t/h demonstration plant [Fondotoce, Italy]
> º 3 MWe Ansbach, Germany
> º 3 MWe Karlsruhe, Germany
> º 3.2 MWe planned Hanau, Germany
> but these are too small, compared to what you quoted.
>
These are indeed not what I am referring to.

best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

From fractional at willmar.com Mon Feb 12 20:55:33 2001
From: fractional at willmar.com (fractional@willmar.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010212150205.00980410@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3A8885B0.6BEE0BDA@willmar.com>

It may be that many on this list are supported by big $, not everyone is.
Tom Reeds pickup gassifier project is hardly a BIG Energy conspiracy. There
is a place for Big Energy, it just doesn't happen to be my bag.

The Hemp Union calculates that their log maker, used for compaction of just
about anything to 1000kg/cu-m, uses just 2% of the fuel value of the log.
That's a good trade off for many people, that's my kind of energy economy.
Anything that saves swinging a axe or even hefting a chainsaw is great.
Never did like either. If you like to sweat or fall on chain saws that's
your business.

Built a Poplar-chopper last year but I have no stand of poplar of my own,
and dragging snags out of the brush is hard work too if your looking at using
any quantity of it. A straw/switchgrass-nuggetizing process makes a lot of
sense from an expense, labor and ease-of-use standpoint. The equipment is
starting to go to the junkyards as it pulls so little at auctions.

Anything that produces such a good uniform fuel should be good for
gasification. Not to mention, handling, drying, conveying, flinging.... All
this with old (cheap!) tractors, swathers, balers and grinders. This might
make continuous gasification for small homestead heat/electrification
feasible. I'd never dream of that with odd chunks and bits, too many
variables in the handling and perhaps performance for small units. The only
thing I'm short is possession of a nugget maker, soon to be rectified.

If you live in the woods of Finland or Sweden perhaps there is plenty of
wood for the taking, but around here the good farmland is held by millionaire
and Billionaire farmers and the woods by deer and pheasant hunting absentee
lawyers, doctors and bankers. That leaves scrub land as the only
'affordable' land for us po people. Nuggetizing switchgrass sounds very
viable from here.

As for bandwidth problems, It's spelled: "Peter 'The Rant' Singfield". I
read today that it takes a pound of coal to move 2megs about the internet.
If your "rants" are routed through the eastcoast that means OIL, middle
eastern oil powers the server farms, internet hubs and phone companies.
Think of the armies that have to be raised to keep arabs in their camps, the
children of war vets with no arms from Gulf War Syndrome, the shear Tonnage
Of Dead Arabs (TODA), calculated on a wet basis, that have to be wasted just
so that your rants can spewed across the face of the earth! I've been on
this list for a few years and have quietly suffered as has everyone else with
a stuffed mail box filled with Your Holiness's condemnations of the Evil
Empire (true though it may be) and it's worker drones. They have huge
"Borg-drone" colonies that need gigawatts of power, they all have their
assignments, leave them be.

You've threatened to remove yourself from this list for years because of
the 'foolishness' of gasification and now the means of processing the fuel
offends His Holiness of Belize.

No doubt many have left or fail to contribute rather than suffer the
Pontiff's scorn. Enough Peter, Your TODA quota has been exceeded. How do
you sleep at night with the blood of all those arabs on your keyboard?

Protestant,
Alan Hanson

Peter Singfield wrote:

> At 08:37 PM 2/12/2001 +0100, Weststeijn A <A.Weststeijn@epz.nl> wrote:
>
> >The largest example of rotating kiln capacity and industrial pyrolysis I
> >know off.
> >Uncompacted.
> >Think what you can do with biomass on this scale!
> >
> >Andries Weststeijn
>
> Yes -- exactly the point I was making ---
>
> You can take those pellets and put them where the sun doesn't shine!
> Another wasteful venture (pelletizing) from a group of people so "rich"
> they can no longer understand what not wasting energy means.
>
> Peter Belize
>
> Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> -
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From renertech at xtra.co.nz Tue Feb 13 05:51:32 2001
From: renertech at xtra.co.nz (renertech)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Log gasifiers -- and cutting wood sawdustly.
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010212131101.00a05520@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <00c501c09652$e8e54c80$aeb31bca@coppermine>

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

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Tue Feb 13 06:05:44 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Vedr.: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density... for straw and grass
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4E90@sp0016.epz.nl>

Hello Jens,

> Jens Chr. Clausen[SMTP:jcc@techwise.dk]
writes on 12 februari 2001 20:27

> I was basically thinking at straw (and I was looking at plant with an
> output of 20 to 40 MWe - the situation may be different for smaller
> plants). According to my experience the same applies for wood - for large
> plants it does not seem optimal to pelltize wood and fire it.
>
I agree as long as that special trigger is not there.
I could imagine that cofiring more (then otherwise possible) in an (almost
unmodified) existing plant, could provide a trigger for densification by
saving investment costs. The trade-off is then in avoided capital charges
versus higher cost of the densified fuel.

> Saying this may trigger somebody to say that canadian pellts may be
> competitve with european wood chips but I am assuming using european wood
> that can either be burned directly and pelletized.
>
The trigger of the Canadian pellets is in the transportation of the base
material: sawdust. How to bring that back to an affordable volume for
transport while mitigating the dust risks.
If it was available right on the doorstep of one's plant one would not
pelletize it first unless the volume became unmanageable for certain
sections of the feeding system.
.
> With respect to municipal solid waste we have not seen systems that are
> competitve with mass burning systems.
>
I agree. The weblink to Kearns/NovaScotia (provided earlier on the List)
indicating an universal densification of MSW for pyrolysis purposes, is
rather unique. Don't know of an other example. No cost data available,
though.

> What is the minimum price (cut-off price) to the farmer to make it
> worthwhile for him to bale the straw rather than plow it under?
>
> Good question, if I knew the answer I would not tell you but sell you.....
>
You couldn't sell me if you could tell me, since I know already. That is:
for my area and I liked to compare with yours.
For I can tell you this much: the base price for which farmers say they
rather not bother to even bale and truck their straw looks pretty darn high
to us...

> I still think that gasification of straw is somewhat far away from
> commercial applications. I do not know of any fluidized bed boiler being
> able to fire 100% straw - if you have such references I will be grateful
> for details.
>
No such references for 100% straw. I believe Denmark is ahead of the pack on
straw processing anyway, so you must be the best informed of all.

Best regards,
Andries Weststeijn
EPZ

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Feb 13 07:47:48 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: gasification Digest 12 Feb 2001 17:18:09 -0000 Issue 5
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010212120624.008c6360@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3A891DE2.8FAC96F9@c2i.net>

Eric Bruce Johnston wrote:
>
> Peter Singfield a écrit:
>
> > At 05:18 PM 2/12/2001 -0000, you wrote:
> > >>>>
> >
> > gasification Digest 12 Feb 2001 17:18:09 -0000 Issue 5
> >
> > Topics (messages 4098 through 4119):
> >
> > *************HUMONGOUS SNIP!!!******************
> >
> > This gasification "Digest" is a super "Bloat" for the rickety mail server here in Belize! Major hassle to down load. I am sure a lot of list members in places such as India -- must also be experiencing misery from this.
> >
>
> Regarding the Digest, I welcome this, if it is as an alternative rather than a supplement to the individual messages. Maybe with a more sophisticated e-mail client than Netscape Messenger v.4, the mail can be automatically sorted to separate folders on arrival. As things stand, am drowning under a welter of e-mail.

.._any_ decent mail setup can do that.

..in Netscape Messenger v.4.*,
hit the "Edit" roll down menu,
then find "Message Filters", as it pops up,
set up your filters the way you want them.

..spam will usually not be adressed to
"To: your-email-address", but "Bcc: your-email-adress".
_Any_decent_ ISP will allow you to setup your own spam
filters on your email account.
If your current ISP do not, find a new ISP who _does_.

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

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

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Feb 13 07:49:14 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: gasification Digest 12 Feb 2001 17:18:09 -0000 Issue 5
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010212120624.008c6360@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3A891E15.C9508D34@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> At 05:18 PM 2/12/2001 -0000, you wrote:
> >>>>
>
> gasification Digest 12 Feb 2001 17:18:09 -0000 Issue 5
>
> Topics (messages 4098 through 4119):
>
> *************HUMONGOUS SNIP!!!******************
>
> This gasification "Digest" is a super "Bloat" for the rickety mail server here in Belize! Major hassle to down load. I am sure a lot of list members in places such as India -- must also be experiencing misery from this.
>
> Do we really need a digest coming at us every day??
>
> Really -- it is getting time to move on -- this list is simply to "rich".
>
> For a list that is concerned with the problems of "energy" -- it certainly sets a very poor example --- no wonder pelletizing is being "pushed" here!

[...]

>
> So we now have a "Bloat" list.

..agreed, the digest should be _optional_, not mandatory.

.._and_, the global-heat-fear discussion _should_ move on
to its own dedicated "Global Heating Discussion List".

..according to the list charter, this is where we share
our joint knowledge, experience and expertise on
gasification, usually but not necessarily limited to
thermochemical gasification.

..imnho, _not_ a good place to whine about, or aggravate
the fear-fed funding of government agencies. According
to Tom (Reed or Miles?) we have also lost a few valuable
members of this list due to off-topic noise here.

..a few of people I happen to know here, have a strictly
commercial interest in not being drawn into global-heat
fud'ing, except by proxy. ;-)
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)

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

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Feb 13 07:55:35 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010212150205.00980410@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3A891FB5.610E28C1@c2i.net>

fractional@willmar.com wrote:
>
> As for bandwidth problems, It's spelled: "Peter 'The Rant' Singfield". I
> read today that it takes a pound of coal to move 2megs about the internet.

[...]

> Protestant,
> Alan Hanson

...who failed to snip off the quotes of Peters rant and
Crest's links aaand Crest's links... ;-)

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

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

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Feb 13 08:00:08 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Derating versus efficiency
In-Reply-To: <7d.10d2cac4.27b957b9@cs.com>
Message-ID: <3A8920C6.DD78DCFA@c2i.net>

samuel.martin@epfl.ch wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> In India, prof Mukunda ran a modified 17:1 Diesel engine with a de-rating of 16%
> compared with Diesel and a thermal efficiency of 21%. On the other hand, in
> Switzerland a 12:1 modified Diesel engine (adapted for notural gas)has a
> derating of more than 50% (compared with natural gas) but an efficiency of
> 31.9%. What does it mean??
>
> Is this a question of engine technology, meaning that if in Switerland the
> compression ratio is increased better derating properties will be found with the
> same or even better efficiency or is there a problem with producer gas
> properties and high compression ratio ?(due to none -adapted combustion chamber
> design for example)
>
> Thank you
>
> Regards,
>
> Samuel Martin

..these figures of thermal efficiencies of 21 and 32%,
do they include gasifier efficiency?

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

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

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Tue Feb 13 08:25:44 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MSW Pyrolysis/Gasification
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4E93@sp0016.epz.nl>

Dear Cordner and List members,

To my subject:
In Germany there is a project planned for UNcompacted MSW pyrolysis
on the scale of 50,000 tons per rotating drum per year (about 150
tons/drum/day). With pyrolysis gas from 2 of those drums/kilns to be
co-fired in an utility boiler
The largest example of rotating kiln capacity and industrial
pyrolysis I know off.
Uncompacted.
Think what you can do with biomass on this scale!

> Cordner Peacocke[SMTP:cpeacocke@care.demon.co.uk]
dated maandag 12 februari 2001 23:32
replied:
> The MSW process that you are thinking of was the Siemens Furth plant,
> using a rotating kiln converting 5.5 t/h of MSW. etc etc
>
to which I commented:
I was not referring to this plant. I'll come back to it after
checking present status of project and public domain info.

I wanted to look for a public statement (in English as well) since I had my
info through company channels.
The PC plant mentioned is Kraftwerk Westfalen Unit C of 305 MWe, in Hamm
/Germany, close to the Ruhrgebiet.
The plant will cofire both pyrolysis gases and char.
This is really a very large development in its class!

Please note the press release below from the engineering contractor Technip.

Best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

--------------------------------------------------
PYROLYSIS PLANT IN GERMANY
Paris-La Défense, june 30, 2000
TECHNIP has been awarded, by VEW ENERGIE AG, a contract worth about 17
million euros to design and build a pyrolysis plant for the thermal
treatment of high calorific value waste with a plastic content up to 50%.
This 100,000-ton-a-year plant-the world's largest-will be integrated in an
existing coal-fired power plant located northeast of Dortmund at Hamm, in
Germany. The project will be carried out by TECHNIP's engineering center
based in Dusseldorf.
Pyrolysis converts, at high temperatures under non-oxidative conditions,
wastes into gases and solid residue. In the present case, the gases and
residue can then be used as a substitute for as much as 10% of the coal that
is usually used as feedstock in the power plant.
Because of the absence of oxygen, the technology not only avoid forming
harmful chemicals, but can also destroy them if they exist in the waste feed
material. The erection and operation of the plant have been approved by the
authorities in line with the German environmental legislation.
The pyrolysis plant will be brought into operation in the second half of
2001.

From snkm at btl.net Tue Feb 13 11:25:34 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MSW Pyrolysis/Gasification
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010213092011.009a0cc0@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Andries

At 01:22 PM 2/13/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>Dear Cordner and List members,
>
>To my subject:
> In Germany there is a project planned for UNcompacted MSW pyrolysis
>on the scale of 50,000 tons per rotating drum per year (about 150
>tons/drum/day). With pyrolysis gas from 2 of those drums/kilns to be
>co-fired in an utility boiler
> The largest example of rotating kiln capacity and industrial
>pyrolysis I know off.
> Uncompacted.
> Think what you can do with biomass on this scale!

I take that the "surplus" gas produced will fire the utility boiler -- the
rest being used to "fire" the pyrolysis?

The residue left after the pyrolysis?? With biomass that will be torrefied
product?

Actually -- this style batch processing goes back more than 100 years --
and works well. But people no longer want batch processes -- rather
continuous.

I personally believe in the "batch" processing mode.

In your above example -- after the "fuel" is pyrolyzed -- the carbon and
tars left could be steam reformed. True -- a very endothermic reaction --
but you already have the heating in place. To make synthesis gas requires
exceedingly high temperatures -- but to make methane would be 1/3 less
temperature.

So -- simply inject steam into the cylinder after the pyrolysis process --
and keep things hot with supplementary firing -- just like when pyrolysing
-- only at around 1200 F.

Or "blow" the cylinder along the lines they did with coal. First the
pyrolyzed the coal -- making coke. Then they alternately blew air and steam
through the batch. when blowing air -- the porduct was producer gas -- and
the frunace heated up. When blowing steam, the product was methane, and the
furnace cooled down. Back and forth.

But always in "batch" mode. Save a lot of problems that way.

So basically -- all one need is a lot of biomass and a cment kiln -- with a
certain amount of after fitting???

Peter

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Feb 13 12:39:44 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density
In-Reply-To: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4E96@sp0016.epz.nl>
Message-ID: <3A896245.705CBD59@c2i.net>

Hi Andries,

..guessing that you meant to post to the gas list,
I post this there, CC: you and set Reply-to: Gas-L.

..we will have to do this above manually, until
Tom Miles gets his mail list admin man to set up
the gas list server right.

..right now, the "Reply-To:" tag is missing from the
message headers:

..next is a bloaty quote, to keep the context intact:
Weststeijn A wrote:
>
> Hello Arnt,
>
> > > (I can't find a specific and public url-link).
> >
> > ..okay, where in Germany?
> > A few hints to http://www.google.com/advanced_search
> > should produce a few links there...
> >
> Thanks for the hint.
> I knew the facts and knew where to look (on the related company's websites),
> but that didn't lead to a dedicated link. So I copied a press statement from
> the contractor's website instead and sent that off to the List earlier
> today.
>
> Low and behold that Google produced a reprint from that press statement in
> some magazine!
>
> > > The largest example of rotating kiln capacity and industrial pyrolysis I
> > > know off.
> > > Uncompacted.
> > > Think what you can do with biomass on this scale!
> >
> > ..about 5-15% of the global energy market... include coal
> > and electric flywheel powered (muscle) autos, _all_ of it,
> > for _all_ mankind on todays emissions, or less...
> > Try google "electric flywheel" and "Bitterly"... ;-)
> >

..here is where google failed me: try
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1049/flywheels.html

> I presume you mean using bio-generated elec power for battery charged EV's
> with flywheel? Well, why not!

