January 2001 Gasification Archive

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Mon Jan 1 03:45:24 2001
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: WW11 Gasifiers
Message-ID: <000901c073cd$890e9ca0$029636d2@graeme>

Dear Gasification Colleagues

With a resurgence of interest in old WW 11 gasifiers by this forum, it pays
to remember about this period of time. With very few of these gasifiers
surviving 50-60 years, the literature can give the reader a confusing and
sometimes conflicting understanding of how they worked.

In 1989, I had the opportunity to inspect a collection of WW11 gasifiers
actually purchased from the original agents that sold them throughout
Germany. The collection is complete with original operating manuals, and I
understand a huge range of documentation obtained from the government
archives.

The owner of the collection is Harold Steppart, and he is often in
attendance at biomass conferences in Germany, but I personally have no
current contact details. Harold's intentions were to one day set up a
working museum and as its now 11 years since I last spoke with him, maybe
its already a reality. He is by the way an engine designer and is the best
I have met when it comes to discussion on dual fuel engines. The designs of
the gasifiers speak for themselves, and give the thin sheet steel available,
the skill of their manufacture is clear to see. It is however one thing to
be an innovative manufacturer, and another to make a reliable product.

With so many companies making gasifiers in Germany, the railways engineers
were given the task to test them, and duds are included in the collection.

In hindsight, its easy to see why some of these designs had problems, but
time and materials were not on their side. You can see some of the
photographs I took at the time on the Fluidyne Archive.

http://members.nbci.com/whitools/

http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/whitools/ww2.htm

The photographs are without text and my only comment is that some only just
work given their dimensional parameters. Unfortunately I didn't record the
names of the manufactures.

Regards
Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification.

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
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 Jan 1 10:42:09 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Politics of Global Warming
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010101092649.00940840@wgs1.btl.net>

Got "stuck" on this global warming issue. Interesting how this question is
being handled from a political perspective.

Of course -- all of those with vested interests in fossil fuels are
disavowing any relationship between burning of fossil fuels, increased CO2
emissions and global warming.

On the other hand -- while we may not "believe" that fossil fuel emissions
of CO2 are responsible -- we do know global warming is a real time event.

And we also know this:

Human intervention to control the process of global warming can only be
mounted by sharply reducing CO2 emissions due to fossil fuel use. Though
one can argue it will make no difference -- one can also argue it is the
only area where we can try to make a difference.

However -- for such a program to work -- the reduction of fossil fuels use
-- the major industrial countries have to all fully embrace it. The major
consumer of fossil fuels is the USA.

At present -- it appears the US will not be cooperating in this global
human endeavor.

After taking a look at so many WWW sites concerned with this subject -- the
following puts it all in a nutshell best.

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

In his paper, Climate Change, Clinton and Kyoto: The Negotiations
Over Global Warming, RFF Journalist-in-Residence J.W. Anderson
outlines the scientific evidence on global warming as documented in
the 1990 and 1996 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports,
reviews the history of climate change as a political issue, and
highlights recent international diplomatic efforts to combat climate
change.

"Climate change is an unusually difficult issue for the people who
make the decisions in democratic governments," Anderson says. "First,
the science is uncertain while governments have to make firm policy
decisions - if only the decision to do nothing - long before these
uncertainties can be resolved."

"Second, any serious attempt to cut emissions of greenhouse gases
will have clear and immediate costs, but the benefits may not appear
for a long, long time," Anderson says. "To the extent that that the
benefits may be disasters that didn't happen, they may never be
obvious. But the costs will be."

Anderson also details President Clinton's proposal for climate
targets and timetables for the U.S. and summarizes the key issues and
points of contention of a global climate treaty.

For those that wish to pursue this line further:

http://www.weathervane.rff.org/features/feature022.html

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

It appears the human nature at present is committed to competition (for the
"good-life") -- not cooperation for a stable existence.

Well, the higher these great societies rise the harder they fall.

In the very end -- time tells all.

Welcome to 2001 and the new world order!

*amn the torpedoes -- full speed ahead!

Peter Singfield / Belize
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From jgordes at earthlink.net Mon Jan 1 11:59:27 2001
From: jgordes at earthlink.net (jgordes)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L:More on Climate Change
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010101092649.00940840@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <4.2.2.20010101113655.00a65700@127.0.0.1>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20010101/b4b2a5ab/attachment.html
From Reedtb2 at cs.com Mon Jan 1 12:05:15 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: WW11 Gasifiers
Message-ID: <ca.f0eec8d.27820fdf@cs.com>

Thanks so much for putting these photos on the web. You perform a great service.

In our "Handbook of ..Biomass .. Gasification", there is a table showing exact dimensions for constructing gasifiers from 30 to 230 M3/h (~10-750 kW) based on the WW II (not WW11!) experience in Sweden. It gives more of an overview for sizing vs design.

TOM REED BEF/CPC

In a message dated 1/1/01 1:39:27 AM Mountain Standard Time, graeme@powerlink.co.nz writes:

Dear Gasification Colleagues

With so many companies making gasifiers in Germany, the railways engineers
were given the task to test them, and duds are included in the collection.

In hindsight, its easy to see why some of these designs had problems, but
time and materials were not on their side. You can see some of the
photographs I took at the time on the Fluidyne Archive.

http://members.nbci.com/whitools/

http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/whitools/ww2.htm

The photographs are without text and my only comment is that some only just
work given their dimensional parameters. Unfortunately I didn't record the
names of the manufactures.

Regards
Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification.

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Mon Jan 1 12:05:27 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biodiesel question
Message-ID: <5a.f2626fa.27820ff1@cs.com>

There is no doubt in my mind that biodiesel from WASTE vegetable oil is viable. Growing new virgin oil is a much shakier proposition and probably will cost 2 to 3 X as much. So, the answer depends on the cost of oil AND our ability to raise crops without using oil. Could take a few decades to kick the petroleum dependency. I hope we will have a few to spare.

The dreamers are always looking for miracle crops. We chemists try to improve conversion efficiency instead.

Time will tell.... Yours truly, TOM REED BEF/CPC

In a message dated 12/31/00 11:00:34 AM Mountain Standard Time, calsch@montana.com writes:

I know Tom Reed has done some research into biodiesel. So this question
is mainly for him.

From snkm at btl.net Mon Jan 1 12:13:33 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Global Warming
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010101103009.00942940@wgs1.btl.net>

At 02:48 AM 1/1/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>Peter Singfield wrote:
>[...]
>> This causes an almost immediate global cooling of an incredible order.
>> Temperatures will fall below minus 140 F in 72 hours.
>
>..quite a bit quickly, considering the heat capasities
>of the athmosphaere and the oceans?
>
>..have another Happy New Year!
>
>--
>..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
>

Hi Arnt;

Interesting theory you have -- I'll answer with records of a real time
event -- today. Appended find our Belize weather forecast complete -- here
is the part I wish you to note.