..actually, the other way around, is better:
try fit a fuel cell inside a laptop computer.
Then try flywheel made from carbon nanotube matrix... ;-)

> Although I forsee a good opportunity for the fuel cell operated cars,
> generating their hydrogen from onboard gasoline. Solves the battery weight
> issue, the onboard hydrogen storage issue and can smooth out the transition
> by maintaining regular gasoline pumps for conventional as well as hybrid
> use.
>
> On the flywheel: that is classic mechanical energy which can be applied
> nowadays on an internal combustion engine just as well.
> Remember those 2-stroke cars from the fifties+sixties, having a free
> wheeling coupling? Like Saab, DKW. Must be great for flywheel hook up: when
> slowing down disconnect the engine and reconnect the flywheel.
> And some of the off-road vehicles have free wheeling wheel hubs I
> understand.
> Much more than flywheel tests on citybuses I never heard of being done.
> Still too expensive?

..much better profits in spacecraft attitude control, 3 pairs of
flywheels and a solar panel provide essentially free and unlimited
3-axis attitude control.
Muscle autos need funding too. ;-)

> Did Mr Bitterly calculate a fuel price at which the flywheel is supposed to
> make a break through?
>
> Best regards,
> Andries Weststeijn

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

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

From calsch at montana.com Tue Feb 13 13:37:59 2001
From: calsch at montana.com (Cal Schindel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: Virus warning and first hand report
Message-ID: <3A89707E.121761FE@montana.com>

I'm not supposed to be on this list since I have delisted three times
already, but I am getting the messages again...(Tom Miles, are you
noticing this?)

Report and apology. I use Symantic Norton anti virus and stay on top
of things. The last update and file scan I did was Feb 5 by the log.

Last night, I was tired and finishing out the day when I opened
Outlook Express which is my secondary email client. I use Netscape
Messenger as the primary email system. The AnnaKournikova.jpg.vbs thing
came to me as an attachment from someone I trusted so I opened.
Had I not been tired my personal virus detector would have been
running (bullshit smeller) and I would have simply deleted instead of
opening.

Norton did not (DID NOT) see anything wrong with this file and it
went into operation. When nothing opened, I shut down and went to
Symantec for another update; scanned files; found two infected which
were isolated etc.

This morning, I already had an email from a person who is only in the
Netscape mail list warning me that I am spreading the virus. That tells
me that possibly dozens of people got the virus from me and I apologize.

If you are getting this email and are not yet infected, get your updates
NOW before anything else.

Cal

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Tue Feb 13 14:14:35 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4E9B@sp0016.epz.nl>

Hello Arnt,

> Arnt Karlsen[SMTP:arnt@c2i.net]
writes on 13 februari 2001 17:35

> Hi Andries,
> ..guessing that you meant to post to the gas list,
> I post this there, CC: you and set Reply-to: Gas-L.
OK, I follow your example.
In fact I received your earlier message off-list, so replied to it off-list.
Well, we're back on track (albeith on a different thread just about).

> ..we will have to do this above manually, until
> Tom Miles gets his mail list admin man to set up
> the gas list server right.
No problem

On search engines,
You tipped Google:
> > > A few hints to http://www.google.com/advanced_search
> > > should produce a few links there...
>
For this type of sciennce+technology related subjects I always go to
Northern Light,
http://www.northernlight.com/search.html
and for "research"
http://nlresearch.northernlight.com/research.html
but Google appears to be in the same league!
Both give good returns.

However you go:
> ..here is where google failed me: try
> http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1049/flywheels.html
>
What do you mean by Google failing?
The link works for me.

You said earlier:
> > > ..about 5-15% of the global energy market... include coal
> > > and electric flywheel powered (muscle) autos, _all_ of it,
> > > for _all_ mankind on todays emissions, or less...
> > > Try google "electric flywheel" and "Bitterly"... ;-)
>
I went there (elec.vehicles with flywheel), and replied:
> > I presume you mean using bio-generated elec power for battery charged
> EV's
> > with flywheel? Well, why not!
>
But now you comment:
> ..actually, the other way around, is better:
> try fit a fuel cell inside a laptop computer.
> Then try flywheel made from carbon nanotube matrix... ;-)
>
You visualize a fixed grid (i.e. not a mobile battery) powered flywheel that
generally speaking can provide mobil energy storage to generate mobil
elec.power!
I guess you can call that optimum Energy Volume Density.
(small disc rotating at 100,000 rpm).

Now, that would be a hell of a minimum emissions power pack! The flywheel
having essentially no emissions and the large power source feeding the grid
being in the best position to have minimum emissions. Like from gasified
sustainable fuels. And have maximum centralized emissions controls. Not to
mention solar and wind feeding into that grid.
(....a flywheel in a laptop, that will lie gyro-stable on your knees).

I said:
> > Although I forsee a good opportunity for the fuel cell operated cars,
> > generating their hydrogen from onboard gasoline. Solves the battery
> weight
> > issue, the onboard hydrogen storage issue and can smooth out the
> transition
> > by maintaining regular gasoline pumps for conventional as well as hybrid
> > use.
> >
> > On the flywheel: that is classic mechanical energy which can be applied
> > nowadays on an internal combustion engine just as well.
> > Remember those 2-stroke cars from the fifties+sixties, having a free
> > wheeling coupling? Like Saab, DKW. Must be great for flywheel hook up:
> when
> > slowing down disconnect the engine and reconnect the flywheel.
> > And some of the off-road vehicles have free wheeling wheel hubs I
> > understand.
> > Much more than flywheel tests on citybuses I never heard of being done.
> > Still too expensive?
>
You reply:
> ..much better profits in spacecraft attitude control, 3 pairs of
> flywheels and a solar panel provide essentially free and unlimited
> 3-axis attitude control.
> Muscle autos need funding too. ;-)
>
Yes, the special application come always first. Especially where
alternatives are outrageously priced. That is how solar panels started off:
where a hookup to the grid is/was unproportionally expensive.
>
I asked:
> > Did Mr Bitterly calculate a fuel price at which the flywheel is supposed
> to
> > make a break through?
>
Did he? Do you know what the actual status of flywheel introduction on cars
is like?
(is that qualifying as your "just in case" scenario, or better?)

Best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

From samuel.martin at epfl.ch Tue Feb 13 14:32:44 2001
From: samuel.martin at epfl.ch (samuel.martin@epfl.ch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Derating versus efficiency...again
In-Reply-To: <7d.10d2cac4.27b957b9@cs.com>
Message-ID: <982088975.3a897d0f21cf8@imap.epfl.ch>

Dear all,

can anybody told me why in the literature most of the time the interest is to
minimize de-rating without mention of efficiency ? (Tom for example, you told me
that with a hotter gas heating value decreased and thus de-rating of the engine
increases, but you didn't say anything about efficiency) . For me, it is more
logical to maximize efficiency. Are these two values dependent ? For me it would
seem logical, but in all the example I saw in the literature, either one or the
other was high, never both at the same time. Anybody to help me to understand ?

Thanking you

Samuel Martin

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: imap.epfl.ch

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Feb 13 15:07:37 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density
In-Reply-To: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4E9B@sp0016.epz.nl>
Message-ID: <3A8984F8.B6ED8C2B@c2i.net>

Weststeijn A wrote:
>
> Hello Arnt,
>
> > Arnt Karlsen[SMTP:arnt@c2i.net]
> writes on 13 februari 2001 17:35
>
> > Hi Andries,
> > ..guessing that you meant to post to the gas list,
> > I post this there, CC: you and set Reply-to: Gas-L.
> OK, I follow your example.
> In fact I received your earlier message off-list, so replied to it off-list.
> Well, we're back on track (albeith on a different thread just about).

..yeah, took me a wee while to figure out the flawed gas list setup.
;-)

> > ..we will have to do this above manually, until
> > Tom Miles gets his mail list admin man to set up
> > the gas list server right.
> No problem
>
> On search engines,
> You tipped Google:
> > > > A few hints to http://www.google.com/advanced_search
> > > > should produce a few links there...
> >
> For this type of sciennce+technology related subjects I always go to
> Northern Light,
> http://www.northernlight.com/search.html
> and for "research"
> http://nlresearch.northernlight.com/research.html
> but Google appears to be in the same league!
> Both give good returns.
>
> However you go:
> > ..here is where google failed me: try
> > http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1049/flywheels.html
> >
> What do you mean by Google failing?
> The link works for me.

..that link yes. The first google search for "Bitterly"
and "electric flywheel" dont, as I found out after I posted.

> You said earlier:
> > > > ..about 5-15% of the global energy market... include coal
> > > > and electric flywheel powered (muscle) autos, _all_ of it,
> > > > for _all_ mankind on todays emissions, or less...
> > > > Try google "electric flywheel" and "Bitterly"... ;-)
> >
> I went there (elec.vehicles with flywheel), and replied:
> > > I presume you mean using bio-generated elec power for battery charged
> > EV's
> > > with flywheel? Well, why not!
> >
> But now you comment:
> > ..actually, the other way around, is better:
> > try fit a fuel cell inside a laptop computer.
> > Then try flywheel made from carbon nanotube matrix... ;-)
> >
> You visualize a fixed grid (i.e. not a mobile battery) powered flywheel that
> generally speaking can provide mobil energy storage to generate mobil
> elec.power!
> I guess you can call that optimum Energy Volume Density.
> (small disc rotating at 100,000 rpm).

..yeah, flywheels are much better for auto use than complex fuel cell
setups.
Also neat for soaking up grid shock loads in milliseconds, rather than
minutes or hours; considering the average start-up times for the various
power plants.
Running power plant on hot stand-by idle is also quite costly.

> Now, that would be a hell of a minimum emissions power pack! The flywheel
> having essentially no emissions and the large power source feeding the grid
> being in the best position to have minimum emissions. Like from gasified
> sustainable fuels. And have maximum centralized emissions controls. Not to
> mention solar and wind feeding into that grid.
> (....a flywheel in a laptop, that will lie gyro-stable on your knees).

.. ;-) Jack's idea is, use _pairs_ of flywheels, to cancel out these
forces.

> I said:
> > > Although I forsee a good opportunity for the fuel cell operated cars,
> > > generating their hydrogen from onboard gasoline. Solves the battery
> > weight
> > > issue, the onboard hydrogen storage issue and can smooth out the
> > transition
> > > by maintaining regular gasoline pumps for conventional as well as hybrid
> > > use.
> > >
> > > On the flywheel: that is classic mechanical energy which can be applied
> > > nowadays on an internal combustion engine just as well.
> > > Remember those 2-stroke cars from the fifties+sixties, having a free
> > > wheeling coupling? Like Saab, DKW. Must be great for flywheel hook up:
> > when
> > > slowing down disconnect the engine and reconnect the flywheel.
> > > And some of the off-road vehicles have free wheeling wheel hubs I
> > > understand.
> > > Much more than flywheel tests on citybuses I never heard of being done.
> > > Still too expensive?
> >
> You reply:
> > ..much better profits in spacecraft attitude control, 3 pairs of
> > flywheels and a solar panel provide essentially free and unlimited
> > 3-axis attitude control.
> > Muscle autos need funding too. ;-)
> >
> Yes, the special application come always first. Especially where
> alternatives are outrageously priced. That is how solar panels started off:
> where a hookup to the grid is/was unproportionally expensive.
> >
> I asked:
> > > Did Mr Bitterly calculate a fuel price at which the flywheel is supposed
> > to
> > > make a break through?
> >
> Did he? Do you know what the actual status of flywheel introduction on cars
> is like?
> (is that qualifying as your "just in case" scenario, or better?)

..I haven't checked out his current numbers, what I
remember from mine and Onar's dicussions of this, looks
promising. The "missing" link, a coal fired gasifier
and fuel cell plant setup, with better than 2/3 overall
electric efficiency, is now, I believe, patented and
undergoing some R&D "not too far away". ;-)

> Best regards,
> Andries Weststeijn

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

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

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Tue Feb 13 15:36:26 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MSW Pyrolysis/Gasification
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4E9D@sp0016.epz.nl>

Hello Peter,

> Peter Singfield[SMTP:snkm@btl.net]
wrote on dinsdag 13 februari 2001 16:21

> Hi Andries
> At 01:22 PM 2/13/2001 +0100, you wrote:
> >In Germany there is a project planned for UNcompacted MSW pyrolysis
> >on the scale of 50,000 tons per rotating drum per year (about 150
> >tons/drum/day). With pyrolysis gas from 2 of those drums/kilns to be
> >co-fired in an utility boiler
> >The largest example of rotating kiln capacity and industrial
> >pyrolysis I know off.
> >Uncompacted.
> >Think what you can do with biomass on this scale!
>
> I take that the "surplus" gas produced will fire the utility boiler -- the
> rest being used to "fire" the pyrolysis?
>
Pyrolysis gas as made in these types of drums have an excess, i.e. there is
enough to keep the process at temperature and still more to be exported for
cofiring.
Next to that the (sorted) char is fired as solid fuel. That's the beauty of
a PC-plant in this service.

> The residue left after the pyrolysis??
>
Yes, metal and inerts (brick etc)

> With biomass that will be torrefied product?
>
Yes, but the rate of solid product depends on how long and hot you operate
your pyrolysis process.
With clean biomass you can imagine that one can freely play around with the
ratio gas over char. And if a PC plant can take a bit of char, why not
expand on that idea?
And to the contrary: ever tried to export large volumes of low-CV tar-laden
500+ Centigrade gas to a hanging boiler which is supposed to move up and
down over a foot and more? And maintain gas tight connections? And
distribute that gas evenly all around through multiple ports? When there are
plenty of PC ports ready for the taking?
Those hot gas ducts are pretty big ducts, I can assure you!!
How to stick those away in existing tight corners.
Guess where my sympathy lies when I can shift freely between gas and char in
existing PC-plants!

> Actually -- this style batch processing goes back more than 100 years --
> and works well. But people no longer want batch processes -- rather
> continuous.
>
Yes, yes! I heartily promote continuous processes. So much easilier to
automate and keep steady conditions.

> I personally believe in the "batch" processing mode.
>
For what I want I am not. "Batch" is still easilier and cheaper for a test
rig, but "continuous" is the way to go for a 24-hour/day process plant.

> In your above example -- after the "fuel" is pyrolyzed -- the carbon and
> tars left could be steam reformed. True -- a very endothermic reaction --
> but you already have the heating in place. To make synthesis gas requires
> exceedingly high temperatures -- but to make methane would be 1/3 less
> temperature.
>
If you want to fire gasturbines or small/medium gas boilers, that's fine.
But personally I believe that you are cheaper and better off using natl gas
for those applications. And NOT using that natl gas in hugh singular point
sources like classic gas burning utility boilers. There you can use the
rugged design able to fire low CV gas as well as solid fuels (i.e. PC
boilers).
So why convert that carbon? Fire it as powdered carbon!

> So -- simply inject steam into the cylinder after the pyrolysis process --
> and keep things hot with supplementary firing -- just like when pyrolysing
> -- only at around 1200 F.
>
> Or "blow" the cylinder along the lines they did with coal. First the
> pyrolyzed the coal -- making coke. Then they alternately blew air and
> steam
> through the batch. when blowing air -- the porduct was producer gas -- and
> the frunace heated up. When blowing steam, the product was methane, and
> the
> furnace cooled down. Back and forth.
> But always in "batch" mode. Save a lot of problems that way.
>
What problems are saved when using batch over continuous?

> So basically -- all one need is a lot of biomass and a cment kiln -- with
> a
> certain amount of after fitting???
>
Yeah, you get it!. Doesn't sound as exiting as a biomass-product
gas-driven-GT, I admit. But affordable and reliable for the scale we are
talking about. We want to stimulate biomass for fuel rather than price it
right out of the market. And if we then can literally replace a meaningfull
quantity of coal by short cycled woody biomass carbon, we are on our way to
make a dent in you-know-what.

In the mean time there will be plenty of room for stand-alone gasifier
development options in their own right. But as you know, I am focussing on
cofiring-with-coal issues.

best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

From snkm at btl.net Tue Feb 13 15:46:41 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: Yea Old Flywheel keeps spinning along
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010213134100.009bd7a0@wgs1.btl.net>

Ok guys -- I see it all now.

Large tractor trailer rigs carrying flywheels, fully charged, going village
to village to supply power.

Here is how they do it. Through a flexible mechanical drive (more efficient
than generating electricity to power and electric motor) the charge up the
spin on each villages genset.

The truck also operating by flywheel energy.

The truck recharges the flywheels -- again directly by mechanical couplings
-- at the local hydro dam, biomass plant, or what have you.

We avoid electric motors as much as possible. The compressor in a
refrigerator -- as example -- directly powered by flywheel.

Only half kidding folks -- a very close and old acquaintance of mine works
for a company doing just this for uninterruptable power supplies -- for
computers. But they charge their flywheels with electrical power. The
flywheel is kept at full rpm by a trickle of current there after -- and
gives one enough time to power down the entire system if a power failure
occurs.

Peter / Belize

At 08:03 PM 2/13/2001 +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>Weststeijn A wrote:
>>
>> Hello Arnt,
>>
>> > Arnt Karlsen[SMTP:arnt@c2i.net]
>> writes on 13 februari 2001 17:35
>>
>> > Hi Andries,
>
>..that link yes. The first google search for "Bitterly"
>and "electric flywheel" dont, as I found out after I posted.
>
>> You said earlier:
>> > > > ..about 5-15% of the global energy market... include coal
>> > > > and electric flywheel powered (muscle) autos, _all_ of it,
>> > > > for _all_ mankind on todays emissions, or less...
>> > > > Try google "electric flywheel" and "Bitterly"... ;-)
>> >
>> I went there (elec.vehicles with flywheel), and replied:
>> > > I presume you mean using bio-generated elec power for battery charged
>> > EV's
>> > > with flywheel? Well, why not!
*********snipped************

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Feb 13 16:01:05 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Yea Old Flywheel keeps spinning along
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010213134100.009bd7a0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3A899179.9B91781C@c2i.net>

Peter Singfield wrote:

[...]

> Only half kidding folks -- a very close and old acquaintance of mine works
> for a company doing just this for uninterruptable power supplies -- for
> computers. But they charge their flywheels with electrical power. The
> flywheel is kept at full rpm by a trickle of current there after -- and
> gives one enough time to power down the entire system if a power failure
> occurs.

..link to these people?

> Peter / Belize

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

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

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Feb 13 17:58:36 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Newspaper Stove
Message-ID: <3A89ACF8.F72F5331@c2i.net>

Sorry, Jakko,

this was meant to be posted. The "Reply-To:" tag again.

Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>
> Hi Jakko,
>
> Jaakko Saastamoinen wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > the newpaper stove and the stove described below by
> > John Davies resemble much the so called (timber)
> > jack's candle. One can burn a single large
> > piece of wood outside on snow ground at cold weather.
> > Such wooden candles also sold at Christmas time
> > and burnt outside small houses. One construction is a
> > cylindric wood log with a hole in the centre, but other
> > constructions are also possible. The two important
> > things for good burning are that one has burning
> > surfaces opposing each other so that radiation losses
> > are low and that the density difference due to
> > heating of the gas causes a gas flow bringing fresh
> > air for the burning.
>
> ..links to pics of these?
>
> > With similar principle it is also possible to construct
> > a large long stove to warm a group of people outdoors in
> > the winter from whole trunks. It is called "rakovalkea"
> > in Finnish. The first part of this word "rako" means a
> > crack and "valkea" means fire. The crack with two opposing
> > burning surfaces is essential to have good burning. This
> > is a simple stove that one constructs in situ from the
> > fuel itself needing no additional construction material.
>
> ..find a 26kb rakovalkea jpg @:
> http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/~tfo_cosm/LFI/photos/sfig17.JPG

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

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

From LINVENT at aol.com Tue Feb 13 18:04:55 2001
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MSW Pyrolysis/Gasification
Message-ID: <42.10abb01a.27bb086c@aol.com>

Dear Andries,
One of the questions is what do you do with the char which has quite a
bit of the heating value of the feed material? My recommendation is to gasify
it, use the gasifier output to drive the balance of the energy process. Or,
simply gasify the entire material. We are working on a pyrolysis project
which takes tire char and we are adding the gasification stage to convert the
char because the char's touted value did not exist. The pyrolysis system is
already installed and operational. Seems like a lot of capital investment for
a complex process which could be solved by gasification to start with. Oh
well.

Sincerely,

Tom Taylor

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Tue Feb 13 19:27:26 2001
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Yea Old Flywheel keeps spinning along
In-Reply-To: <3A899179.9B91781C@c2i.net>
Message-ID: <NEBBLHHHOLFOEGCILKHEKECLCGAA.kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>

Dear Arnt

A great way to incress the effectiveness of a flywheel as a means to
over-ride a power outage is to use a "Written Pole Generator." Basically,
the pole placement of a generator is changes, such that even though the
flywheel is slowing down, there is a "constant frequency output".

Precise Power Power Corporation of Bradenton FLA makes such equipment.:

http://www.precisepwr.com/

This URL will get you ther.

Kevin Chisholm

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arnt@solarhost.com [mailto:arnt@solarhost.com]On Behalf Of Arnt
> Karlsen
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:57 PM
> To: Crest Gasification List
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Yea Old Flywheel keeps spinning along
>
>
> Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Only half kidding folks -- a very close and old acquaintance of
> mine works
> > for a company doing just this for uninterruptable power supplies -- for
> > computers. But they charge their flywheels with electrical power. The
> > flywheel is kept at full rpm by a trickle of current there after -- and
> > gives one enough time to power down the entire system if a power failure
> > occurs.
>
> ..link to these people?
>
> > Peter / Belize
>
> --
> ..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 is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> -
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
>
>
>
>

From snkm at btl.net Tue Feb 13 19:38:55 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MSW Pyrolysis/Gasification
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010213173304.0099b6e0@wgs1.btl.net>

At 08:33 PM 2/13/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>Hello Peter,
>
>> Peter Singfield[SMTP:snkm@btl.net]
>wrote on dinsdag 13 februari 2001 16:21
>

>So why convert that carbon? Fire it as powdered carbon!
>

Excellent point Andries!

>
>In the mean time there will be plenty of room for stand-alone gasifier
>development options in their own right. But as you know, I am focussing on
>cofiring-with-coal issues.

And of course -- carbon/char powder would be your best biomass
"conditioned" fuel.

This process would handle bulk biomass very easily and spit out carbon/char
concentrate -- and probably come in much less expensive than a pelletizing
mill.

Might even be able to make a portable unit -- that can go to the biomass
source -- process -- and them just the finished material trucked to the
central power plant.

Now -- is not "bio-oil" one of the products of such pyrolysis of biomasses?
So could not the excess gasses be converted to such a liquid fuel?? Hey,
could even make a chain saw that runs on that!

Peter / Belize

>
>best regards,
>Andries Weststeijn
>
>

From greenup2 at digitelone.com Tue Feb 13 20:25:03 2001
From: greenup2 at digitelone.com (Tony Cooper)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: MSW
Message-ID: <000f01c096a2$47243f00$1a39fea9@TC>

Here in the Philippines the subect of MSW is a very hot political potato
right now.
The capital Manila is slowly drowning in mounds of uncollected garbage due
to among other things the closure of dangerous landfill sites.The various
cities that comprise greater Metro Manila have been tasked with providing
their own solutions to MSW.
"Incinerators" are banned but there is discussion on revising this policy if
an enviromentally safe method is proven, so it seems that a golden
opportunity is is there for certain members of this list to "pitch their
wares" and give a boost to gasification of MSW.
Tony Cooper.

From claus_h at image.dk Wed Feb 14 05:26:00 2001
From: claus_h at image.dk (Claus Hindsgaul)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tars again...
In-Reply-To: <7d.10d2cac4.27b957b9@cs.com>
Message-ID: <01021409500500.00878@ip132.et.dtu.dk>

Mandag 12. Februar 2001 16:14 skrev Reedtb2@cs.com:
> Dear Sam and all:
> > > > THEY CAN BE REMOVED - OR PREFERABLY NOT GENERATED. OUR GASIFIER
> > > > MAKES REGULARLY < 50 PPM TAR(90C) IN THE RAW GAS (PROPRIETARY).
> >
> > With which biomass ? How can you achieve to produce a gas with so low
> > tars ?
>
> Currently with wood chips, wood pellets and coconut shells. Method
> proprietary.

In order to achieve such low tar content without gas cleanup, I believe that
you need a downdraft type gasifier. Several projects have managed to lower
their tar contents considerably by separating pyrolysis (<700C) and
gasification in different zones.
If you heat the pyrolysis gas to temperatures exceeding 1100C for just a few
milliseconds, you convert its tars into soot, hydrogen and possibly some
other, simple gases ("tar cracking").

With lower temperatures, I'd expect that you would have virtually no soot
(can anyone confirm or disprove this assumption?), but tar-levels being
magnitudes higher. I am currently trying to determine the kinematics of the
high temperature tar-to-soot conversion, so I would appreciate any feedback.
This list really helped me identifying and confirming the presence soot in
syngas a couple of years ago.

Applying the above scheme, the downdraft two-stage gasifier at the
Technological University of Denmark is able to sustain tar* levels not
exceeding 30 ppm. It is fuelled by wood chips.
Regarding engine wear, we have not seen it happening yet. An automated
two-stage gasification plant is currently being built in order to demonstrate
any long term effects.

Sincerely
M.Sc. Claus Hindsgaul

* "Tars" measured separately by solid phase amino-adsorption (SPA) and two
methods determining condensibles down to 20C.

--
Research Assistant Claus Hindsgaul
Danish Technical University (DTU), Dept. of Mechanical Engineering.
Phone: (+45) 4525 4174, Fax: (+45) 4593 5761
claush@mek.dtu.dk

From bhatta at ait.ac.th Wed Feb 14 06:43:24 2001
From: bhatta at ait.ac.th (S.C. Bhattacharya)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tars again...
In-Reply-To: <7d.10d2cac4.27b957b9@cs.com>
Message-ID: <3A8A46E1.772A0DA4@ait.ac.th>

Here are my observations on reducing tar of producer gas:

1. Downdraft gasifiers produce less tar compared with other designs,e.g. updraft,
fuldized bed etc. Because of this reason, downdraft gasifiers are normally
recommended for small scale applications.

2. Conventionally tar content of gas from a (downdraft) gasifier is reduced by
cooling and water-scrubbing the gas. Field reports suggest that the residual tar
content of the final gas thus produced is 60-70 milligram/normal cubic meter
(mg/nm3).

3. A new approach is catalytic cracking of the tar.

4. Another approach is to develop new designs that produces less tar. Besides,
DTU, we have been working on this approach at the Asian Institute of Technology
(located in Thailand) since late 1980s and have designs that produce tar in the
range 0-50 mg/nm3. Some of these results have been published.

We would be happy to move things in the field and to consider collaborating with
practical ventures.

S.C. Bhattacharya

Claus Hindsgaul wrote:

> Mandag 12. Februar 2001 16:14 skrev Reedtb2@cs.com:
> > Dear Sam and all:
> > > > > THEY CAN BE REMOVED - OR PREFERABLY NOT GENERATED. OUR GASIFIER
> > > > > MAKES REGULARLY < 50 PPM TAR(90C) IN THE RAW GAS (PROPRIETARY).
> > >
> > > With which biomass ? How can you achieve to produce a gas with so low
> > > tars ?
> >
> > Currently with wood chips, wood pellets and coconut shells. Method
> > proprietary.
>
> In order to achieve such low tar content without gas cleanup, I believe that
> you need a downdraft type gasifier. Several projects have managed to lower
> their tar contents considerably by separating pyrolysis (<700C) and
> gasification in different zones.
> If you heat the pyrolysis gas to temperatures exceeding 1100C for just a few
> milliseconds, you convert its tars into soot, hydrogen and possibly some
> other, simple gases ("tar cracking").
>
> With lower temperatures, I'd expect that you would have virtually no soot
> (can anyone confirm or disprove this assumption?), but tar-levels being
> magnitudes higher. I am currently trying to determine the kinematics of the
> high temperature tar-to-soot conversion, so I would appreciate any feedback.
> This list really helped me identifying and confirming the presence soot in
> syngas a couple of years ago.
>
> Applying the above scheme, the downdraft two-stage gasifier at the
> Technological University of Denmark is able to sustain tar* levels not
> exceeding 30 ppm. It is fuelled by wood chips.
> Regarding engine wear, we have not seen it happening yet. An automated
> two-stage gasification plant is currently being built in order to demonstrate
> any long term effects.
>
> Sincerely
> M.Sc. Claus Hindsgaul
>
> * "Tars" measured separately by solid phase amino-adsorption (SPA) and two
> methods determining condensibles down to 20C.
>
> --
> Research Assistant Claus Hindsgaul
> Danish Technical University (DTU), Dept. of Mechanical Engineering.
> Phone: (+45) 4525 4174, Fax: (+45) 4593 5761
> claush@mek.dtu.dk
>
> Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> -
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

-------------------------------------------------------------------
S. C. Bhattacharya Voice : (66-2) 524 5403 (Off)
Professor 524 5913 (Res)
Energy Program
Asian Institute of Technology Fax : (66-2) 524 5439
PO Box 4, Klong Luang 516 2126
Pathumthani 12120 ICQ : 18690996
Thailand e-mail: bhatta@ait.ac.th
-------------------------------------------------------------------

From andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Wed Feb 14 08:30:13 2001
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Vedr.: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density... for straw and grass
In-Reply-To: <cd.22de154.27b6a556@cs.com>
Message-ID: <pauk8tggjs527u3ic7vpslqlcflm6fhk05@4ax.com>

On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:08:22 EST, you wrote:

>Dear Jens:
>
>I have never been a great fan of straw and switchgrass as fuels, but I don't
>live in Denmark either. Your point is well taken for this particular form of
>biomass.

It's horses for courses, if pellets made from switchgrass meet the
same standards as wood pellets then I see no problem with burning
them.

I suspect they will have a higher ash content which may have
implications in the crop potentially depleting nutrient. On a local
scale this would be recycled, on a large scale costs of re
fertilisation would go up.

The big advantages I see are, unless I have mis-interpreted something
(as these conditions will not pertain in UK):

1) The crop is dried standing and in Canadian conditions can be
harvested dry throughout the winter, this optimises harvesting
equipment and reduces costs of drying.

2) Advantage is taken of the significant reduction in harvesting costs
by agri-business compared with wood harvesting.

3) Comminution costs are reduced, having said that most wood pellets
are made from industrial waste and are comminuted in the earlier
process at no additional cost.

The worry would be that, with allegedly 10 days food in the global
supply chain at any one time, can we do without the grain displaced?
>
>However, baling is a form of densification and may be sufficient for straw,
>since you clever Danes have invented a number of "bale burners".

I wonder about the performance of these at the domestic scale. The
simple water jacket burners are not clean or efficient. Later ones
with a fast burn like a masonry stove are better.

Some while back a UK firm made a straw flaker which punched out discs
of straw in the field, I have not seen or heard of it recently. I
think the same firm made a header which stripped whole wheat heads and
left the straw standing. This always struck me as a more holistic
approach as the weed seeds were not re deposited on the ground and the
straw was kept dry prior to baling. Essentially a cheap machine
harvested the heads quickly and the threshing was done in the drying
shed over a longer period. Obviously this has implications for large
buildings to offset against the savings on combines.
>
>What isn't economical today may be a necessity some day, so we need to
>investigate all possibilities.
>
>Wood pellets cost ~ $50/ton, made using unimproved technology. Yet
>homeownders are willing to pay ~$120/ton in the form of 20 kg bags of pellets
>for the convenience of using pellet stoves.

In terms of direct costs I suspect the bagging operation is the same
cost as the pelleting!
>
>So, keep your straw options open. You may have to eat your words.

I read reports that there is a reduction of North American wheat
growing, words may be the only thing on the menu.

AJH

From andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Wed Feb 14 08:30:13 2001
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: FW: GAS-L: Drying
In-Reply-To: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGIEDJCBAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>
Message-ID: <lstk8tsmqp4dfn9qhq8tcq8bv1g1mvo5rm@4ax.com>

On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 09:07:56 -0000, "Gavin Gulliver-Goodall"
<Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk> wrote:

>Sam, and gasifiers,
>
>I have been working on biomass drying for some time and have developed some
>useful technology which is unfortunately not public domain.

Are you sure? Drying is well established by many means.

>However the basic principles are:
>
>The heat input you require is the latent heat of evaporation of water at
>your chosen drying temperature.

About 2.3MJ per kg of water removed.

>You need to transfer this heat to the chips in a medium (air) and carry
away
>the moisture in a medium (also air) The hydroscopic properties of air
affect
>its water carrying properties.

Well drying capacity is usually measured in relation to the relative
humidity, in round terms a cubic metre of air warmed from an ambient
temperature of 10C to 40C increases its water carrying capacity by 30
grams (IIRC as I do not have any texts available here). The art is
using the heat to increase the capacity (in addition to any drying
effect available if the relative humidity at ambient temperature was
less than 100%) and making sure it leaves the dryer fully saturated.
The equilibrium moisture content will vary with the temperature of the
air.
>
>So without giving the whole game away! You warm up the air to a drying
>temperature and pump enough of it through to remove the moisture.

Or you direct dry it by boiling off the water, visit a paper mill to
see this done in a big way, the paper leaves the web at a good few
metres per second and runs up and over many pairs of rotating rollers
with a NG flame burning in the rollers.
>
>There is also an element of residence time as the chips don't give up their
>moisture instantly.

Which tends to make the warm air dryer bulky and parasitic loads (fans
and conveyors/walking floors) quite substantial.
>
>Without being too commercial and incurring the wrath of Tom I would be
happy
>to discuss any individual drying requirements

This is an area I am interested in so I would welcome any UK contacts.

I feel the case for wood pellets using offal from industry is well
established. The resource is centralised and the investment in plant
can be justified. Moving from fresh biomass to a pellet is my aim.

With the recent postings regarding energy-volume densities and Andries
analysis of co firing through existing coal plant my feeling that
biomass in Britain will best be suited by distributed systems
substituting fossil fuel in small scale heating plants is reinforced.