TEMPERATURES:
HIGHS(TODAY) COASTAL 26C/79F INLAND 26C/79F
LOWS(TONIGHT) COASTAL 21C/70F INLAND 15C/59F

Not so bad!! We often get 30 or 35F drop -- inland -- this time of year.
And that from no sun for around just 12 hours! (That being 55F at sunrise
and 85 to 90F by 2 pm)

Imagine 72 hours! Plus the drop would not be linear -- but sharply increasing!

Many years ago (early 1960's) I read about the great placer mines in
Siberia. How they would wash out gravel deposits for ore and find fresh
meat from the previous victims of ice age. Also -- some of the smaller
critters would actually come back to life and run around for a bit! They
would often find fresh food in the stomachs of these well preserved beasties.

The conclusion was that the temperature drop was so radicle that a cold
wave of greater than minus 100 C just blew in and flash froze everything.
Mammoths with partially chewed fresh grass in their mouths -- ten thousand
years plus later -- washed out from the perma frost of northern Siberia.
The workers their grew fat on the meats they washed out! And the ivory
market collapsed!!

One breath of this super cold air was all it took!!

Carl Sagon is responsible for the minus 140F in 72 hours projection. This
at New York City in the middle of August -- due to global cloud cover
resulting from all out nuclear holocaust. This due to the burning of
forests mostly -- but also the burning of everything else. So yes -- I was
a little sloppy in not giving better specifics.

Large parts of the oceans never even freeze -- so probably never went lower
than a few degrees below 0 C -- so go figure!!

What is it to be?? Scientific postulation? Or stepping out the door and
observation??

Peter Singfield / Belize

------------------------------------------------
BELIZE WEATHER BUREAU
NATIONAL METEOROLOGICAL SERVICE

GENERAL WEATHER FORECAST
--------------------------------------------------------
DATE: MON 1 JAN 2001
TIME: 8:00AM
--------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL SITUATION: MOIST NORTHEASTERLY AIRFLOW!
--------------------------------------------------------
24HR FORECAST: CLOUDY AND COOL WITH A FEW SHOWERS OR SOME
LIGHT RAIN OVER MOST AREAS.
--------------------------------------------------------
WINDS: N-NE 10-20KTS WITH OCCASIONAL HIGHER GUSTS
--------------------------------------------------------
SEAS: MODERATE BECOMING ROUGH AT TIMES
**SMALL CRAFT CAUTION**
--------------------------------------------------------
OUTLOOK: (TUE)CLOUDY WITH A FEW SHOWERS MAINLY IN THE SOUTH.
--------------------------------------------------------
TEMPERATURES:
HIGHS(TODAY) COASTAL 26C/79F INLAND 26C/79F
LOWS(TONIGHT) COASTAL 21C/70F INLAND 15C/59F
--------------------------------------------------------
TIDES:
HIGH- LOW- 8:45AM
HIGH- 2:46PM LOW- 8:48PM
--------------------------------------------------------
SUNRISE- 6:25AM MOONSET- 11:24PM
SUNSET- 5:31PM MOONRISE- 11:15AM
--------------------------------------------------------

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Mon Jan 1 12:14:43 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Global Warming
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010101105137.00799960@wgs1.btl.net>

At 02:49 AM 1/1/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>
>Peter et al,
>
>the driving force behind global warming and cooling has for most of Earth's
>history been the sun, not CO2. See e.g.:
>
>http://zeus.nascom.nasa.gov/~pbrekke/klima/marsh_nature.html
>
>
>There is much reason to believe that the sun plays a major role in the most
>recent global warming too. This can readily be
>seen from one of the longest temperature records in the world, the 200+ year
>old record in Armagh, Northern Ireland.
>See:
>
>
>http://www.arm.ac.uk/press/200years-on-the-Net.html
>
>
>Sure, human CO2 does impact the climate, but likely much less than some of
>the scariest stories report in the media. We should
>instead focus on much neglected side of increasing CO2, namely the fact that
>plants, especially trees, love it and grow much faster.
>Our "pollution" is currently greening the planet at a rate only equalled by
>the termination of an ice age. This greening of the planet
>means more trees, and more trees means that biomass is becoming more readily
>available as a source of energy.
>
>
>
>
>Onar.

Hi Onar;

First -- it is heat that precipitates an ice age. True -- forests benefit
in the short term.

Second -- you should study the Maya calendar for the longest human recorded
record of climatic events. And yes -- the sun most definitely plays a major
role.

3rd -- not every sun cycle has triggered an ice age! We do not see ice ages
as a regular event in our past global weather history -- repeating
themselves as a solar eclipses -- always on the due date.

It requires something else as well -- as probably in this case -- burning a
huge amount of fossil fuels.

In the past -- it probably was coincidental events compounding. Massive
volcanic eruption during a solar cycle -- at the right time. Or a
meteorite. This time it may well be human activity.

As for small percentages of the effect of fossil fuel combustion. The
balance is so delicate you must think in terms of "triggering".

To define one example of "triggering".

A rifle probably has a trigger pull of 8 ounces over .005 in. The bullet
resulting from this has a force over 1000 ft pounds.

Now -- just who knows exactly how much CO2 must be added to the atmosphere
-- in short order -- to trigger global warming??

It is not about the last 200 years -- but about dramatic increases in the
last 10 years!

And 10 years on global climatic level is much less than pulling a trigger
.005 in to release 1000 ft pounds as in the example above.

Think of all the "triggers" we may be pulling! And how events cascade!!

I would not be so sure that CO2 is not responsible!

I certainly am not of the "It can't happen here" mind set. Everything is
"possible". Especially when we know so very little about how nature really
works.

I feel the present international mind set atrocious. One group over
exaggerating everything -- the other saying it can't happen here. Where is
the middle ground???

One claim being made that everyone calls ridiculous -- that an ice age can
occur in 30 years -- from historical records -- that is just about correct!

Have any of you checked out the weather graphic at:

http://members.tripod.com/~speculation/homepageweathermap.html

Save that picture and reopen with a picture editor such as I-view. It
should be at 400 by 320 pixels size for a clearer picture. Still -- give
one a good idea what we are talking about here. And notice Belize is still
sunny and warm!

Now -- how can we really save the globe -- simple -- everyone move to the
moon!

Peter Singfield / Belize

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From LINVENT at aol.com Mon Jan 1 12:47:45 2001
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Politics of Global Warming
Message-ID: <7b.e5081f3.278219df@aol.com>

Dear Peter,
Your earlier comment about "the end of the earth" only means humans upon
it, the earth will still persist, whether or not we are here. I believe that
global warming is like so many non-issue items that we like to get worked up
over. If the human race and animal species can survive the prior
catastrophies such as the year without a summer after a major volcanic
explosion which created a year long winter, I believe in the late 1700's, we
can survive other fates.
There was also a pre-historic Asian volcanic explosion which reduced the
human population of the earth from 1million to 100,000. We are much better
able to cope with such massive crises now. Volcanism seems to have a greater
direct and indirect impact upon the human race than wars. asteroids or higher
CO2 emissions.
I hate to see such a relatively minor concern take up so much energy and
possibly dramatically impact the human race productivity and progress.