>There are a range of solutions dependant on capacity, energy available, and
>degree of automation. Etc. I may be able to post some specific examples at
>a later date.

Yes there are many ways to skin a cat! Andries commented on
cost-efficiency analysis, with biomass this tends to KISS, although we
can see a route to drying which will drastically reduce heat input,
the sophistication is not likely to be justified.

Similarly large scale combustion (like First Renewable ARBRE) does not
appear to require fuels drier than 30% (wb).

However there is a catch in pelletting by ring dies:

1) The mc must be below ~10%
2) Enough pressure must be available to collapse the cell walls
3) At least 12% lignin and temperature must be available to be
plasticise and rebind the pellet formed.

These three things and low ash content almost guarantee a pellet's
performance.

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Wed Feb 14 09:11:58 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MSW Pyrolysis/Gasification
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4EA2@sp0016.epz.nl>

Hello Peter,

> Peter Singfield[SMTP:snkm@btl.net]
writes on woensdag 14 februari 2001 0:34

> >So why convert that carbon? Fire it as powdered carbon!
> Excellent point Andries!
>
Yes, I believe this concept has merit.

> And of course -- carbon/char powder would be your best biomass
> "conditioned" fuel.
>
Right, and on top of that it would not be particularly sensitive to quality
aspects, being fired in a PC-plant, designed for rugged use and durable life
anyway.

> This process would handle bulk biomass very easily and spit out
> carbon/char
> concentrate -- and probably come in much less expensive than a pelletizing
> mill.
>
I would not rule out pelletizing for upgrading certain materials (like
sawdust and fines) to economical transportation conditions (as recently
described by Tom Miles). And of course -as recently discussed- to increase
(co)firing quantities capable of being fed by existing feeding systems.

For solid biomass the process is particularly attractive for not having to
pulverize green biomass (like wet wood) to sub-millimeter particle size in
order to cofire it in a suspension boiler.

> Might even be able to make a portable unit -- that can go to the biomass
> source -- process -- and them just the finished material trucked to the
> central power plant.
>
Exactly, and leave all that moisture and excess weight behind! All the while
upgrading your CV considerably!

> Now -- is not "bio-oil" one of the products of such pyrolysis of
> biomasses?
>
There is an extensive circuit of R&D people looking into pyrolysis oil
manufacturing from biomass. Usually known as fast pyrolysis or flash
pyrolysis. Check out
http://www.pyne.co.uk/

This is pretty high tech stuff in the biomass world, with a comparable price
tag associated with it.
If biomass is turned into oil, long range shipment will be easier in certain
ways, especially when tranfer between transportation modes is required. And
the number of potential locations open for use (also small ones) certainly
will increase.
At the moment, I understand, there is still concern about the quality of the
oil as well as the storage duration before degradation. And about the
economies of course.

> So could not the excess gasses be converted to such a liquid fuel??
>
I understand that if the (fast) pyrolysis process is geared towards liquids
production there is hardly any gas involved. If the (slow) pyrolysis process
is geared towards carbonisation of solids, it will depend on your local
options what to do with the gas.
First option: maximize solids production and balance gas production to what
the process needs internally (by lowering temperature, that's what I go
for).
Second option: cofire the excess gas (simple but, as it turns out, not
cheap)
Third option: flare off the excess gas (the classical solution last 5000
years)
Fourth option (i.e. yours, for stand alone use?): convert gas to liquids??

Well, natural gas is converted to liquids. So, possibly pyrolysis gas can as
well. Good question, but -alas- I have no overview. If nothing else, it will
carry a hefty price tag!

> Hey,
> could even make a chain saw that runs on that!
>
You bet. And especially ideal for where you're at!!

best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

From claush at et.dtu.dk Wed Feb 14 09:48:04 2001
From: claush at et.dtu.dk (Claus Hindsgaul)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tars again...
In-Reply-To: <7d.10d2cac4.27b957b9@cs.com>
Message-ID: <01021414485405.00878@ip132.et.dtu.dk>

Onsdag 14. Februar 2001 09:50 skrev S.C. Bhattacharya:
> Here are my observations on reducing tar of producer gas:
>
> 1. Downdraft gasifiers produce less tar compared with other designs,e.g.
> updraft, fuldized bed etc. Because of this reason, downdraft gasifiers are
> normally recommended for small scale applications.

Maybe the reason is simply, that downdraft designs are the only ones
currently treating the pyrolysis gases at high temperatures.

* Updraft gasifiers let all of the pyrolysis gases directly into the syngas
at low temperatures.
* Fluid-beds have generally very flat temperature distributions. Thus no
extreme highs.

Have you ever seen soot in the syngas from these designs? Have you seen low
tar levels? (if so, please do tell me).

> 2. Conventionally tar content of gas from a (downdraft) gasifier is reduced
> by cooling and water-scrubbing the gas. Field reports suggest that the
> residual tar content of the final gas thus produced is 60-70
> milligram/normal cubic meter (mg/nm3).

That sounds like a reasonable figure. That should make it possible to use an
engine without destroying the latter.
But nobody talks too loudly about the system which have to be developed and
built to neutralize the tarwater from the scrubber. This wastewater contains
a lot of toxic, carciogenic components, that nobody would want untreated in
your surridge system.

With low tar content from the source, we are able to reduce the waste to
solid soot and char particles (caught by a bag filter) which may be
reintroduced with the fuel or burnt -- and, of course, ashes.

> 4. Another approach is to develop new designs that produces less tar.
> Besides, DTU, we have been working on this approach at the Asian Institute
> of Technology (located in Thailand) since late 1980s and have designs that
> produce tar in the range 0-50 mg/nm3. Some of these results have been
> published.

I just ordered your "Study on wood gasification for low-tar gas production"
from our library and look forward to reading it.

The abstract mentions that increasing the secondary air flow decreased the
tar content. I believe that you would find that the important parameter would
be the increase in the temperature at this point. Temperatures >1000C are
hard to reliably measure. But I hope that you tried.

You mention that more moisture in the fuel did not affect the tar content.
Our experience is, that more moisture means less soot and more tar. Probably
caused only by reduced temperatures due to the presence of steam. Could it
be, that you included some of the soot in the tar values?

Sincerely,
Claus

--
Research Assistant Claus Hindsgaul
Danish Technical University (DTU), Dept. of Mechanical Engineering.
Phone: (+45) 4525 4174, Fax: (+45) 4593 5761
claush@mek.dtu.dk

From snkm at btl.net Wed Feb 14 10:40:47 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: Pelleting in 3rd world
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010214081533.008c8cb0@wgs1.btl.net>

Folks;

Before we go further -- let me give you some pricing regarding "solid"
dried fire wood.

Some of our local bakeries still use wood fired ovens. So I asked what they
are paying for the 3 foot lenghts of dried hard wood they fore with.

The current price is $10 US per ton.

As you can break the suspension on any commercial truck by loading "solid"
wood -- and still have volume left for more load -- I hope you all
understand why I see no reason for paying $50 per ton to pelletize biomass?

Peter / Belize

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Wed Feb 14 10:48:25 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MSW Pyrolysis/Gasification
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4EA4@sp0016.epz.nl>

Hello Tom,

Tom Taylor LINVENT@aol.com[SMTP:LINVENT@aol.com]
writes on dinsdag 13 februari 2001 23:00

> Dear Andries,
> One of the questions is what do you do with the char which has quite a
>
> bit of the heating value of the feed material?
>
The char will have to be used in order to make responsible use of the
biomass.

I believe for biomass there are only two options open:
-either gasify the biomass completely and fire it that way (we do that with
contaminated wood),
-or turn it completely into char and fire it in an installation already
equiped for that (like a PC plant for larger quantities, or an institutional
grade fired boiler for smaller quantities)

I don't believe that combining both makes sense (i.e. a certain amount of
gas and a certain amount of char). My guestimate is that the investment
needed to install two downstream fuel systems (one for gas AND one for char)
is NOT compensated by the savings on the (then) somewhat reduced individual
capacities.

So I say for (clean) biomass: either...or.
Either all gas..or all char.

For MSW it is principally a different matter, since you end up with char
anyway. Char, as a concentrated mix of all nastiness in the waste. In that
case pyrolysis gas production really serves as a char reducer. And the less
solid char, the easier and cheaper to sort it out between burnable char,
reusable metal and brick and leftover tipping waste)

> My recommendation is to gasify
> it, use the gasifier output to drive the balance of the energy process.
> Or,
> simply gasify the entire material. We are working on a pyrolysis project
> which takes tire char and we are adding the gasification stage to convert
> the
> char because the char's touted value did not exist. The pyrolysis system
> is
> already installed and operational. Seems like a lot of capital investment
> for
> a complex process which could be solved by gasification to start with. Oh
> well.
>
I am sure this is the optimal solution for your precent conditions.
But assume for a minute that you had a solids burning plant next door and
could make a fair price for the heating content of the char.
And assume that you could maintain your pyrolysis process with a percentage
of the pyrolysis gases (now replacing the non-available product gas from the
char).
Then you would earn on the fuel value of the char and on the avoided O&M and
capital costs of the avoided char-gasifier plant.
And it would cost you a certain percentage of the pyrolysis gases, not
available for firing or export anymore.
How would the financial balance turn out?
Would you still build an additional char gasifier?

On the merits of biomass gasification:
We do just that. And it sure does not come for free! The rationale to gasify
contaminated wood is that we clean the product gas before cofiring and in
that way keep the chemicals out of the boiler (the underlying concern is
over the flyash quality as required for reuse in the concrete industry).

But for clean wood I could respectfully take your above sentence and turn
the wording around: .....Gasification seems like a lot of capital investment
for a complex process which could be solved by (slow) pyrolysis to start
with.
I believe the jury is still out, and that is what I am interested in to find
out.

Tom, the matrix of fuels (both assorted biomass and wastes) and conversion
processes is so big. And also the volatility of prices (both fuels and
equipment). Add to that the geographical parameters (from transport to CHP
options) and the wildly gyrating green-power clauses.
My conclusion: there is as yet little that is standardized price-wise.
Therefore it is important to get as clear a view as possible of the costs of
the optional steps in any specific fuel+conversion chain.
"Full" gasification versus "minimal" gasification (as in slow pyrolysis), as
well as "close coupled" gasification (as in two-stage burning), belong in
that set of comparisons.
>
best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

>
>

From ericbj at club-internet.fr Wed Feb 14 10:53:24 2001
From: ericbj at club-internet.fr (Eric Bruce Johnston)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density
In-Reply-To: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4E9B@sp0016.epz.nl>
Message-ID: <3A8A9CE2.8DE81FEF@club-internet.fr>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20010214/cd37493e/attachment.html
From cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 14 11:24:23 2001
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MSW Pyrolysis/Gasification
In-Reply-To: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4EA2@sp0016.epz.nl>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20010214152029.00abda98@pop3.demon.co.uk>

Dear Andries and Peter,

I would like to respond re. biomass fast pyrolysis. There are issues
related to the long term storage of the liquids, as they are chemically
unstable and so slowly increase in viscosity with time. The liquids are
acidic [pH 2-3] and contain a significant amount of water [up to 30wt%] -
lower heating value approx 17-18 MJ/kg [wet liquid basis]. Density 1.2
g/cm3. Liquid yields from wood [dry wood basis] of 75wt% have been
obtained, 12-14wt% char and 12wt% nonn-condensible gases.

The gas CV is very low on a once through basis for fluid bed systems, but
with recycling, the predmominat gases of CO and CO2 make up 90vol% of the
gas, with some CH4 making up the bulk of the residual 10%.

With regards to onsite conversion to liquids, a mobile fast pyrolysis plant
[200-250 kg/h of dry wood] was built and operated in Alberta, Canada during
the 1980's by Peter Fransham - Worthing Industries - shut down 1995. This
is now been scrapped, but the proces fitted onto a conventional haulage
trailer and then the barrels of oil where stored on the transport back to a
central facility. Your biomass had been suitably ''densified'' to a
pumpable, burnable liquid. They also pyrolysed the outer contaminated
layer of telegraph poles [dry distillation]. See:

Fransham, P.B. and Lynch, D., 'Development of a Mobile Fluid-Bed Pyrolysis
Unit for Waste Disposal-Energy Recovery', in Energy from Biomass and Wastes
XV, IGT, USA, 1991, pp. 895-906.

The Union Fenosa pilot plant, same capacity, was designed on small
transportable skids for the same purpose, but it was never moved from its
location in Galicia, Spain. The biomass was brought to it, but it did make
liquids sent to several facilities for testing.

With regards to costs, I can't comment too much at the present time, but
yes it is expensive at small scale. Several studies have looked at the
options for satellite moveable pyrolysis plants producing liquids for a
central power generation facility. There is a trade-off relating to
transportation costs. Several technologies are still under development.

Engines and turbines to run on the fast pyrolysis liquids are still under
development and the number of companies offering ''commercial'' pyrolysis
systems is rather limited. Engines are dual fuelled diesels.

By the way - your chainsaw will not run on the raw liquids. If you upgrade
the liquids using expensive hydrotreating or zeolites, it's possible, but
very expensive.

Cordner

From LINVENT at aol.com Wed Feb 14 11:40:25 2001
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MSW Pyrolysis/Gasification
Message-ID: <a9.11b09dae.27bc0027@aol.com>

Dear Mr. Weststeijn,
Gasification does not have to be complex. Gas cleaning is the most
difficult portion of the process and it can be reduced to simplicity without
concerns for tars, oils, waters, acetic acids or other components. We have
successfully demonstrated this.
With a simple gasification system, the thermal conversion process is
simpler than mass-burn of complex materials such as MSW where dioxin and
other toxic compound formation is of concern. Gas clean-up is more expensive
than the combustion process.
Pyrolysis creates the waste char which is not easy to deal with.
Gasification has pyrolysis as a sub-set operation and as such, takes care of
this step intrinsically.
Most of the biomass fired projects are economically limited unless
supported by government, subject to high utility or energy rates (a
relatively recent occurrence due to regulatory misguidance), or if the
biomass has a high disposal fee which can offset the cost of energy
production.
MSW's negative value (tipping fee) and high energy values makes this
combination a more stable condition for serious economic investment of large
capital projects.

Sincerely,

Leland T. Taylor

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Wed Feb 14 12:48:52 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: FW: GAS-L: Drying
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4EA5@sp0016.epz.nl>

Hello Andrew,

> Andrew Heggie[SMTP:andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com]
wrote woensdag 14 februari 2001 13:26

on the subject: heat input required to evaporate water:

> About 2.3MJ per kg of water removed.
>
> Or you direct dry it by boiling off the water, visit a paper mill to
> see this done in a big way.........
>
Glad to see the subject come up.
This is very key to energy efficiency!
(I take the liberty to give an example below).

The thermal efficiency aspect of biomass drying appears to be overshadowed
nowadays by the materials handling aspect. Still, when more semi-wet biomass
is going to be processed, a lot of evaporation heat input is going to be
spent and not recovered.
This should not be the end situation!

> with biomass this tends to KISS, although we
> can see a route to drying which will drastically reduce heat input,
> the sophistication is not likely to be justified.
>
If I had my way I would vacuum dry! But then, that runs counter to my
believe that bulk processes need to run continuous rather than batch.
So, look for any undersaturated medium you can quickly lay your hands on!

> Similarly large scale combustion (like First Renewable ARBRE) does not
> appear to require fuels drier than 30% (wb).
>
To run their gasifier, that is.
It does not say anything about the heat of evaporation being thrown out (is
more universal, i.e. not specific to Arbre).

--------------------------
Now, let me come back to the number Andrew gave above: 2.3MJ per kg of water
removed and give an example (in metric) to visualize what we are talking
about:

Take a medium sized kettle of boiling water (1 liter cold = 1 kg of water ).
(enough for making a pot of good british tea)
Now boil that kettle empty.
While boiling it empty at a steady 100 C you spent 2.3 MJ.
I.e. you just invested 2.3 MJ/ 23 MJ/kg = 0.1 kg of coal equivalent.

Now take 2 kg's of preheated (but undried) fresh wood at 50% moisture = 50%
MC. Equals just under 6 inches (or 15 cm) cubed.
Hold cubical in a coal boiler to be burned.
First it will take you 0.5*2 kg*2.3 MJ/kg = 2.3 MJ of non-recoverable energy
to evaporate that water.
I.e. you just threw out 2.3 MJ/ 23 MJ/kg = 0.1 kg of coal.

So on 2 kg's of 50%MC wood it takes 0.1 kg of coal to evaporate the water.
I.e. on 20 tons of wood it takes 1 ton of coal.

Or in money (at my utility scale bulk price levels):
20 tons of wood = 1 ton of coal = US $ 40
20 tons of wood = 2.2 tons of 50%MC wood = US $ 100
20 tons of wood = if evap. in natl gas boiler = US $ 120 (3-fold over coal)

Just to get an idea what is thermally thrown out in $$'s based on bulk
tariffs. Let alone based on retail prices!
Also gives some clue as to what can be earned.

best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Wed Feb 14 13:03:50 2001
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: Test Msg... Please Ignore..
In-Reply-To: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4EA5@sp0016.epz.nl>
Message-ID: <NEBBLHHHOLFOEGCILKHEEEDJCGAA.kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>

(I receive CREST postings, but I am checking to see if I can reply to the
CREST List)

Kevin

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Wed Feb 14 14:01:42 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MSW Pyrolysis/Gasification
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4EA6@sp0016.epz.nl>

Dear Mr Taylor,

Tom Taylor LINVENT@aol.com[SMTP:LINVENT@aol.com]
writes on woensdag 14 februari 2001 16:37

> Dear Mr. Weststeijn,
> Gasification does not have to be complex.
>
It may not have to, but reality shows that large gasification plants turn
out to be fairly complex. Perhaps not in principle, but certainly in
practise.
I am not expert, but have seen some of the large oil gasification, large
coal gasification and large wood gasification. And to make those types of
plants work around the clock as reliable process plants, sure takes more
than a bit of doing. And so indicate the number of control loops when
compared to other families of process plants: not that simple.

> With a simple gasification system, the thermal conversion process is
> simpler than mass-burn of complex materials such as MSW where dioxin and
> other toxic compound formation is of concern. Gas clean-up is more
> expensive
> than the combustion process.
> Pyrolysis creates the waste char which is not easy to deal with.
> Gasification has pyrolysis as a sub-set operation and as such, takes care
> of
> this step intrinsically.
>
I can't compare general MSW gasification with MSW combustion as such, is not
in my book. Just had a little to do with gasification of pre-processed RDF,
but that can't be called general MSW.
Are these MSW gasification lines already available at similar capacities as
the grate fired waste plants? Say, at 100,000 tons/line/year?
>
> Most of the biomass fired projects are economically limited unless
> supported by government, subject to high utility or energy rates (a
> relatively recent occurrence due to regulatory misguidance), or if the
> biomass has a high disposal fee which can offset the cost of energy
> production.
>
Fully agree.

> MSW's negative value (tipping fee) and high energy values makes this
> combination a more stable condition for serious economic investment of
> large
> capital projects.
>
Generally agreed as well.
It involves high volumes of moderate to low CV (don't recognize those high
energy values or it should be industrial specialty wastes such as plastics).
And it involves lots of arguing over the "green content" of the fuel.
The often very high negative tipping fee's are not always free from policy
motives either. Thereby stimulating certain technological options, such as
RDF gasification.

The principle difference in developing favourable conditions for both
biomass and MSW-processing options might not be as big, at closer view.
But why argue? There is ample room for both.

best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

From joflo at yifan.net Wed Feb 14 16:26:39 2001
From: joflo at yifan.net (Joel Florian)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:09 2004
Subject: Conifer burners
Message-ID: <009301c096c4$5ea67ea0$319570d1@bennmeh>

Dear Gasifiers,

I did a search on the internet for the Conifer burner and stumbled across
two very interesting websites. The first is quite a lengthy paper on
gasification, complete combustion, and cogeneration by a stilt dancer, Larry
Dobson -- he may be lurking on the list somewhere.
http://www.stiltman.com/DOE-report.htm If he ever gets his unit into
production and it does what he claims -- it could revolutionize the small
cogen market.

The other website is the new manufacturer of the Conifer burner.
http://www.hernironworks.com/page6.html Not much on the conifer in the
website, but I talked to their engineer and they bought the plans and
patterns from Western Foundry in Portland. They have spare parts on hand
for the old Conifers out there, and they are in the process of building a
demo model for their showroom. The plans from Western Foundry are a little
sketchy in places so they might appreciate some input from old timers who've
run them. I suppose this would be a great time to make improvements to a
proven design.

Meanwhile I'm gasifying cordwood as fast as I can in my barrel stove --
sending all the gas out the chimney. Have to burn it hot so the tars don't
condense inside the stove pipe. :-)

Joel Florian
Alaska

From fractional at willmar.com Wed Feb 14 16:32:26 2001
From: fractional at willmar.com (fractional@willmar.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Vedr.: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density... for straw and grass
In-Reply-To: <cd.22de154.27b6a556@cs.com>
Message-ID: <3A8AEB02.ABECE896@willmar.com>

Hello Andrew,

I recently read a report by the Food and Agriculture Program of the UN, P.D.
Grover called: Biomass Briquetting: Technology and Practices.

Here is the link:

http://www.rwedp.org/acrobat/fd46.pdf

It reviews briquetting technology through the years and there use in India. It
mentions that mechanical ram presses and screws can both make dense briquettes,
but that the pressed 60mm pucks are not suitable for gasification, while the screw
made briquettes were. They did not mention if it was because they were fragile in
the gasification process due to residence time and humidity, or because of the
weight of the fuel column.

Another article,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0275E/T0275E03.htm (good overview)
does mention this problem with briquettes and gasification but does not
necessarily attribute it to just a problem with rammed briquettes.

The feed PELLETIZERS and waferers are said by Vernon Lundell in his patents on
wafering machines to have a problem with binding ag residues into wafers due to
varying crop conditions, water content..... With higher density screw machines it
seams the only limiting factor is moisture in excess of 15%.

No doubt the shearing action in screw machines 'fiberizes' the material as the
strawboard people would say to make for a good mechanical binding whereas the
'stomped' pucks naturally can break on many layers. My concern lies with whether
this claim of unsuitability of rammed briquettes is due to them falling apart in
the gassifier under long residencies and humidity, or some other problem. My
interest lies with making rather smaller briquettes from switchgrass, moderately
chopped, which might have less internal stress than a larger puck. Apparently
where they sell these pucks for residential use they break them before burning,
perhaps quartering the pucks after extrusion and slicing to width would be an
inexpensive way to produce a switchgrass pellet for personal consumption or local
sale.
To quarter the disks would require sufficiently finely ground feedstock so as to
not interfere with breaking them, which might make them weaker also.

All the literature gives varying reports of energy usage between rams, rotary
disk extrusion and screws, swapping about with each author. Perhaps for a test,
using existing flywheel components of hay balers to make 'Rammed' 60mm pucks
(possibly quartered) would be a good starting point for those interested in
densifing switchgrass. The dies can be made very easily, important if the dies
only last 300 hours.

Again my question is why the Grover report claims rammed briquettes are
unsuitable for gasification?

Thanks,

Alan

Andrew Heggie wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:08:22 EST, you wrote:
>
> >Dear Jens:
> >
> >I have never been a great fan of straw and switchgrass as fuels, but I don't
> >live in Denmark either. Your point is well taken for this particular form of
> >biomass.
>
> It's horses for courses, if pellets made from switchgrass meet the
> same standards as wood pellets then I see no problem with burning
> them.
>
> I suspect they will have a higher ash content which may have
> implications in the crop potentially depleting nutrient. On a local
> scale this would be recycled, on a large scale costs of re
> fertilisation would go up.
>
> The big advantages I see are, unless I have mis-interpreted something
> (as these conditions will not pertain in UK):
>
> 1) The crop is dried standing and in Canadian conditions can be
> harvested dry throughout the winter, this optimises harvesting
> equipment and reduces costs of drying.
>
> 2) Advantage is taken of the significant reduction in harvesting costs
> by agri-business compared with wood harvesting.
>
> 3) Comminution costs are reduced, having said that most wood pellets
> are made from industrial waste and are comminuted in the earlier
> process at no additional cost.
>
> The worry would be that, with allegedly 10 days food in the global
> supply chain at any one time, can we do without the grain displaced?
> >
> >However, baling is a form of densification and may be sufficient for straw,
> >since you clever Danes have invented a number of "bale burners".
>
> I wonder about the performance of these at the domestic scale. The
> simple water jacket burners are not clean or efficient. Later ones
> with a fast burn like a masonry stove are better.
>
> Some while back a UK firm made a straw flaker which punched out discs
> of straw in the field, I have not seen or heard of it recently. I
> think the same firm made a header which stripped whole wheat heads and
> left the straw standing. This always struck me as a more holistic
> approach as the weed seeds were not re deposited on the ground and the
> straw was kept dry prior to baling. Essentially a cheap machine
> harvested the heads quickly and the threshing was done in the drying
> shed over a longer period. Obviously this has implications for large
> buildings to offset against the savings on combines.
> >
> >What isn't economical today may be a necessity some day, so we need to
> >investigate all possibilities.
> >
> >Wood pellets cost ~ $50/ton, made using unimproved technology. Yet
> >homeownders are willing to pay ~$120/ton in the form of 20 kg bags of pellets
> >for the convenience of using pellet stoves.
>
> In terms of direct costs I suspect the bagging operation is the same
> cost as the pelleting!
> >
> >So, keep your straw options open. You may have to eat your words.
>
> I read reports that there is a reduction of North American wheat
> growing, words may be the only thing on the menu.
>
> AJH
>
> Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> -
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From costaeec at kcnet.com Wed Feb 14 19:41:26 2001
From: costaeec at kcnet.com (Jim Dunham)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Vedr.: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density... for straw and grass
Message-ID: <000601c096de$8f85f180$fe65f0d1@default>

Depends on who is paying the most as to who gets the endorsement.

We use both with absolutely no difference.

-----Original Message-----
From: fractional@willmar.com <fractional@willmar.com>
To: andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com <andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com>; Gas List
<gasification@crest.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Re: Vedr.: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density... for straw
and grass

>Hello Andrew,
>
> I recently read a report by the Food and Agriculture Program of the UN,
P.D.
>Grover called: Biomass Briquetting: Technology and Practices.
>
>Here is the link:
>
>http://www.rwedp.org/acrobat/fd46.pdf
>
> It reviews briquetting technology through the years and there use in
India. It
>mentions that mechanical ram presses and screws can both make dense
briquettes,
>but that the pressed 60mm pucks are not suitable for gasification, while
the screw
>made briquettes were. They did not mention if it was because they were
fragile in
>the gasification process due to residence time and humidity, or because of
the
>weight of the fuel column.
>
> Another article,
>http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0275E/T0275E03.htm (good overview)
>does mention this problem with briquettes and gasification but does not
>necessarily attribute it to just a problem with rammed briquettes.
>
> The feed PELLETIZERS and waferers are said by Vernon Lundell in his
patents on
>wafering machines to have a problem with binding ag residues into wafers
due to
>varying crop conditions, water content..... With higher density screw
machines it
>seams the only limiting factor is moisture in excess of 15%.
>
> No doubt the shearing action in screw machines 'fiberizes' the material
as the
>strawboard people would say to make for a good mechanical binding whereas
the
>'stomped' pucks naturally can break on many layers. My concern lies with
whether
>this claim of unsuitability of rammed briquettes is due to them falling
apart in
>the gassifier under long residencies and humidity, or some other problem.
My
>interest lies with making rather smaller briquettes from switchgrass,
moderately
>chopped, which might have less internal stress than a larger puck.
Apparently
>where they sell these pucks for residential use they break them before
burning,
>perhaps quartering the pucks after extrusion and slicing to width would be
an
>inexpensive way to produce a switchgrass pellet for personal consumption or
local
>sale.
> To quarter the disks would require sufficiently finely ground feedstock
so as to
>not interfere with breaking them, which might make them weaker also.
>
> All the literature gives varying reports of energy usage between rams,
rotary
>disk extrusion and screws, swapping about with each author. Perhaps for a
test,
>using existing flywheel components of hay balers to make 'Rammed' 60mm
pucks
>(possibly quartered) would be a good starting point for those interested in
>densifing switchgrass. The dies can be made very easily, important if the
dies
>only last 300 hours.
>
> Again my question is why the Grover report claims rammed briquettes are
>unsuitable for gasification?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Alan
>
>
>
>
>Andrew Heggie wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:08:22 EST, you wrote:
>>
>> >Dear Jens:
>> >
>> >I have never been a great fan of straw and switchgrass as fuels, but I
don't
>> >live in Denmark either. Your point is well taken for this particular
form of
>> >biomass.
>>
>> It's horses for courses, if pellets made from switchgrass meet the
>> same standards as wood pellets then I see no problem with burning
>> them.
>>
>> I suspect they will have a higher ash content which may have
>> implications in the crop potentially depleting nutrient. On a local
>> scale this would be recycled, on a large scale costs of re
>> fertilisation would go up.
>>
>> The big advantages I see are, unless I have mis-interpreted something
>> (as these conditions will not pertain in UK):
>>
>> 1) The crop is dried standing and in Canadian conditions can be
>> harvested dry throughout the winter, this optimises harvesting
>> equipment and reduces costs of drying.
>>
>> 2) Advantage is taken of the significant reduction in harvesting costs
>> by agri-business compared with wood harvesting.
>>
>> 3) Comminution costs are reduced, having said that most wood pellets
>> are made from industrial waste and are comminuted in the earlier
>> process at no additional cost.
>>
>> The worry would be that, with allegedly 10 days food in the global
>> supply chain at any one time, can we do without the grain displaced?
>> >
>> >However, baling is a form of densification and may be sufficient for
straw,
>> >since you clever Danes have invented a number of "bale burners".
>>
>> I wonder about the performance of these at the domestic scale. The
>> simple water jacket burners are not clean or efficient. Later ones
>> with a fast burn like a masonry stove are better.
>>
>> Some while back a UK firm made a straw flaker which punched out discs
>> of straw in the field, I have not seen or heard of it recently. I
>> think the same firm made a header which stripped whole wheat heads and
>> left the straw standing. This always struck me as a more holistic
>> approach as the weed seeds were not re deposited on the ground and the
>> straw was kept dry prior to baling. Essentially a cheap machine
>> harvested the heads quickly and the threshing was done in the drying
>> shed over a longer period. Obviously this has implications for large
>> buildings to offset against the savings on combines.
>> >
>> >What isn't economical today may be a necessity some day, so we need to
>> >investigate all possibilities.
>> >
>> >Wood pellets cost ~ $50/ton, made using unimproved technology. Yet
>> >homeownders are willing to pay ~$120/ton in the form of 20 kg bags of
pellets
>> >for the convenience of using pellet stoves.
>>
>> In terms of direct costs I suspect the bagging operation is the same
>> cost as the pelleting!
>> >
>> >So, keep your straw options open. You may have to eat your words.
>>
>> I read reports that there is a reduction of North American wheat
>> growing, words may be the only thing on the menu.
>>
>> AJH
>>
>> Gasification List is sponsored by
>> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>> -
>> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>> http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
>> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
>
>Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>-
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Wed Feb 14 20:08:26 2001
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: FW: GAS-L: Drying
In-Reply-To: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4EA5@sp0016.epz.nl>
Message-ID: <NEBBLHHHOLFOEGCILKHEAEEACGAA.kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>

Dear Andries

There is another way to look at things...

Firstly, assume that the water present does not negatively effect
combustion.

Then the question is: Should I spend 2.3 KJ to remove the water, OR, should
I save the 2.3 KJ required for drying the wood, and lose the latent heat of
the water up the stack?

It is a sum zero situation.

A better way to improve energy efficiency would be to condense flue gases.
With a flue gas condenser system, then you get the benefit of the latent
heat of the water vapor.