Tom Taylor
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From jgordes at earthlink.net Mon Jan 1 12:50:57 2001
From: jgordes at earthlink.net (jgordes)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biodiesel question & Public Health-Safety Drivers
In-Reply-To: <5a.f2626fa.27820ff1@cs.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.2.20010101122147.00a556d0@127.0.0.1>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20010101/6d51f8e8/attachment.html
From keith at journeytoforever.org Mon Jan 1 13:41:41 2001
From: keith at journeytoforever.org (Keith Addison)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Global Warming
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20001231145741.009a1970@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <v04210102b67670d63bf0@[202.233.244.238]>

Peter Singfield wrote:

>At 12:17 PM 12/31/2000 EST, you wrote:
> >Dear Peter,
> > I believe that several months ago in response to global warming fears, I
> >wrote some thing which indicated that the increased convection will lead to
> >more fierce weather on the earth and other items which lead to the ice age.
> >There is a group called "The Coming Ice Age" which we have been involved
>with
> >for years which believes that remineralizing the earth to support stronger
> >plant growth and absorption of CO2 is the best way to go. All of the logical
> >paths which you have indicated are part of their hypothesis. The global
> >warmers are on the wrong track.
> > El Nino and La Nina occurrence prediction was based upon ocean
> >temperature off the coast of Baja, California, you are right in this
>respect.
> >
> >Tom Taylor
>
>
>Hi Tom;
>
>I found one sensible presentation -- with links -- over at:
>
>http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/home.html
>
>And true -- there exists no scientific validation connecting global warming
>to a rapid triggering of an ice age.
>
>I reached those conclusions on an independent level -- not realizing a cult
>has already started up promoting these same "far-out" theories.

I believe it all started with the publication in 1982 of a book
called The Survival of Civilization, by John D. Hamaker and Donald A.
Weaver (Hamaker-Weaver Publishers, Michigan, California, ISBN
0-941550-00-1), which predicts a new ice age and proposes averting it
by remineralising the land worldwide with rock dust. I read it at the
time (a convert friend sent it to me). It's a cranky book but there's
a lot of sense in it, particularly about soil mineralisation, but I
didn't accept the main conclusion that a rapid transition to a new
ice-age was imminent: "The broad truth is that without radical and
immediate reform (particularly in this nation), civilization will be
wrecked by 1990 and extinct by 1995." Well, maybe he just got the
timing wrong. Or was he right and we just didn't notice? :-)

I thought some of Hamaker's points were good and deserved further
work, but I've never seen any further work on them. He was ignored by
the science community (which probably means he's either a misguided
nut or a great prophet). That there's no scientific validation could
just mean they haven't looked properly. Is there any solid scientific
disproof of the idea?

Best wishes

Keith Addison

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From keith at journeytoforever.org Mon Jan 1 13:41:49 2001
From: keith at journeytoforever.org (Keith Addison)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Politics of Global Warming
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010101092649.00940840@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <v04210101b676679f11a4@[202.233.244.238]>

Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net> wrote:

>Got "stuck" on this global warming issue. Interesting how this question is
>being handled from a political perspective.
>
>Of course -- all of those with vested interests in fossil fuels are
>disavowing any relationship between burning of fossil fuels, increased CO2
>emissions and global warming.

Not quite true. In a speech at Stanford University in May 1997, BP
CEO Sir John Browne said: "There is a discernible human influence on
the climate and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide
and the increase in temperature." BP's Environmental Policy Adviser
Charles Thomas said: "The emphasis for us is very much on emissions
reduction. That is what Kyoto is all about." Etc etc.

On the other hand, BP Amoco's deeds are very much at odds with Sir
John Browne's pretty words. Greenpeace awarded Browne an "Academy
Award" for "Best Impression of an Environmentalist". And BP Amoco has
just won its second Greenwash Award in a year, as well as rating
third place in Multinational Monitor's list of the Ten Worst
Corporations of 2000 ("Enemies of the Future") as "BP/Amoco:
Lawbreaker".

There's more about all this here, if you're interested:
http://journeytoforever.org/#FYI

BP and an increasing number of other companies with fossil fuel
interests have quite the Global Climate Coalition, which opposes the
Kyoto climate treaty. But all this is just PR. Companies like BP have
no intention of abandoning fossil fuels - quite the opposite. And
their "emissions reduction" refers to company emissions only -
insignificant when compared to the emissions from the gas and oil
they produce (2% of total world emissions - more than Britain or
Canada). BP spent more on their new eco-friendly logo last year than
on renewable energy.

So you're quite right of course - just don't be fooled by whatever
they may avow or disavow publicly.

<snip>

>In his paper, Climate Change, Clinton and Kyoto: The Negotiations
>Over Global Warming, RFF Journalist-in-Residence J.W. Anderson
>outlines the scientific evidence on global warming as documented in
>the 1990 and 1996 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports,
>reviews the history of climate change as a political issue, and
>highlights recent international diplomatic efforts to combat climate
>change.
>
>"Climate change is an unusually difficult issue for the people who
>make the decisions in democratic governments," Anderson says. "First,
>the science is uncertain while governments have to make firm policy
>decisions - if only the decision to do nothing - long before these
>uncertainties can be resolved."

The US committed itself to the precautionary principle in the Rio
Declaration, along with a lot of other nations.

>"Second, any serious attempt to cut emissions of greenhouse gases
>will have clear and immediate costs, but the benefits may not appear
>for a long, long time," Anderson says. "To the extent that that the
>benefits may be disasters that didn't happen, they may never be
>obvious. But the costs will be."

It makes an interesting comparison with the Y2K fiasco - a disaster
that didn't happen, with huge costs, and nobody said a word!

Best wishes

Keith Addison

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From calsch at montana.com Mon Jan 1 13:47:08 2001
From: calsch at montana.com (Cal Schindel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Siberian finds
Message-ID: <3A50CE16.C165F905@montana.com>

Peter, years back I read some other theory about the Mastodons and
how they flash froze. Don't remember the source. The way this goes is
the only way they could flash freeze with fresh grass in their mouth
(and sometimes water lilies with blossoms) is if the earth was hit
by a large asteroid. This could blow big masses or blobs of atmosphere
up through the stratosphere into a low orbit where it was super cooled.
When these blobs of atmosphere came back down they instantly froze
everything in the area.

For what it is worth, Cal
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From H.Parker at ttu.edu Mon Jan 1 14:09:29 2001
From: H.Parker at ttu.edu (Harry W. Parker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biodiesel question
In-Reply-To: <5a.f2626fa.27820ff1@cs.com>
Message-ID: <200101011909.OAA02482@crest.solarhost.com>

Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 12:37:16 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0046_01C073EF.9313CBE0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0046_01C073EF.9313CBE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello Tom and all,

The consideration with regard to waste vegetable oil, and tallow for =
biodiesel is that these materials already have significant value in =
animal rations and as pet food. Not sure how that economic comparison =
would look.