Kindest regards,

kevin Chisholm

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Weststeijn A [mailto:A.Weststeijn@epz.nl]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 12:46 PM
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Cc: 'andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com'
> Subject: RE: FW: GAS-L: Drying
>
>
> Hello Andrew,
>
> > Andrew Heggie[SMTP:andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com]
> wrote woensdag 14 februari 2001 13:26
>
> on the subject: heat input required to evaporate water:
>
> > About 2.3MJ per kg of water removed.
> >
> > Or you direct dry it by boiling off the water, visit a paper mill to
> > see this done in a big way.........
> >
> Glad to see the subject come up.
> This is very key to energy efficiency!
> (I take the liberty to give an example below).
>
> The thermal efficiency aspect of biomass drying appears to be overshadowed
> nowadays by the materials handling aspect. Still, when more
> semi-wet biomass
> is going to be processed, a lot of evaporation heat input is going to be
> spent and not recovered.
> This should not be the end situation!
>
> > with biomass this tends to KISS, although we
> > can see a route to drying which will drastically reduce heat input,
> > the sophistication is not likely to be justified.
> >
> If I had my way I would vacuum dry! But then, that runs counter to my
> believe that bulk processes need to run continuous rather than batch.
> So, look for any undersaturated medium you can quickly lay your hands on!
>
> > Similarly large scale combustion (like First Renewable ARBRE) does not
> > appear to require fuels drier than 30% (wb).
> >
> To run their gasifier, that is.
> It does not say anything about the heat of evaporation being
> thrown out (is
> more universal, i.e. not specific to Arbre).
>
> --------------------------
> Now, let me come back to the number Andrew gave above: 2.3MJ per
> kg of water
> removed and give an example (in metric) to visualize what we are talking
> about:
>
> Take a medium sized kettle of boiling water (1 liter cold = 1 kg
> of water ).
> (enough for making a pot of good british tea)
> Now boil that kettle empty.
> While boiling it empty at a steady 100 C you spent 2.3 MJ.
> I.e. you just invested 2.3 MJ/ 23 MJ/kg = 0.1 kg of coal equivalent.
>
> Now take 2 kg's of preheated (but undried) fresh wood at 50%
> moisture = 50%
> MC. Equals just under 6 inches (or 15 cm) cubed.
> Hold cubical in a coal boiler to be burned.
> First it will take you 0.5*2 kg*2.3 MJ/kg = 2.3 MJ of
> non-recoverable energy
> to evaporate that water.
> I.e. you just threw out 2.3 MJ/ 23 MJ/kg = 0.1 kg of coal.
>
> So on 2 kg's of 50%MC wood it takes 0.1 kg of coal to evaporate the water.
> I.e. on 20 tons of wood it takes 1 ton of coal.
>
> Or in money (at my utility scale bulk price levels):
> 20 tons of wood = 1 ton of coal = US $ 40
> 20 tons of wood = 2.2 tons of 50%MC wood = US $ 100
> 20 tons of wood = if evap. in natl gas boiler = US $ 120 (3-fold
> over coal)
>
> Just to get an idea what is thermally thrown out in $$'s based on bulk
> tariffs. Let alone based on retail prices!
> Also gives some clue as to what can be earned.
>
> best regards,
> Andries Weststeijn
>
> Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> -
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
>
>
>
>

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Feb 14 21:03:54 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Derating versus efficiency...again
Message-ID: <b0.10602cab.27bc8416@cs.com>

I agree that if one needs to choose, one should generally design for high
efficiency and THEN pick an engine the right size.

The original reason (during WWII) for emphasizing maximum power rather than
efficiency was that they were converting EXISTING engines, already in place
in the car/truck/boat... Therefore, it was more important to have 60% of
the original power (never too much anyhow in those days).

Now engines are cheap in any size and if a 50% derating also includes
significant efficiency increase, go for it.

And don't forget. If you increase the copression ratio to 12/1 you won't
have nearly as much derating.

Yours truly, TOM REED

In a message dated 2/13/01 11:29:56 AM Mountain Standard Time,
samuel.martin@epfl.ch writes:

Dear all,

can anybody told me why in the literature most of the time the interest is
to
minimize de-rating without mention of efficiency ? (Tom for example, you
told me
that with a hotter gas heating value decreased and thus de-rating of the
engine
increases, but you didn't say anything about efficiency) . For me, it is
more
logical to maximize efficiency. Are these two values dependent ? For me it
would
seem logical, but in all the example I saw in the literature, either one or
the
other was high, never both at the same time. Anybody to help me to
understand ?

Thanking you

Samuel Martin

Dr. Thomas B. Reed, President, The Biomass Energy Foundation, 1810 Smith Rd.,
Golden, CO 80401
Email reedtb2@cs.com; www.woodgas.com; 303 278 0558 home; 303 278 0560 Fax

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Feb 14 21:04:05 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tars again...
Message-ID: <25.11531458.27bc840f@cs.com>

An even simpler reason that downdraft gasifiers have low tar is that the
incoming air FIRST contacts raw biomass and burns the tars as they are
evolved in the process "Flaming pyrolysis".

I propose another name for downdraft - Tar burning, char making (amount
depending on the intensity of the pyrolysis and superficial velocity).

I propose another name for updraft - char burning, tar making

since the incoming air (with CO2 or H2O sometimes) first contacts the char.

What's in a name? Lots of information and often misinformation.

TOM REED BEF

In a message dated 2/14/01 6:45:23 AM Mountain Standard Time,
claush@et.dtu.dk writes:

Maybe the reason is simply, that downdraft designs are the only ones
currently treating the pyrolysis gases at high temperatures.

From LINVENT at aol.com Wed Feb 14 21:10:16 2001
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: MSW Pyrolysis/Gasification
Message-ID: <73.b038ade.27bc859c@aol.com>

In a message dated 2/14/01 11:58:45 AM, A.Weststeijn@epz.nl writes:

<< Dear Mr Taylor,

Tom Taylor LINVENT@aol.com[SMTP:LINVENT@aol.com]
writes on woensdag 14 februari 2001 16:37

> Gas cleaning is the most
> difficult portion of the process and it can be reduced to simplicity
> without
> concerns for tars, oils, waters, acetic acids or other components. We have
>
> successfully demonstrated this.
>
Did you run already into the peculiar flow characteristics of the fly ash
filtered from the product gas? No. The "flyash" is a mixture of tars, oils,
water, char, and a small amount of ash. The design we are using in the
reactor does not evolve a great deal of ash in the output gas from the
reactor. The ESP removes all of the contaminants at the dewpoint of the gas
with no pressure drop and very little power consumption and minimal
mechanical activity.

> With a simple gasification system, the thermal conversion process is
> simpler than mass-burn of complex materials such as MSW where dioxin and
> other toxic compound formation is of concern. Gas clean-up is more
> expensive
> than the combustion process.
> Pyrolysis creates the waste char which is not easy to deal with.
> Gasification has pyrolysis as a sub-set operation and as such, takes care
> of
> this step intrinsically.
>
I can't compare general MSW gasification with MSW combustion as such, is not
in my book. Just had a little to do with gasification of pre-processed RDF,
but that can't be called general MSW.
Are these MSW gasification lines already available at similar capacities as
the grate fired waste plants? Say, at 100,000 tons/line/year?Depends upon
your definition of "ready", we have many proposals and contracts for systems
for MSW which we process into rdf for the system. However, we do not have a
"commercial" system at this point.
>
> Most of the biomass fired projects are economically limited unless
> supported by government, subject to high utility or energy rates (a
> relatively recent occurrence due to regulatory misguidance), or if the
> biomass has a high disposal fee which can offset the cost of energy
> production.
>
Fully agree.

The principle difference in developing favourable conditions for both
biomass and MSW-processing options might not be as big, at closer view.
But why argue? There is ample room for both.The issue is permitting and
public perception of emissions and operating characteristics of each system.
Mass burn or incineration systems are becoming much harder to permit.

best regards,
Andries Weststeijn
Thank you for your comments.

Tom Taylor

----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path: <A.Weststeijn@epz.nl>
Received: from rly-xc02.mx.aol.com (rly-xc02.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.135])
by air-xc02.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.21) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:58:45
-0500
Received: from sp0097.epz.nl ([194.229.59.83]) by rly-xc02.mx.aol.com
(v77_r1.21) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:58:36 -0500
Received: FROM sp0012.epz.nl BY sp0097.epz.nl ; Wed Feb 14 18:58:24 2001 +0100
Received: by sp0012.epz.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
id <18Y9PSK5>; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:58:25 +0100
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4EA6@sp0016.epz.nl>
From: Weststeijn A <A.Weststeijn@epz.nl>
Reply-To: Crest Gasification List <gasification@crest.org>
To: gasification@crest.org
Cc: "'LINVENT@aol.com'" <LINVENT@aol.com>
Subject: RE: GAS-L: MSW Pyrolysis/Gasification
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:58:23 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain

From bhatta at ait.ac.th Thu Feb 15 02:25:23 2001
From: bhatta at ait.ac.th (S.C. Bhattacharya)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: Institutional gasifier stove
In-Reply-To: <OF41AA4A29.165E772B-ON4A2569DD.007DF058@sri.org.au>
Message-ID: <3A8B5BF6.5AEAE76C@ait.ac.th>

Dear all,

The details of a natural draft institutional gasifier stove we have developed
can be found at the web site of a regional research programme funded by Sida:

www.retsasia.ait.ac.th

Please follow the following path:

Images > Briquetting>Institutional gasifier stove IGS developed at AIT: Design
details

You can see seven photographs on operation of the stove here. A paper on the
project was presentd in the Pune conference.

We would welcome your feedback/comments. We would like to collaborate with
anybody interested in disseminating the technology.

S.C. Bhattacharya
-------------------------------------------------------------------
S. C. Bhattacharya Voice : (66-2) 524 5403 (Off)
Professor 524 5913 (Res)
Energy Program
Asian Institute of Technology Fax : (66-2) 524 5439
PO Box 4, Klong Luang 516 2126
Pathumthani 12120 ICQ : 18690996
Thailand e-mail: bhatta@ait.ac.th
-------------------------------------------------------------------

From p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au Thu Feb 15 04:57:06 2001
From: p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au (Peter M. Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Vedr.: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density... for straw and grass
In-Reply-To: <cd.22de154.27b6a556@cs.com>
Message-ID: <000b01c09722$2e6ab040$2b1b28cb@M.Davies>

>
> Again my question is why the Grover report claims rammed briquettes are
> unsuitable for gasification?
>

The difficulty with rammed briquettes is the type of bonding achieved, in
this case mainly based on close contact forces. When burnt the rammed
briquette expands rapidly to several times its original size and collapses
into its component parts. (the bonding forces let go)

Cheers ,

Peter Davies

From claush at et.dtu.dk Thu Feb 15 05:47:46 2001
From: claush at et.dtu.dk (Claus Hindsgaul)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tars again...
In-Reply-To: <25.11531458.27bc840f@cs.com>
Message-ID: <01021510484200.00925@ip132.et.dtu.dk>

Torsdag 15. Februar 2001 01:59 skrev Reedtb2@cs.com:
> An even simpler reason that downdraft gasifiers have low tar is that the
> incoming air FIRST contacts raw biomass and burns the tars as they are
> evolved in the process "Flaming pyrolysis".

The two reasons complement each other. I believe that the lightning fast tar
reduction by the place, where air is added, will be due to BOTH burning
(oxidation) soot and pyrolysis tars AND high temperature conversion to soot
whereever we exceed 1000-1100C.

Just for the record, I did not try to claim, that tar cracking is the only
tar reducing process in gasifiers.

In my posting, I did not mention the tar reduction happening in the downdraft
gasifier coke bed, which is also considerable.

Further, I have been reminded, that in the future, catalytic filters may be
able to convert tars with few or no waste products.

Sincerely,
Claus Hindsgaul

--
Research Assistant Claus Hindsgaul
Danish Technical University (DTU), Dept. of Mechanical Engineering.
Phone: (+45) 4525 4174, Fax: (+45) 4593 5761
claush@mek.dtu.dk

From snkm at btl.net Thu Feb 15 10:50:00 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: FW: GAS-L: Drying
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010215091634.00992b20@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Kevin;

>A better way to improve energy efficiency would be to condense flue gases.
>With a flue gas condenser system, then you get the benefit of the latent
>heat of the water vapor.

I just suggested a mechanism to do exactly that -- but off list -- for the
same reasons you just mention.

I propose a simple economizer (vertical fire tube boiler style) in the
"stack" through which refrigerant (prefer butane) is circulated. Then
energy is extracted by rankine cycle after. The flu gas exhausting in this
method of operation would be brought down to well below 160 F.

The response was that "clients" are only interested in proven technology.

And I know that is a fact of life. so there you go. We can dream but we
must never suggesting doing -- or even -- "trying" -- in this new world order.

Not unless you are prepared to do any of this out of your own pocket?

We are now stuck in this mode of allowing no more changes to technology --
until the next major world war -- or the end of fossil fuels. One event
probably relating to the other in any case.

We are only allowed to fine tune what we have at present -- even putting an
economizer in the stack is considered to "radical".

Peter Singfield -- happy to be in Belize and away from all this new order.

But yes -- it certainly would appear the solution to "wet" fuel burning
would lay in this direction of endeavor.

Peter

At 08:09 PM 2/14/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>Dear Andries
>
>There is another way to look at things...
>
>Firstly, assume that the water present does not negatively effect
>combustion.
>
>Then the question is: Should I spend 2.3 KJ to remove the water, OR, should
>I save the 2.3 KJ required for drying the wood, and lose the latent heat of
>the water up the stack?
>
>It is a sum zero situation.
>
>A better way to improve energy efficiency would be to condense flue gases.
>With a flue gas condenser system, then you get the benefit of the latent
>heat of the water vapor.
>
>Kindest regards,
>
>kevin Chisholm
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Weststeijn A [mailto:A.Weststeijn@epz.nl]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 12:46 PM
>> To: gasification@crest.org
>> Cc: 'andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com'
>> Subject: RE: FW: GAS-L: Drying
>>
>>
>> Hello Andrew,
>>
>> > Andrew Heggie[SMTP:andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com]
>> wrote woensdag 14 februari 2001 13:26
>>
>> on the subject: heat input required to evaporate water:
>>
>> > About 2.3MJ per kg of water removed.
>> >
>> > Or you direct dry it by boiling off the water, visit a paper mill to
>> > see this done in a big way.........
>> >
>> Glad to see the subject come up.
>> This is very key to energy efficiency!
>> (I take the liberty to give an example below).
>>
>> The thermal efficiency aspect of biomass drying appears to be overshadowed
>> nowadays by the materials handling aspect. Still, when more
>> semi-wet biomass
>> is going to be processed, a lot of evaporation heat input is going to be
>> spent and not recovered.
>> This should not be the end situation!
>>
>> > with biomass this tends to KISS, although we
>> > can see a route to drying which will drastically reduce heat input,
>> > the sophistication is not likely to be justified.
>> >
>> If I had my way I would vacuum dry! But then, that runs counter to my
>> believe that bulk processes need to run continuous rather than batch.
>> So, look for any undersaturated medium you can quickly lay your hands on!
>>
>> > Similarly large scale combustion (like First Renewable ARBRE) does not
>> > appear to require fuels drier than 30% (wb).
>> >
>> To run their gasifier, that is.
>> It does not say anything about the heat of evaporation being
>> thrown out (is
>> more universal, i.e. not specific to Arbre).
>>
>> --------------------------
>> Now, let me come back to the number Andrew gave above: 2.3MJ per
>> kg of water
>> removed and give an example (in metric) to visualize what we are talking
>> about:
>>
>> Take a medium sized kettle of boiling water (1 liter cold = 1 kg
>> of water ).
>> (enough for making a pot of good british tea)
>> Now boil that kettle empty.
>> While boiling it empty at a steady 100 C you spent 2.3 MJ.
>> I.e. you just invested 2.3 MJ/ 23 MJ/kg = 0.1 kg of coal equivalent.
>>
>> Now take 2 kg's of preheated (but undried) fresh wood at 50%
>> moisture = 50%
>> MC. Equals just under 6 inches (or 15 cm) cubed.
>> Hold cubical in a coal boiler to be burned.
>> First it will take you 0.5*2 kg*2.3 MJ/kg = 2.3 MJ of
>> non-recoverable energy
>> to evaporate that water.
>> I.e. you just threw out 2.3 MJ/ 23 MJ/kg = 0.1 kg of coal.
>>
>> So on 2 kg's of 50%MC wood it takes 0.1 kg of coal to evaporate the water.
>> I.e. on 20 tons of wood it takes 1 ton of coal.
>>
>> Or in money (at my utility scale bulk price levels):
>> 20 tons of wood = 1 ton of coal = US $ 40
>> 20 tons of wood = 2.2 tons of 50%MC wood = US $ 100
>> 20 tons of wood = if evap. in natl gas boiler = US $ 120 (3-fold
>> over coal)
>>
>> Just to get an idea what is thermally thrown out in $$'s based on bulk
>> tariffs. Let alone based on retail prices!
>> Also gives some clue as to what can be earned.
>>
>> best regards,
>> Andries Weststeijn
>>
>> Gasification List is sponsored by
>> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>> -
>> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>> http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
>> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>-
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
>

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Thu Feb 15 14:49:00 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: FW: GAS-L: Drying
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4EAE@sp0016.epz.nl>

Dear Kevin,

> Van: Kevin Chisholm[SMTP:kchishol@fox.nstn.ca]
> Verzonden: donderdag 15 februari 2001 1:09
>
You write:

> There is another way to look at things...
> Firstly, assume that the water present does not negatively effect
> combustion.
> Then the question is: Should I spend 2.3 KJ to remove the water, OR,
> should
> I save the 2.3 KJ required for drying the wood, and lose the latent heat
> of
> the water up the stack?
> It is a sum zero situation.
>
You are right of course about the zero sum game.

I merely described the break even situation without adding the next chapter.
However, the next chapter is for the drying equipment experts wanting to do
better, recoup that latent heat and earn by doing so.
And they can, since in case of clean biomass they work with clean distilled
water. And not with pre-concentrated acid rain!

> A better way to improve energy efficiency would be to condense flue gases.
> With a flue gas condenser system, then you get the benefit of the latent
> heat of the water vapor.
>
Agreed, but alas: in our type of power plants that latent heat in the flue
gases can't be so easily retrieved. The condensate would be very, very sour
(would have to be upstream of the FGD plant, downstream would be too cold,
i.e. below boiling point). And the costs of back fitting htex equipment for
that much flue gas, at a relatively low temperature level and moderate
temperature drop, is prohibitive. Designing into a new plant would be closer
to financial coverage.

Fluegas temperature offered is 130 C, of which 50 C can be used. The rest is
required to help the flue gas out of the stack with sufficient speed for
required dispersion.
The flue gas flow is about 3000 m3/hour per MWe (multiply that by a few
hundred MW's).

As said, costs are certainly too high in case of revamping of an existing
plant. For an existing plant the only chance is to press that cost upon
another cocurrent project, like district heating installation. But that
ought to be there first.

At the moment in Germany a new 900 MWe lignite plant is being build with
flue gas recuperation htex built from engineering plastic materials. This
plant differs in the sense of not having a stack, but emitting the flue gas
directly into an equally high cooling tower.

best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

From joflo at yifan.net Fri Feb 16 02:44:39 2001
From: joflo at yifan.net (Joel Florian)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: can't get my gas to light!
Message-ID: <009601c097ec$9a133540$139570d1@bennmeh>

Dear gasifiers,

So far my sawdust gasifier science fair project has been a failure. I can
make smoke varying from wispy whitish to thick black (stinky) I've tried
adding secondary air in different ways. The smoke will ignite for an
instant and then the flame disappears. Sometimes I even get an explosive
flame -- but I want a nice clean torch or cooking flame. I suppose I could
post a picture or two of my apparatus on the web if that would help you
diagnose my problem. I notice that most pictures I see of gasifiers have
insulation wrapped around parts of it. Is that to keep the temperature high
in the secondary combustion zone? Does the gas need to be hot to
ignite?Alex English mentioned flame speed vs gas speed. I've tried
different diameters of combustion chambers, nozzles, varying the air flow,
etc but either I haven't gotten the right combination of air and gas or I'm
missing something important. I know most of you have jobs solving the
world's problems, but you would make one little girl's day if you could help
us get her demo working.

Thanks,
Joel Florian

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Feb 16 04:55:02 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: can't get my gas to light!
In-Reply-To: <009601c097ec$9a133540$139570d1@bennmeh>
Message-ID: <3A8CF8B5.8CEA2E65@c2i.net>

Joel Florian wrote:
>
> Dear gasifiers,
>
> So far my sawdust gasifier science fair project has been a failure. I can
> make smoke varying from wispy whitish to thick black (stinky) I've tried

...tar leaking past the combustion and reduction zones.

> adding secondary air in different ways. The smoke will ignite for an

..you want _less_ air, and a _smaller_ throat.
Or more suction. Not "secondary air".

> instant and then the flame disappears. Sometimes I even get an explosive
> flame -- but I want a nice clean torch or cooking flame. I suppose I could
> post a picture or two of my apparatus on the web if that would help you

..put it on a web page and post a link here, something
like this: http://skyboom.com/arnt/ssrcolor.gif (24kB)

..its built from a 12" pipe, the 8 nozzles 10mm diameter,
throat is 3-1/2" dia, 4" below the nozzle ring, tar flare
pipe (1/2" air pipe inside 2" pipe) exits 4" above the
nozzle ring. Augered throttle ash replace the grate,
for your demo, use a grate some 6" below the throat.

..safety valve: use a hi temp rubber sheet on top of a
standard 4" pipe flange. Suction holds it down, a single
bolt or two allow sneezes (and tarry smoke rings).

..a couple of feet of fuel on top of the combustion zone
keeps the valve rubber nice and cool enough.

> diagnose my problem. I notice that most pictures I see of gasifiers have
> insulation wrapped around parts of it. Is that to keep the temperature high
> in the secondary combustion zone?

..yes! I use "cone ash". WWII litterature speak of
"V-hearth".

> Does the gas need to be hot to

..nope. For engines, it _should_ be cooled.
For boilers and furnaces, cooling is "heat loss".

> ignite?Alex English mentioned flame speed vs gas speed. I've tried
> different diameters of combustion chambers, nozzles, varying the air flow,
> etc but either I haven't gotten the right combination of air and gas or I'm
> missing something important. I know most of you have jobs solving the
> world's problems, but you would make one little girl's day if you could help
> us get her demo working.

..tried my flare head? I posted building info a couple
of weeks ago. If you make combustible gas, flame sits
nicely on the flame holder head plate.

>
> Thanks,
> Joel Florian
>

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

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

From VHarris001 at aol.com Fri Feb 16 12:12:07 2001
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: can't get my gas to light!
Message-ID: <9f.1148afe2.27beb941@aol.com>

In a message dated 02/16/2001 2:45:50 AM Eastern Standard Time,
joflo@yifan.net writes:

> Alex English mentioned flame speed vs gas speed. I've tried
> different diameters of combustion chambers, nozzles, varying the air flow,
> etc but either I haven't gotten the right combination of air and gas or I'm
> missing something important.

If I recall, it is quite a challenge to correctly design a nozzle that will
sustain a flame. I think someone mentioned the possibility of using a "flame
holder" like the screen that is used on a bunsen burner.

Otherwise, in his "Handbook of Biomass Downdraft Gasifier Engine Systems,"
Tom Reed describes a homemade gas flare using a 5 gallon can lined with an 8
inch inside diameter "riser sleeve" (inexpensive and available at a foundry
supply). There is a variable size air port in the bottom of the can for air
admission. The producer gas is admitted tangentially through the side of the
can. A propane torch pilot flame is injected tangentially through the side
of the can opposite the producer gas inlet. The producer gas will swirl
around in the can, mixing with air, be ignited by the pilot flame and
exhausting out the open top. Once the flare is hot, the pilot light can be
turned off as long as the producer gas flows continuously to keep the flare's
internal surfaces hot.

Hope this is some help.

Best wishes,
Vernon Harris

From joacim at ymex.net Fri Feb 16 13:37:11 2001
From: joacim at ymex.net (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasifying green wood (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10102160858370.756-100000@localhost>

On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Eric Bruce Johnston wrote:

>
> Joacim Persson a écrit:
>
> I'm curious to know if they used green beech in gasifiers the
> year around?
> Even when the sap was rising in the spring?
>
> Fresh birch works well as stove fuel in the winter -- ...
>
>
> Spoke with old Taillefer yesterday afternoon. He was of the opinion that
> the beech logs used for gasifiers during WWII could be "one, two or even
> three or four months old" and that it did not matter when in the year
> they were felled.
>
> When asked why green wood was felt to be desirable for gasifiers, he
> replied the moisture was maybe necessary for preventing the wood from
> consuming too quickly. [personally, I cannot see why that should have
> been a problem if control of air-intake was adequate] He also thought
> beech to be better than birch. But maybe there is not so much beech
> where you are?

No beech at all outside of parks. There are a few beech forests in
southermost Sweden though. I think it's a little on the cold side for beech
in this area.

The explanation could be the form of the fuel you mention.

>
> Note that he was a hewer of the wood, not a user of it. He cut beech at
> the head of this little valley, to sell to those with transport lorries.
> "They sometimes drove as far as Bordeaux," he said, "but don't ask me how
> long they took to do the journey!"
>
> 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.

But this was not plain Imbert gasifiers? The form of the fuel vessel
allows sticking small logs in it, but I can't imagine the regular Imbert
hearth operate properly with logs. A V-hearth would be even worse I should
think.

Later during the war, around 1944 or so, they begun modifying the Imbert
gasifiers by turning the upper half of the outer mantle into a condenser.
(Actually, this was invented earlier, but for some obscure reason,
ignorance perhaps, or patents? it wasn't put to practise in the early
40's.)

Now, if we stick a metre long log into such a gasifier, the log will be
heated from the lower end, near the hearth, and release water and steam by
the upper end, near the condenser. Why then the gasifier burns sticks in
roughly the same way as when I put green sticks on a camp fire then. ;)

And just like the man says, the fire on a dry log would perhaps spread
across the length of it too fast, while on a damper log the oxidation zone
would stay by the nozzles.

I've never heard of small vehicle gasifiers running on logs before. It
could be something worth developing further. It could also be that they got
better operation with green logs than dry ones, when using logs, but would
have gotten even better operation with regular block wood. Slicing up logs
to block wood is a lot of work though, particulary if electric circular
saws aren't available (or too expensive to use). Maybe they were
too shorthanded to have block wood as an option in the fuel economy. I'm
sure they must have been aware of that block wood was used elsewehere.

This doesn't explain why `my reference' suggested green birch though. I
tested it, and the gasifier runs on it, but poorly. The fuel consumption
goes up significantly (about doubles), and I can't put too much load on the
gasifier or I get problems (fuel hangs, poor gas -- have to stop and let it
rest with the lid open and charify for a while). Green fir is worse though.
I think that must be the worst possible gasifier fuel there is. But one of
these days...

A friend of mine, another gasifier tinkerer, told me some time ago he had
had a weird dream were I and him were firing up a gasifier we had designed
that ran on full length logs (whole tree sticking out - hilarious). In the
dream, it had some sort of turbine whizzing down the hearth. He thought
that was a big laugh. ;) Wait till he hears of this.

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

From joflo at yifan.net Fri Feb 16 14:03:19 2001
From: joflo at yifan.net (Joel Florian)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: Why won't my gas light?
Message-ID: <007001c0984b$7c923660$399570d1@bennmeh>

Arnt,

I looked at your gasifier and then browsed around on your site. Rather
interesting stuff you're into. Then I found your message about your flare
head. I tried to build it, but I must have missed something in the
description I snipped it out of the message

>..my flare head is a 4"dia by 4" can sitting on a 2" pipe,
>bottom is open, top is a perforated steel plate.
>Blow gas out the 2" pipe, to draw air into the can and mix
>with gas. Flame is held onto the perforated plate and
>ignites fresh gas mix, nice turbulent flame, 3' by 6' tall.

This 4 x 4 can is sitting on a 2 inch pipe but the bottom is open? top is
perforated steel plate -- could I just use a yeast can and punch holes in
the bottom with a nail and then invert it over a 2" pipe?

I'm also getting the impression that if I insulated my gasifier, I might get
a richer gas. If I could mix the gas with air in a ceramic combustion
chamber (discarded coffee mug, perhaps) I'd get a higher temperature flame
that would have a better chance of self-sustaining. No?

Thanks for all your help and encouragement.

Joel Florian

From joacim at ymex.net Sat Feb 17 04:51:04 2001
From: joacim at ymex.net (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: can't get my gas to light!
In-Reply-To: <3A8CF8B5.8CEA2E65@c2i.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10102162042150.756-100000@localhost>

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Arnt Karlsen wrote:

> Joel Florian wrote:
>
> > diagnose my problem. I notice that most pictures I see of gasifiers have
> > insulation wrapped around parts of it. Is that to keep the temperature high
> > in the secondary combustion zone?
>
> ..yes! I use "cone ash". WWII litterature speak of
> "V-hearth".

I think he meant the gas flame (`secondary combustion zone')?

>
> > Does the gas need to be hot to
>
> ..nope. For engines, it _should_ be cooled.

I've had trouble getting the flame burn properly at low temperatures (abt
-20°C) when the gasifier and whole system had stood (outdoors) overnight.
The flame simply wouldn't stick to the pipe. But after having bought myself
a handy butane burner (with pizoelectric igntion -- works for producer gas
too) for lighting the gasifier hearth with (and thawing frozen stuck gas
mixer valves etc), I noticed I could get the flame to stick to one side of the
pipe if I heated the edge and a couple of dm down. I suspect flame speed
increases with temperature. Warming up the cooler with the butane burner
also improved.

I've taken the habit now of bypassing the heat exchanger (leading primary
air in by the ignition hatch until I got the motor running) when fanning up
the gasifier when it's cold, and it seems to help it up quite a bit. This
both increases the flow of air in (colder, denser air, plus less pressure
drop) too, so it may be more factors than gas temperature only.

My fan is too weak though. That's the real problem in my case.

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

From arnt at c2i.net Sat Feb 17 10:36:23 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: can't get my gas to light!
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10102162042150.756-100000@localhost>
Message-ID: <3A8E9A43.DD322632@c2i.net>

Joacim Persson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>
> > Joel Florian wrote:
> >
> > > diagnose my problem. I notice that most pictures I see
> > > of gasifiers have
> > > insulation wrapped around parts of it. Is that to keep
> > > the temperature high
> > > in the secondary combustion zone?
> >
> > ..yes! I use "cone ash". WWII litterature speak of
> > "V-hearth".
>
> I think he meant the gas flame (`secondary combustion zone')?

..my experience has thaught there are _many_veird_ meanings
of `secondary combustion zone', the symptoms Joel described,
suggested to me (at the very least) he meant the reduction
zone. But, what do I know... ;-)

> >
> > > Does the gas need to be hot to
> >
> > ..nope. For engines, it _should_ be cooled.

>
> I've had trouble getting the flame burn properly at low
> temperatures (abt -20°C) when the gasifier and whole system
> had stood (outdoors) overnight.
> The flame simply wouldn't stick to the pipe. But after
> having bought myself a handy butane burner (with pizoelectric
> igntion -- works for producer gas too) for lighting the
> gasifier hearth with (and thawing frozen stuck gas mixer
> valves etc), I noticed I could get the flame to stick to
> one side of the pipe if I heated the edge and a couple of
> dm down. I suspect flame speed increases with temperature.
> Warming up the cooler with the butane burner also improved.
>
> I've taken the habit now of bypassing the heat exchanger
> (leading primary air in by the ignition hatch until I got
> the motor running) when fanning up the gasifier when it's

..you use an heat exchanger to heat up primary air going
into the gasifiers combustion zone? (The right thing to do.)

> cold, and it seems to help it up quite a bit. This both
> increases the flow of air in (colder, denser air, plus
> less pressure drop) too, so it may be more factors than
> gas temperature only.
>
> My fan is too weak though. That's the real problem in my case.

..I used stripped down vacuum cleaner motor fans, sealing
all leaks, they lift water about 2 meters up. Most are
rated to about 100°C, so, you will want to either cool
your gas or drive your fan some other way.
I have observed life spans from 2 to 20 hours on
200°C dry gas, and within 5 minutes on waterbubbled
tarry gas, rather spectacular deaths. ;-)

>
> Joacim

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

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

From ericbj at club-internet.fr Sat Feb 17 11:12:10 2001
From: ericbj at club-internet.fr (Eric Bruce Johnston)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasifying green wood (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10102160858370.756-100000@localhost>
Message-ID: <3A8EA4B1.89B766C7@club-internet.fr>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20010217/a1b0956b/attachment.html
From arnt at c2i.net Sat Feb 17 11:26:45 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasifying green wood (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10102160858370.756-100000@localhost>
Message-ID: <3A8EA613.FBAD629A@c2i.net>

Eric Bruce Johnston wrote:
>
> I realize now that the moisture in wood cannot produce water-gas (H2 +
> CO) in an updraught gasifier, since the evaporating water will be
> carried away from the hot coals, and not through them. Imbert appears
> to have taken out a patent on a downdraught gasifier in 1933 - French
> patent #765369 - so it is not clear to me why his firm continued
> making updraught gasifiers.

..??? I thought they only made downdraft gasifiers?

> By the way, I see from the book "Le gazogène à bois Imbert" that in
> Sweden in the early forties there were several hundred motorcycles
> fitted with gazogènes. There are photographs of them.
>
> Am still trying to contact the person whose family (name: Chevet)
> built gazogènes.
>

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

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

From ericbj at club-internet.fr Sat Feb 17 17:26:48 2001
From: ericbj at club-internet.fr (Eric Bruce Johnston)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: gasifying green wood (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10102160858370.756-100000@localhost>
Message-ID: <3A8EFCA5.523DE6C7@club-internet.fr>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20010217/14e9f6d7/attachment.html
From arnt at c2i.net Sat Feb 17 17:53:59 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Why won't my gas light?
In-Reply-To: <007001c0984b$7c923660$399570d1@bennmeh>
Message-ID: <3A8F00D3.1C08A55@c2i.net>

Sorry Joel, the gas list "Reply-To:" header problem again.

Joel Florian wrote:
>
> Arnt,
>
> I looked at your gasifier and then browsed around on your site. Rather
> interesting stuff you're into. Then I found your message about your flare
> head. I tried to build it, but I must have missed something in the
> description I snipped it out of the message
>
> >..my flare head is a 4"dia by 4" can sitting on a 2" pipe,
> >bottom is open, top is a perforated steel plate.

..bottom end is open, weld a couple of 1/4" by 4" rods
each side of the 2" pipe end, then veld the 4" flare head
onto the rods.

> >Blow gas out the 2" pipe, to draw air into the can and mix
> >with gas. Flame is held onto the perforated plate and
> >ignites fresh gas mix, nice turbulent flame, 3' by 6' tall.
>
> This 4 x 4 can is sitting on a 2 inch pipe but the bottom is open? top is
> perforated steel plate -- could I just use a yeast can and punch holes in
> the bottom with a nail and then invert it over a 2" pipe?