>From the farmer's point of view, using waste oils for biodiesel does not =
increase the markets for his agricultural crops.=20

The supply of waste oils is rather small. Some individuals have just =
chosen just to add up to 5 or 10 % of well filtered used vegetable oils =
to petroleum diesel and so utilize it as fuel. =20

Harry

Harry W. Parker, Ph.D., P.E.
Professor of Chemical Engineering
& Consulting Engineer
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409-3121
806.742.1759 fax 742.3552

=20

------=_NextPart_000_0046_01C073EF.9313CBE0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
Hello Tom and all,

The consideration with regard to waste = vegetable=20 oil, and tallow for
biodiesel is that these materials already have = significant=20 value in
animal rations and as pet food. Not sure how that = economic=20 comparison
would look.

From the farmer's point of view, using = waste oils=20 for biodiesel does
not increase the markets for his agricultural crops.=20

The supply of waste oils is rather=20 small. Some individuals have just
chosen just to add up to 5 = or 10 %=20 of well filtered used vegetable
oils to petroleum diesel and so utilize = it as=20 fuel.

Harry

Harry W. Parker, Ph.D., = P.E.
Professor of=20 Chemical Engineering
& Consulting Engineer
Texas Tech=20 University
Lubbock, TX 79409-3121
806.742.1759 fax = 742.3552

------=_NextPart_000_0046_01C073EF.9313CBE0--

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From calsch at montana.com Mon Jan 1 14:16:45 2001
From: calsch at montana.com (Cal Schindel)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biodiesel question again
Message-ID: <3A50D507.2BDA61F7@montana.com>

In the replies so far the initial question has been misinterpreted.

Reply from Tom: "Growing new virgin oil is a much shakier proposition
and probably will cost 2 to 3 X as much. So, the answer depends on
the cost of oil AND our ability to raise crops without using oil.
Could take a few decades to kick the petroleum dependency. I hope we
will have a few to spare."

The initial question said: "From an engineering perspective and
considering btus input into the cycle and btus available as product,
is biodiesel a viable option?" (Forget economics for the moment)

Rephrased (and I apologize for not so far having availed myself of the
archives): Is raising crops for their btu output possibilities a
viable option or are they more likely to become a btu sink rather
than a btu output positive?

My gut instinct tells me that it only works if you utilize the entire
crop product. The oil seed for its diesel fuel and the stem for a
gasifier. Set economics aside and consider it from an engineering of
btu viewpoint. I do realize it is a complex question and variables of
farming technique make it impossible to answer in detail. I guess I
just wanted a general answer such as "yes, soybeans and sorgum will
both work," or something of that nature.

Thanks from a new member to this list, Cal
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Mon Jan 1 14:22:04 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The Big Picture
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010101130506.0094d100@wgs1.btl.net>

At 12:35 PM 1/1/2001 EST, you wrote:
>Dear Peter,
> Your earlier comment about "the end of the earth" only means humans upon
>it, the earth will still persist, whether or not we are here.

Stand corrected Tom. Of course your right. Should have said the end of
civilization as we know it now. Seriously doubt all humans will be gone
either.

The Garden of Eden scenario is probably a post ice age story. And the meek
inheriting the earth -- think on that one. I take it to mean only the
simple folks, of not exceptional mental capacity -- but with the ability to
grub out an existence anywhere -- not needing flush toilets, soap, two
baths a day and most important -- TV or I-net. The true "salt" of this
species of man. A subject well covered in the book (and movie) "Planet of
the Apes". The book being far more specific on that point than the movie was.

So there you go -- first the Mad Max scenario -- then planet of the apes
after!

I believe that
>global warming is like so many non-issue items that we like to get worked up
>over. If the human race and animal species can survive the prior
>catastrophies such as the year without a summer after a major volcanic
>explosion which created a year long winter, I believe in the late 1700's, we
>can survive other fates.

Exactly! Also -- was there not a long winter after that island -- Karakatoa
(spelling???) -- blew in the mid 1800's? One such event like that popping
off during the wrong part of a solar cycle would quite possibly trigger an
ice age???

> There was also a pre-historic Asian volcanic explosion which reduced the
>human population of the earth from 1million to 100,000. We are much better
>able to cope with such massive crises now. Volcanism seems to have a greater
>direct and indirect impact upon the human race than wars. asteroids or
higher
>CO2 emissions.

I have some old texts regarding Yucatec Mayan history. They describe a
Mitch style hurricane that stayed over the Yucatan for five days. When it
was over they had only 1/5 of their population left! Of which a further
large percentage died from starvation after the fact!! So never ignore
weather as a serious danger to life and well being! They numbered over 5
million souls before this event! No record on the surving number as it took
them a hundred years to get organized enough to count heads. Had the worlds
best hurricane shelters (you must check out the ruins sometime) and years
of experience dealing with these events.

> I hate to see such a relatively minor concern take up so much energy and
>possibly dramatically impact the human race productivity and progress.
>

Well Tom -- if natural events don't get us -- over population surely will!
Some where in all that information I just looked over was a statement
saying that human production of CO2 (breathing) is greater than all
combustion sources!! Now -- factor in all the meat animals that also
produce CO2 that we raise for our food! And what about cow farts! All that
methane with 40 times more absorption! Hey -- 6 billion humans -- how much
CO2 is produced every breath!! How many cow farts to a Big Mac??

As a life form -- we may have more "smarts" than the rest -- but we are
just as accountable to natural events. Anytime a single species of life
overpopulates its niche -- a series of safe guards come in to play to
eventually even that playing field again.

For this present species of man -- it has been traditionally war! Survival
of the fittest being the ultimate bottom line. Nature really does not care
if that survivor is a scientist or a peon. The peon always stands the
better chance when the real crunch comes though -- such in massive natural
disorders. The scientists usually survive war better than the peon -- who
is always cannon fodder.

In the meantime -- we should be organizing ourselves to take advantage of
Insurance company's investment funds to build more biomass power plants --
especially in 3rd world. Being as first world uses to much power to be
supplied in this fashion -- and insists on consuming fossil fuels until the
very last gram is done!

Tom Reed -- you can make another fuel cost chart with a price of $20 per
ton for "dried" fire wood. That for Belize (current price the bakeries are
paying). Even cheaper for the rest of Central America. That makes biomass
power plants highly competitive to fossil fuel plants -- in 3rd world.

Peter Singfield / Belize

>Tom Taylor
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From hauserman at corpcomm.net Mon Jan 1 14:32:07 2001
From: hauserman at corpcomm.net (Hauserman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Global Warming
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20001231094207.0098f2b0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <005a01c07428$cf6e4c80$d1f346cf@Hauserman>

Minneapolis,
USA     01/01/01
Heappy New Year to All Hands!