..or shotgun it. You want a lot of holes, remaining metal
will glow orange. Never seen yeast cans, might well work,
depends on the can steel(?) alloy.
I used 5 mm holes covering about 50% of the top plate area.

> I'm also getting the impression that if I insulated my
> gasifier, I might get a richer gas.

..correct.

> If I could mix the gas with air in a ceramic combustion
> chamber (discarded coffee mug, perhaps) I'd get a higher temperature flame
> that would have a better chance of self-sustaining. No?
>

..coffee mugs? Keep replacements ready.
BTDT, I used flower pots inside the gasifier. ;-)

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

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

From andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Sat Feb 17 18:56:12 2001
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Vedr.: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density... for straw and grass
In-Reply-To: <cd.22de154.27b6a556@cs.com>
Message-ID: <j5ut8tcd0thj2ffg1povgqdt2mffla3h4r@4ax.com>

On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:30:59 -0600, Alan fractional@willmar.com wrote:

>
>
> All the literature gives varying reports of energy usage between rams, rotary
>disk extrusion and screws, swapping about with each author. Perhaps for a test,

I imagine a lot of research is being directed at reducing these
compression energy costs, however it will mean increased capital costs
which tend to mean more centralisation, biomass production tends to be
too distributed (here at least).

>using existing flywheel components of hay balers to make 'Rammed' 60mm pucks
>(possibly quartered) would be a good starting point for those interested in
>densifing switchgrass. The dies can be made very easily, important if the dies
>only last 300 hours.

The cost of dies is also significant in pelleting with ring dies, at
GBP2000 a piece it relates to ~GBP0.5/tonne with clean sawdust, I
would worry seriously if sander dust got into the system. I know this
can also be a problem with the Shimada system. Also reclaimed wood
pellets seem to be larger (11mm as opposed to 6mm) and from the
slagging my colleagues have experienced (not to mention traces of
chromium :-)) wear on the die, from a contaminated rawstock, may be
one reason for the change in size.

Again water seems to play an integral part here, not only does it help
with some of the bonding, it appears to control the temperature of the
compression and lubricate the dies as escaping steam. The idea of
"conditioning" previously dried sawdust with a water mist seems odd.

Whilst I posted that wood pellets were made by collapsing the cell
structure and the heat generated plasticising lignin, which then , on
cooling, bound the material this does not occur throughout the pellet.
This can be demonstrated by wetting a pellet, it soon breaks down to a
mush of sawdust. Just like pottery I would suggest the art is to
produce a pellet sufficiently stable. In the case of then pellet
enough lignin must flow to bind the material, in a pot the firing is
just sufficient to fuse the particles at points of contact, any
further firing increases the level of vitrification and shrinks the
pot. I wonder just how dense a pellet could be made?

>
> Again my question is why the Grover report claims rammed briquettes are
>unsuitable for gasification?

I think Peter provided the answer. When paper or straw burns in a heap
the char and ash expands and deflects air from reaching the unburnt
interior as well as preventing conduction of heat, if this happens
with "wafers" (thanks for that it was the term I was looking for when
I said "flakers") because the initial heat is enough to break down the
bonding but not to overcome the inate springiness of the material then
it will be a problem. When a plastic expands on burning/heating it is
described as intumescence, can this term be applied to biomass?

No one seems to wish to discuss the use of pellets in a gasifier, on
the surface there would seem to be good advantages as:

1) The rawstock is homogeneous and dependable
2) The combustion chamber should be smaller for given power rating (we
know wood pellets do not disintegrate or expand on burning)
3) As the mass flow of air will remain the same its velocity can go
up, this should improve the producer gas reaction
4) Heat losses will be lower

Apart from a personal interest I do not see gasification of biomass
for production of motive power to be relevant in UK conditions.
However I do see it as being a means to cleanly burn biomass in small
furnaces with particular relevance to the production of particulates,
which appears to be a very serious problem in my community.

AJH

From CAVM at aol.com Sat Feb 17 20:13:11 2001
From: CAVM at aol.com (CAVM@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Vedr.: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density... for straw and grass
Message-ID: <39.10c741ce.27c07b89@aol.com>

Is there an efficient and economical gasifier to handle green saw dust or
bales switchgrass without pelleting or other forming of the fuel? I am
thinking of a system to produce 3 - 5,000,000 BTUh. 10 million BTU would be
useful in some situations.

I would like to produce hot air, hot water, steam and also have an option to
generate electricity. Various feedstocks are available in the different
areas in which we work so I would want as flexible a system as possible.

I have looked at Dell Point and they may be the best so far.

Pelleting and briquetting are options if they are necessary, of course, but
if they are not necessary for the gasifies I would only consider them for
purposes of freight consolidation.

It may be that direct combustion will provide sufficient benefits that
gasification is not a necessary proceedure. I don't know.

Neal Van Milligen

From fractional at willmar.com Sat Feb 17 23:39:40 2001
From: fractional at willmar.com (fractional@willmar.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: Screw extruder feedstock sizes
Message-ID: <3A8F5269.35F8E9C5@willmar.com>

Hello,

Do screw extruders briquetting straw require a mix of sizes to bind
(or feed) well? Or will chopped straw/hay/grass pass and bind as well
as grinder processed material? 1" nuggets/1" chop?

Would the screw and case have a big bearing on this? I have seen
designs with a strong taper others with none. Shallow flights and
deep. Fat and narrow pitches. Channeled walls and smooth bore.

In addition to feeding, wear with different materials varies
drastically. The big FAO review has some in various Indian tests
lasting only 2 hours. One of those reports had 44 hours as the longest
run on a screw before it had to be resurfaced with tungsten carbide
rod. One Thai machine reported repair weekly, it didn't state if it ran
24 hours a day.
Jim Durham mentioned his ran 120 hours or so. Some say 300 hours.
Anything less than 120 hours would seem to be uneconomic at the low
production rates these machines are scaled to. If wear is such a
drastic problem the screw and case should be designed for the best
throughput for a given feedstock, any ideas what geometry is best for
straw?

Thanks,

Alan

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Feb 18 09:17:01 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Vedr.: Optimizing Fuel Volume Density... for straw and grass
Message-ID: <3c.799d955.27c13364@cs.com>

That 100 kWh/ton of power to make pellets turns into heat, and potentially
steam. More than 20% moisture content causes pellets/cubes/logs to explode
as they leave the extruder....

No free lunch....

TOM REED

In a message dated 2/17/01 6:13:45 PM Mountain Standard Time, CAVM@aol.com
writes:

I would like to produce hot air, hot water, steam and also have an option
to
generate electricity. Various feedstocks are available in the different
areas in which we work so I would want as flexible a system as possible.

I have looked at Dell Point and they may be the best so far.

Pelleting and briquetting are options if they are necessary, of course, but
if they are not necessary for the gasifies I would only consider them for
purposes of freight consolidation.

It may be that direct combustion will provide sufficient benefits that
gasification is not a necessary proceedure. I don't know.

Neal Van Milligen

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Sun Feb 18 12:56:14 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: FW: GAS-L: Drying
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4EB4@sp0016.epz.nl>

Hi Peter,

> Peter Singfield[SMTP:snkm@btl.net]
> 15 februari 2001 16:47
>
> I propose a simple economizer (vertical fire tube boiler style) in the
> "stack" through which refrigerant (prefer butane) is circulated. Then
> energy is extracted by rankine cycle after. The flu gas exhausting in this
> method of operation would be brought down to well below 160 F.
>
> The response was that "clients" are only interested in proven technology.
> And I know that is a fact of life. so there you go.
>
> We are only allowed to fine tune what we have at present -- even putting
> an
> economizer in the stack is considered to "radical".
>
Considered too radical by whom?
It is being done in Germany as I mentioned in my posting of 15 februari 2001
1:09
quote
At the moment in Germany a new 900 MWe lignite plant is being build with
flue gas recuperation htex built from engineering plastic materials.
unquote

> But yes -- it certainly would appear the solution to "wet" fuel burning
> would lay in this direction of endeavor.
>
Or accept that wet fuel is not suited.

Just to mention some other "radical" idea in the same hot-but-wet flue gas
area:
we are preparing a test to produce distilled water from the stack of a PC
plant by way of membrane technology. This is after desulpherisation. Reason
is that this particular plant has only sea water close by and no fresh
water. Fresh water for boiler make up needs to be piped in over 60 miles at
an considerable expense. Next to a lake, river or canal it wouldn't pay of
course.

This would not be the ultimate solution to cofiring wet biomass, though,
because the practical bottleneck (apart from efficiency motives) is in the
upstream area (before the water is taken out) of regenerative
fluegas-to-combustion air heat exchange and in the ESP. Lots of fly ash and
lots of water and high temperature makes for.....yes, a mess, and hard to
clean out.

Andries

From snkm at btl.net Sun Feb 18 15:11:34 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: FW: GAS-L: Drying
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010218140900.0099a9a0@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Andries:

>Lots of fly ash and lots of water and high temperature
>makes for.....yes, a mess, and hard to clean out.

Check out cascading, vacuum distillation -- right in your area -- France.

www.entropie.com\En\default2.htm

Browse around.

Certainly beats "membrane" technology -- and especially when you have a
little bit of waste heat at hand.

Do not have to "de-gas" -- and can handle resulting sludge well.

You'll have some mental gymnastics figuring these style systems out -- but
very enlightening when you do -- and many other applications here as well
-- such as drying extremely wet fuels (say sewage sludge??) and ending up
with potable water -- and dry fuel.

Many people ignore the "dirty" water question in press drying -- as in --
what to do with that effluence.

Peter/Belize

At 06:56 PM 2/18/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi Peter,
>
>> Peter Singfield[SMTP:snkm@btl.net]
>> 15 februari 2001 16:47
>>
>> I propose a simple economizer (vertical fire tube boiler style) in the
>> "stack" through which refrigerant (prefer butane) is circulated. Then
>> energy is extracted by rankine cycle after. The flu gas exhausting in this
>> method of operation would be brought down to well below 160 F.
>>
>> The response was that "clients" are only interested in proven technology.
>> And I know that is a fact of life. so there you go.
>>
>> We are only allowed to fine tune what we have at present -- even putting
>> an
>> economizer in the stack is considered to "radical".
>>
>Considered too radical by whom?
>It is being done in Germany as I mentioned in my posting of 15 februari 2001
>1:09
>quote
>At the moment in Germany a new 900 MWe lignite plant is being build with
>flue gas recuperation htex built from engineering plastic materials.
>unquote
>
>> But yes -- it certainly would appear the solution to "wet" fuel burning
>> would lay in this direction of endeavor.
>>
>Or accept that wet fuel is not suited.
>
>Just to mention some other "radical" idea in the same hot-but-wet flue gas
>area:
>we are preparing a test to produce distilled water from the stack of a PC
>plant by way of membrane technology. This is after desulpherisation. Reason
>is that this particular plant has only sea water close by and no fresh
>water. Fresh water for boiler make up needs to be piped in over 60 miles at
>an considerable expense. Next to a lake, river or canal it wouldn't pay of
>course.
>
>This would not be the ultimate solution to cofiring wet biomass, though,
>because the practical bottleneck (apart from efficiency motives) is in the
>upstream area (before the water is taken out) of regenerative
>fluegas-to-combustion air heat exchange and in the ESP. Lots of fly ash and
>lots of water and high temperature makes for.....yes, a mess, and hard to
>clean out.
>
>Andries
>
>
>Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>-
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
>

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Sun Feb 18 16:26:18 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: FW: GAS-L: Drying
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4EB8@sp0016.epz.nl>

Hi Peter,

> Peter Singfield[SMTP:snkm@btl.net]
> 18 februari 2001 21:10
>
Peter writes:

> Check out cascading, vacuum distillation -- right in your area -- France.
> www.entropie.com\En\default2.htm
>
You are referring to vacuum flash evaporation used for making drinking water
quality.
We operated such an (early) plant between approx 1970 and 1990 and know
about the costs involved. Later on these plants were built in the
Middle-East and elsewhere.
So we are in a position to compare with membrane technology.

> Certainly beats "membrane" technology -- and especially when you have a
> little bit of waste heat at hand.
>
Membrane technology made big strides forward lately.
In fact, the older vacuum flash plant above (not in our realm anymore) is
currently being replaced by a membrane plant (by others).
Client being a hugh US chemical international, so the bucks do count!

By the way: you did not answer my question:

> Considered too radical by whom?
>
with respect to your statement:

> We are only allowed to fine tune what we have at present -- even putting
> an economizer in the stack is considered to "radical".
>
Who is holding whom back if financial conditions are met?

best regards,
Andries

From snkm at btl.net Sun Feb 18 18:13:32 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: FW: GAS-L: Drying
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010218171054.009a6300@wgs1.btl.net>

At 10:26 PM 2/18/2001 +0100, you wrote:

Hi Andries;

>By the way: you did not answer my question:
>
>> Considered too radical by whom?
>>
>with respect to your statement:
>
>> We are only allowed to fine tune what we have at present -- even putting
>> an economizer in the stack is considered to "radical".
>>
>Who is holding whom back if financial conditions are met?

For large installations -- such as the one you are at -- it is impractical
as flu gas temp is low.

For the small systems - -where they do have stack gasses of 400F or greater
-- the concept of using a refrigerant system to reclaim energy is a little
to imaginative for them.

If I was still "up-north" I might play with the idea of going to such
people, extracting the extra energy available there as electrical power --
and selling it back to them.

The problem with that scenario is that the "North" has artificially low
prices for power -- so it may not be profitable.

When the price of power gets up to what we pay for it here in Belize -- 21
cents US per kwh -- then it will be profitable to stop throwing that heat
to the skies.

But I have this suspicion that industrialized world will self destruct
through massive social upheavals before we see a price of 21 cents per kwh
in those areas -- and plummet us back into a dark ages -- where electrical
power will no longer be a requirement of existence.

So -- it is only a scientific curiosity -- at best -- that makes me suggest
this possibility.

I seriously doubt -- even under the best conditions of our present
existence -- that you will be seeing waste heat retrieval from stacks - to
electrical power.

Peter Singfield / Belize

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

From snkm at btl.net Sun Feb 18 18:34:35 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: Wasted heat retrieval to electrical power
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010218173214.0099a9b0@wgs1.btl.net>

Folks;

Waste heat retrieval is all about delta T's - that is difference between
top temperature and lower temperature.

Just how small can that be??

Well -- the Japanese are planning some big projects working with a delta T
of just 18 degrees C.

Guess they have more of an eye to the future than fossil fuel dependent
countries that believe the present situation can go on for ever and one day.

You can read about all this at:

http://www.nedo.go.jp/3color-e/index.html

Hit:

OTEC(Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion) and Experimetal System

(Yes -- I know Experimetal is not spelled correctly -- but the above is a
copy/paste -- so what can I say?)

Also -- browse around -- you may be slightly shocked regarding just how far
Japan has gone into refrigerant cycle systems - and at a "large" scale.

I get the feeling this list believes I have "invented" this technology out
of thin air.

Not true -- I simply have adapted this technology to solving an efficiency
problem we have with acquiring boiler systems of reasonable cost that can
produce power at high efficiency. Big difference.

However -- it is easy for me to demonstrate -- through prior art on this
subject -- that refrigerant cycles are indeed a well developed science --
even if it is regarded as next to black magic by members of this mail list.

Remember -- I am supposed to be the "provincial" mentality guy -- stuck
here in technology backward little Belize -- not you folks!

Refrigerant extraction of waste energy in a traditional bagasse fired
boiler -- as we have here in Belize -- would more than "triple" power output.

But unfortunately -- that industry is dead! We can't count on bagasse fired
in fire tube boilers much longer.

Maybe in another 1000 or so years though -- next turn of this wheel of
human existence.

Peter Singfield / Belize

From snkm at btl.net Sun Feb 18 19:01:32 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:10 2004
Subject: Wasted heat retrieval to electrical power
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010218175834.0099fcc0@wgs1.btl.net>

Sorry -- that Url should be:

http://dragon.inha.ac.kr/~dsjung/otec.htm

Also:

http://www.nedo.go.jp/3color-e/shinene/sinene-4.html

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

Arnt -- some flywheel stuff at:

http://www.nedo.go.jp/3color-e/shinene/shoene-7.html

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

Andries made a comment (probably off list) regarding 1250 F being the
practical upper limit for super heated steam --

Andries -- take a look at:

http://www.nedo.go.jp/3color-e/shinene/shoene-4.html

1300 to 1400 "C"

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

Also -- for Andries -- interested in waste heat recovery??

Check this out:

http://www.nedo.go.jp/3color-e/shinene/sinene-1.html

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

And last -- in 1995 --

Present Status of World Geothermal Energy Development

The total capacity of geothermal power generation in the world was
approximately 7,231 MW as of 1995. Geothermal power generation is playing a
major role in countries with a small demand for electricity, such as the
Philippines and El Salvador.

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

Over and out -- Peter in Belize