I'm impressed by the sheer variety of all-to-rare
original thought that many of you have put forth on the causes of global
warming. Peter Singfield's suggestion of brief, sudden mini-ice-ages is
particularly intriguing. Here's a similar one that I'd like to throw out for
"peer review."

GRAND COSMIC HYPOTHESES AND THE POLITICAL FUTURE OF
GASIFICATION.

Consider: 'Tis
written that the ash tossed to the atmosphere by volcanic eruptions on Krakatoa,
and an earlier, even bigger, also Indonesian erruption tinted sunsets red
for the next year and are blamed for brief major global coolings, such as the
famous 170-whatever "year without a Winter."
This assumes that the several cubic kilometers of dust spread
through Earth's atmosphere was enough to absorb enough IR radiation to
cause such cooling. While I have not looked up the actual numbers,
the kg/km3 -- kg/cubic km of Earth's atmosphere, would be not too
impressive a number. But now suppose that some much lower, but temporary
and abnormal, level of dust occurred in a relatively tremendous volume of
space - the tapered tube through which the Sun's light passes to reach
earth? Should not very minor variations in such space dust cause truly
major chillings of Earth?
Now Consider: It's estimated that Sun with its
planets orbits the Galaxy in roughly 230,000,000 years. It and all other
orbiting stars, as well as nebulae and other, undefined "dark matter" move in
quite different orbits, with respect to tangential velocity, elipticity, and
tilt with rspect to the galactic plane. So many of these orbits pass closely or
intersect, and quite differently each time around. So looking at the
awesomely dense, obviously mobile, star-birthing clouds poofing out of the
Horsehead and Eagle nebulae, f'rinstance -- one must wonder what even a dilute
wisp of one of these clouds could do to the IR-absorptive dust level
between Earth ans Sun. I can envision mini-ice-ages, in which a permanent
snow pack covers most of Earth for a mere few centuries - not long enough for
glaciers to form and do any permanent geological sculpting. So there
is no legible geological record of such events - except possibly for the
occasional, random extinctions of species that define the geological
epochs. Could not such "wisps" be too dilute to even be noticed within
a few hundred light years, and yet dense enough to increase by an order of
magnitude the absorptive dust level in the Solar System????? This galaxy
is a scary place! In fact, since the recent ice age cycles, for the last
two million year or so, are not at all convincingly explained, could they
not be a result of the Solar System crossing ways with a series of
rather larger but more dilute dust clouds every 200,000 years or so?

This, I assume, is not a scientifically appealing
hypothesis, as there is no apparent experiment to confirm it. It must also
be of no media or political interest - along with the other intriguing ideas
presented here through GAS-L - as there is nothing for anyone to insist that
something be done about. But meanwhile, the cult of official stature
assures that any amateure, non-technical activist or politician can find a
warm, fuzzy feeling - a buzz of rightious indignation, by insisting that
somebody else be made to incur some great expense or inconvenience to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. This constituency now has enough critical mass
that any credentialed scientist can be assured of a career boost, and continued
funding, by public support of the politically correct causes of global
warming.   But this may all work out for the best.. It
provides an essential mythology to promote public interest in gasification
technologies -- so they may hopefully be ready when the world really
does start running out of oil.

Again - Happy New Year to All.

Bill
Hauserman

From snkm at btl.net Mon Jan 1 14:57:05 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Siberian finds and the Maya Mountains
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010101134146.00948630@wgs1.btl.net>

At 11:36 AM 1/1/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>Peter, years back I read some other theory about the Mastodons and
>how they flash froze. Don't remember the source. The way this goes is
>the only way they could flash freeze with fresh grass in their mouth
>(and sometimes water lilies with blossoms) is if the earth was hit
>by a large asteroid. This could blow big masses or blobs of atmosphere
>up through the stratosphere into a low orbit where it was super cooled.
>When these blobs of atmosphere came back down they instantly froze
>everything in the area.
>
>For what it is worth, Cal

All to true -- except these animals were all flash frozen 15,000 or so
years back.

And we normally assume the meteorite strike of 65 million (???) years back
that put the blocks to the dinosaurs.

Still -- there is that mysterious meteorite -- maybe the icy heart of a
comet -- striking Siberia -- that occurred about that time (or am I way out
of line -- was it just 100 or so years ago??). But that flattened 1000'nds
of square miles of forest! That violence would have been easily discerned
in the corpses.

All in all -- we know so very little regarding these events. Simply
pointing out what is possible -- not saying it is so. We really have no
records of times when the sun is blocked in the manner I quote Carl.

One would think that same blanket of clouds would enhance green-house
effect and hold the heat better? Guess we have to wait for such an event to
occur and hope we have satellites to monitor it all -- and enough of a
civilization left to compile such and probably write it in deeply in stone
(suggest granite) and leave it in a spot likely for the next civilization
of man to find (the moon??)

>From our recent historical records -- looks like it takes at least a few
thousand years for civilization to rebound. Though in my studies I read
that the Naga Maya colonized in Tibet about 12,000 years ago after
surviving the last ice age. This well presented in a work of fiction (based
on one man's research of Naga Maya -- but not excepted by his scientific
peers of the time -- so presented as "fiction") called:

Lost Horizon -- By James Hilton

Introducing the word Shangrila into our modern vocabulary.

I suppose we should start doing the same here in Belize. In the Maya
Mountain range. One of the oldest (and most stable) geological formations
on planet earth today. Solid granite "nubs" of a great mountain range. Also
at the right latitude.

The Naga Maya went on the colonize -- as the "Maya" -- Central America --
especially here in Northern Belize. I am typing from the "hub" of that
great city (Chetumal) -- over 2 million population -- 2000 years ago.

The ruins "Caracol" are in the Maya Mountains and are everything one would
expect form a Shangrila scenario. We simply can go there -- clean it up a
little ---

Any multinational with a spare few billion can do this -- always wonder why
Bill Gates has not?

Frank Coppola (spelling??) of movie fame already has his mini-shangrila
there. He normally spends most of his time in Guatemala -- but comes over
every time the ground starts shaking.

Victoria mountain is the highest "nub" at just over 3000 ft altitude. A
large mass of solid granite. One could tunnel a fair sized city in that and
be done with "Global Climate Changes".

Cheaper than going to the moon -- by a long shot!

Peter Singfield / Belize

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From keith at journeytoforever.org Mon Jan 1 15:45:19 2001
From: keith at journeytoforever.org (Keith Addison)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Biodiesel question again
In-Reply-To: <3A50D507.2BDA61F7@montana.com>
Message-ID: <v0421010cb6768f1657ce@[202.233.244.7]>

Cal Schindel <calsch@montana.com> wrote:

<snip>

>My gut instinct tells me that it only works if you utilize the entire
>crop product. The oil seed for its diesel fuel and the stem for a
>gasifier.

Also the seed cake, a high-protein animal feed or organic fertiliser.
The glycerine by-product is saleable. If you use KOH as the catalyst
and phosphoric acid for the wash, you're left with a potassium
phosphate fertiliser, either saleable or it can be used to grow the
crops and reduce the costs. If you grew sorghum (or corn, or what
have you) as well you could produce ethanol to make ethyl esters
biodiesel, cutting the cost of the methanol. (That would also leave
you with saleable CO2 and distillers grains as livestock feed.) Using
the fuel you produce for the farming operations would cut costs
further. And can't fuel crops be grown on set-aside land? Sorry, I
can't think in btus, but I think this all has a bearing on it.
Recycling the fertilisers cuts energy inputs, and livestock feed also
means manure, which could be used as fertiliser, cutting inputs
further, or digested for biogas to provide energy for fuel
processing.

Best wishes

Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
Handmade Projects
Tokyo
http://journeytoforever.org/

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From curen at renrg.com Mon Jan 1 16:39:29 2001
From: curen at renrg.com (Chris Uren)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: FW: GAS-L: In search of the best 3TPD gasifier
Message-ID: <200101012139.QAA10017@crest.solarhost.com>

Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 08:15:48 +1100
Message-ID: <NEBBJBHJMKNMPNMHCNMGIEMJCAAA.curen@renrg.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Importance: Normal

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Uren [mailto:curen@renrg.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 2 January 2001 7:13 AM
To: tr@eeco.net
Cc: Dave Kluttz; Michael Todd
Subject: FW: GAS-L: In search of the best 3TPD gasifier

Dear Mr Rondio,

Your email has been forwarded on to me by Tony Campesi at HRL. Our
company - Renewable Energy Corporation Limited (REL) is the manufacturer of
the Waterwide Close Coupled Gasifier. This system is used to convert
biomass (including animal manure) to heat, cleanly and efficiently. We do
not use the syngas generated to power reciprocating or turbine engines,
preferring to instead convert directly to heat using the close coupled
cycloburner. This enables us to work with high moisture content fuels of
varying composition. Emissions are all below internation and USA
requirements, with minimal fouling or ash clinkering. We have been
operating this technology throughout the world for twenty years (600 units
sold) and are currently looking at scaling up to accommodate larger scale
operations generating power.

Our range of sizes is within your requirements, although at the lower end of
our size range. Our expereience in the past has been that with animal
manure, not only can we generate clean heat, but the ash is also of a form
and composition that is valued as a fertiliser.

Currently, our office in the USA is working closely with Duke Engineering
Services to develop a number of Chicken Litter to energy/fertiliser projects
while also developing a process for the conversion of pig manure to
energy/fertiliser.

Our office is in the Morrison Building, 6525 Morrison Boulevard, Suite 419,
Charlotte, North Carolina 28211. The contact there is Michael Todd, General
Manager.

Should you have any further queries, our US office can support your
requirements or you can contact me in our Australian office.

REGARDS

Christopher Uren
New Business Manager (Australia)
Renewable Energy Corporation Limited

Ph (+61 3) 9820 1322
Fax (+61 3) 9820 5722
email curen@renrg.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Campisi, Tony [mailto:tcampisi@hrl.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 22 December 2000 10:17 AM
To: Christopher Uren (E-mail)
Subject: FW: GAS-L: In search of the best 3TPD gasifier

Hi Chris,

the following may be of interest,

best wishes for the New Year -

regards

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tomek Rondio [SMTP:tr@eeco.net]
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 11:21 AM
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: In search of the best 3TPD gasifier
>
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> Does anybody have a lead on an existing gasification technology capable of
> effectively converting 3 to 4 Tons Per Day, @ 25 to 35% moisture, 1cm max,
> animal wastes into heat (with the future possibility of using an IC
> engine/generator)
>
> We have an immediate need for 1,000 to 2,000+ units per year. We would
> like
> to invest in or form a strategic alliance with a gasification company that
> can provide a cost effective and environmentally responsible system. We
> have no geographic constraints.
>
> Thanks for the help everybody! . . . and HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
>
> Tomek Rondio
>
>
>
> ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION, (EEC)
> Renewable Energy Division http://www.eeco.net
> Pollution Control Division http://www.eeco.net/pollution
> E-mail eeco@eeco.net
> 294 9th Avenue · San Francisco · California · 94118 ·
> USA
> TEL (415)386-6424 · FAX (415)386-6484
>
> EEC . . . for a cleaner and healthier natural environment through
> advanced,
> cost effective technologies.
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From onar at netpower.no Mon Jan 1 17:08:32 2001
From: onar at netpower.no (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Onar_=C5m?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Global Warming
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010101105137.00799960@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <004201c0743c$9db26d70$0d8221d4@cinderella>

> First -- it is heat that precipitates an ice age. True -- forests benefit
> in the short term.

And long term.

> 3rd -- not every sun cycle has triggered an ice age! We do not see ice
ages
> as a regular event in our past global weather history -- repeating
> themselves as a solar eclipses -- always on the due date.

Of course not, why should they? The sun is not a clock and more other
factors
such as tectonic plate movements are equally important in the ice age
oscillation.
At present the land masses are such alined that we get a narrow ocean (the
atlantic)
between two metacontinents. The gulf stream distributes heat from the
equator up to
the higher latitudes and thus effectively heats up the northern region.
Whenever this
stream shuts down you get an ice age. What drives the ocean currents?
Primarily the
winds. What drives the winds? The sun.

> It requires something else as well -- as probably in this case -- burning
a
> huge amount of fossil fuels.

I forgot to mention that although there is a great correlation between CO2
and temperature
from paleoclimatic data, CO2 lags temperature by about 500 to 1500 years. In
short, the temperature
changes causes the CO2 variations, not vice versa. This lag is particularly
evident at the end of ice
ages. Some 12.000 years ago the world started heating abruptly and about
1200 years later the CO2
level started to increase. We know that this abrupt heating was caused by
the restart of the gulf stream due
to the fact of the Younger Dryas Episode. As the ice melted huge glacier
lakes in the US was created. Then
one day the ice broke and all this freshwater dumped into the north
atlantic, essentially short circuiting
the thermohaline circulation. And sure enough, for a few hundred years the
world started reverting into an
ice age again. But the external forces that are driving the ice age cycles
were to strong even for this gigantic
cataclysm, and so the process reversed and the gulf stream got started once
more.

PS: If you wonder why CO2 is impacted by temperature this is due to the fact
that cold water absorbs CO2
better than warm water. When the world (and hence the oceans) warm the
oceans therefore start to absorb CO2
at a slower rate and thus the CO2 content increases.

> In the past -- it probably was coincidental events compounding. Massive
> volcanic eruption during a solar cycle -- at the right time. Or a
> meteorite. This time it may well be human activity.

Probably not. More important factors are tectonic plate movement and the
gravitational pull of the planets.

> As for small percentages of the effect of fossil fuel combustion. The
> balance is so delicate you must think in terms of "triggering".

Well, if dumping several huge lakes of freshwater into the north atlantic
all at once is
not enough to trigger an ice age then there's little reason to believe that
puny CO2-increases
will.

> I would not be so sure that CO2 is not responsible!
>
> I certainly am not of the "It can't happen here" mind set. Everything is
> "possible". Especially when we know so very little about how nature really
> works.

You are right that there is great uncertainty about future climate change.
However, there is one thing there
is no uncertainty about: if we stop using fossil fuels at present it would
be a disaster for humanity. While
biomass and other renewables are exciting there is just no chance in hell
that these are mature enough to
replace fossil fuels as a main source of energy in another 30 years.
Currently there are more important
issues to attend to than climate change. Population growth is a much greater
threat to the environment
than any amount of fossil fuel burning. The only known humane way to slow
population growth is to make
poor people rich, and the easiest way to do that is to let them use fossil
fuels in bundles.

Onar.

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From hauserman at corpcomm.net Mon Jan 1 18:16:03 2001
From: hauserman at corpcomm.net (Hauserman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: PyroLiquids for POX Feed.
Message-ID: <001101c07448$191d6cc0$ecf346cf@Hauserman>

Hi!

Haqs anyone adentified a mixed
biomass pyrolysis liquid product, that might be used as feed to a catalytic POX
process for on-board vehicular H2-CO production. At this point, the only
specifications are --
(1) It must be completely volatile
below around 350-400C (650-750F)
(2) It must be eeventually producable at a cost
roughly comparable to gasoline or diesel, but preferably a lot
lower.
(3) It must be amenable to a process of Partially
Catalytic Oxidation (POX) either alone or with a lesser amount of steam
reforming, all in same catalyst bed, to form some/any H2-CO-CO2-H20 mixture, as
high in H2 as possible. The initial step would be followed by a water-gas
shift reactor, to near-complete conversion of CO to H2.
(4) It must be no more prone to carbonization on
catalyst surfaces than is diesel during POX and reforming.

The eventual application would
be as easily storable, on-board liquid feed for an on-board power system,
producing H2 for low temperature PEM fuel cells to produce electric power
to turn wheels. Preliminary designs suggest that efficiencies of over 50% are
possible. Well-funded development studies so far are - to the best of my
knowledge - considering gasoline, diesel, methanol and ethanol as liquid
feedstocks, because these are commercially available and made to established
specifications to work from. In the case of the gasoline and diesel,
massive development effort and exacting quality control insure that these
specifications are met, at substantial cost. I cannot find where anyone has
considered the possibility that some CHEAP, "way-off-spec" stuff from a refinery
OR from a biomass pyrolysis might be at least as suitable for POX feed,
without the exacting performance of engine fuels.
If anyone has composition data on some such clean,
volatile, non-engine-fuel liquid, that can be produced consistently and
cheaply, there is this possible future market for it that is
worth looking into.

Any ideas?

Thanks.

Bill
Hauserman

From onar at netpower.no Tue Jan 2 02:30:43 2001
From: onar at netpower.no (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Onar_=C5m?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L:More on Climate Change
In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20010101113655.00a65700@127.0.0.1>
Message-ID: <003301c0748b$218ba550$168221d4@cinderella>

Dear Joel,

let me just add that the insurance industry has
nothing to lose and everything to win by adopting an alarmist view of climate
change. What is the logical consequence of adopting the alarmist view? Why,
higher insurance rates, of course. If the alarmist view is correct, the higher
rates will have compensated for the increased costs. If it's wrong, then the
insurance industry will simply have made a lot more money than they otherwise
would.

Thus, the insurance industry is just about as
credible in the global warming issue as the fossil fuel industry.

As to the notion of gambling with our only
atmosphere as you put it, there is only one valid response: life is risky. ALL
actions, or non-actions involve risks, and one risk does not have
precedence over another. For instance, what about the risks of a runaway
population growth? The risks of a new world war or a period of global
instability due to a major recession induced by curbing fossil fuel usage?

Ask yourself, what is the greatest threat to the
biosphere right now: global warming or poverty? It is the poor people of Brazil
that are destroying the Amazon rain forests, not climate change. I
therefore postulate that the best thing we can do to diminish the threat to the
biosphere is to exterminate poverty, and there is only one humane way to achieve
this: sustained economic growth.

Onar.

<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">

----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
jgordes

To: <A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org"
title=gasification@crest.org>gasification@crest.org
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 5:48
PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L:More on Climate
Change
Dear All,While I am not a frequent contributor to this
list, I find it infinitely useful and do monitor much of the
traffic. On the climate change issue: it is an area in which I have been
deeply involved for the past 10+ years and particularly in its potential
effects upon the insurance industry (I live near Hartford, CT--the "Insurance
Capitol of the World"??) At any rate, I have provided for you
below two opinions from large insurance companies on the topic of climate
change. They (most of the European and Asian insurers) believe it's happening
and, guess what? They are equal in size to the world's fossil fuel
industry. Now think about that for a moment. One of my work tasks
is to get their investments into renewable fuel sources which do not result in
net carbon gains--read that as biomass gasification among other
technologies. As to the question of proving the effect of climate change
yet, as our insurer friends might tell you, "Absence of certainty does not
mean absence of risk." So how much do you want to gamble with your only
atmosphere/biosphere? For more on this see my humble web site (last
thing on this page below the two articles immediate below) . Happy new
year to all.Warmly,Joel
CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE FINANCIAL SERVICES INDUSTRY
Dr. Andrew Dlugolecki, Dir. of General Insurance Development,
CGNU, 6th largest global insurance groupSpeech
delivered in Frankfurt and also COP6 Nov 2000INTRODUCTIONClimate change is the
greatest challenge facing business and political leaders-so declared the
World Economic Forum at Davos in February 2000. Yet since then,
there has been little evidence of practical concern ;it is already
clear that the modest emission reduction targets agreed in Kyoto in 1997
will not be met. There is therefore a policy vacuum, waiting for a new
initiative, and the insurance industry can and should play an important part
in creating this drive because it has a high stake in climate change.
Climate change is not just a problem for the developing nations.
A recent EU report (ACACIA, published 1/11/00) predicted serious problems for
southern and Eastern Europe, linked to water shortages, with an increasing
divide between rich and poor, town and country, and primary and services
sectors. Nor are the rich immune- a recent report from the UK's Chartered
Insurance Institute revealed that many of the country's most famous golf
courses are threatened by coastal erosion.The financial services
industry will be affected by climate change on three fronts: property
insurance, resource consumption, and asset management. *Property
Insurance This is the most obvious impact area. Insured
losses from weather catastrophes has increased by a factor of 14 between the
60’s and the 90’s.Yet even in the developed world, 2/3 of the economic damage
is not insured , and this falls to around 5% in Asia and Africa. The balance
of the costs are borne by the state , or the victims themselves, creating
major societal problems. Analysis shows that to date climate change has played
a subordinate role in this trend; the main factors are socio-economic:
population growth, development of high-hazard locations, and the vulnerable
nature of modern materials. Experience shows that the economic cost of all
types of natural disasters is rising at about 10% per year, while global GDP
is rising at a longterm rate of around 3%.If these trends continue then the
curves cross over around the year 2065 ie the world’s wealth would be totally
consumed by the cost of natural disasters. Clearly such a projection is naive;
mankind is an adaptive species and might be expected to alter his behaviour.
However there is no room for complacency. There have been several examples
where previous civilisations have crashed by over-exploiting their natural
resource base. Insurers are well aware that the relationship between weather
and property damage is very sensitive-just a 10% increase in windspeed can
increase damage by 150%.Scientists have discovered that in its natural state ,
the climate can “flip” very rapidly from one state to another. In that case we
can expect property damage to escalate rapidly beyond the expected trendline,
as new areas are affected , with new intensities, and more “targets”.
*Resource Conservation Although financial
services are not energy-intensive like extractive or manufacturing industry,
individual companies are now so large and rely so heavily on IT, that they can
consume as much electricity as a town of 50,000 people. Add to this office
supplies, transportation, and finally their large holdings of real-estate for
investment, and it is clear that the sector does have a significant environmental impact which deserves
more attention. Unless it sets a good example, the industry can hardly expect
others to take its views on the issue seriously. *Asset
Management (Investment) The core business of the
financial sector is the management of funds. The sums involved are enormous
(the top 25 UK insurers control funds of $2tr alone).Often these funds are
held in trust for decades so that the climate clearly will change during their
trusteeship. Climate change will affect this area directly through the impact
of weather and sealevel on projects and invested assets, and indirectly ,
because government mitigation policies will alter the economics of entire
regions and industries. A NEW RESPONSE.A problem on this scale demands a new level of response from the
industry. Insurers have gained great skill in understanding natural hazards
and developing practical techniques to handle their economic effects. Often
they are not applied because circumstances are not conducive to a purely
commercial insurance system-the risks may be too large or the economic base
may be too small for instance. By collaborating with other stakeholders, it
may be possible for insurers to provide services in a hybrid system, with
benefits for planning and post-event recovery. Of course, financial systems
need to be integrated with local cultures-a good example is Grameen Bank in
Bangladesh, which has given communities the framework to control their own
development. However this is still vulnerable to the impact of a regional
natural disaster, so linking microfinance initiatives to commercial insurance
and reinsurance would help to ensure that the local economy can recover
speedily after a catastrophe. To date this avenue has not been explored
thoroughly. Innovation will be needed to develop new sources of
funds to finance the growing scale of risks, complementing the traditional
pool of commercial insurance and reinsurance reserves. Also a broader range of
risk -transfer products is needed to cater not just for "events" but also
significant deviations from the norm of weather behavior over a season. There
is already considerable experimentation in these areas with products like
catastrophe bonds, and weather derivatives., but so far their commercial
impact is relatively small. PROACTIVE
MITIGATION (CONTRACTION AND CONVERGENCE)The Kyoto
Protocol , aiming at a 5% cut in emissions below 1990 levels, is only a
preliminary step to deal with Climate Change , but already there are serious
problems in ratifying it, and almost certainly it will not be accomplished by
the due date , because of the delay in initiating it. In the meantime, damage
will continue to escalate. A far more fundamental approach is required,
involving developed and developing nations together. Climate modelers indicate
that unless emissions are cut by 60% , then temperatures will rise to
dangerous levels. One proposal which sets out to tackle this issue at its
roots is "Contraction and Convergence" developed by the Global Commons
Institute , a small British NGO. This simple yet powerful concept has all
nations agreeing to an equal per capita allowance of emissions globally, with
a progressive reduction in the total amount of emissions down to a safe level.
To facilitate implementation, initially countries would be able to trade
emission permits. However the key is to replace carbon-heavy fuels with
renewable alternative energies as well as more efficient technologies quickly.
To implement Contraction and Convergence or a similar scheme will
require great political vision, and enormous efforts in research and
development, followed by rapid upscaling into mainstream production. This will
alter the economics of entire regions and industries , and produce significant
shifts in the balance of economic power. There are obvious implications for
the rate of return on longterm investments. Given that such action is
imperative, and will have major
repercussions for the financial services sector, then the industry should take
an active part in preparing the framework and in its implementation.
A PROGRAMME FOR ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
*The industry should unite around a single focal
point such as the UNEP Financial Services Roundtable , to lobby at
international level for an early strategic framework to deal with climate
change ( eg Contraction and Convergence). *Research and development
needs to be stepped up to identify whether and how financial tools can be
provided to deal with the many climate-related risks which have been ignored
by the sector. *Where conventional hazards are concerned, the
industry should work more closely with other stakeholders to deliver its
services more efficiently to as wide a base as
possible. *Finally, the industry must become more attentive to
its own resource consumption, particularly in real-estate, in order to play
its own part in reducing emissions quickly. Natural Disasters Reported at Record Level
in 2000 Thu Dec 28 18:08:53 2000 GMT MUNICH
(Reuters) - The world was hit by a record number of natural disasters in 2000
and global warming and a rising population are likely to make future
years even worse, the world's largest reinsurer said Thursday.Munich Re
said the number of what it categorizes as natural disasters rose by more than
100 to 850 in 2000, although the number of deaths was much lower than in 1999
because less populated areas were affected.It said 10,000 people died as a
result of natural disasters in 2000 compared to 75,000 in 1999. Material
damage was put at more than $30 billion in 2000."Accounting for the growth
in world population and the rise in the concentration of property values, the
losses caused by natural disasters must be expected to continue to rise in the
future," Munich Re said."Global warming has to be slowed down.
Otherwise the risk situation for insurers in many of the world's regions will
intensify," said Gerhard Berz, head of its geo-science research
group.Munich Re said that since only $7.5 billion of the estimated damage
caused by natural disasters in 2000 had been covered by insurance, it had
actually been a relatively inexpensive year for policy underwriters.Storms
were clearly at the top of the list of disasters, accounting for 73 percent of
all insured losses, while floods accounted for 23 percent of insured
losses.Flooding which hit Mozambique in February making half a million
people homeless was the year's biggest catastrophe.A series of devastating
forest fires in the United States was the other major disaster, causing losses
of more than $1 billion despite the fact that relatively few houses caught
fire.Dry weather and drought in Europe caused losses of more than $300
million when a severe heat wave in May and June destroyed crops in southeast
Europe, particularly in Romania.The cyclone season in the Pacific and
North Atlantic produced a typical number of hurricanes and typhoons and
cyclones, it said. The countries affected came off relatively
lightly.
Joel N. Gordes
Environmental Energy Solutions
P.O. Box 101
Riverton, CT 06065
(860) 379-2430
"Dedicated to executing ideas, not killing them!"
Be sure to visit our web site at:<A
href="http://home.earthlink.net/~jgordes"
EUDORA="AUTOURL">http://home.earthlink.net/~jgordes The Gasification List
is sponsored by USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/ and
PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com Other Sponsors, Archives and
Information http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

From cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Tue Jan 2 03:06:30 2001
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: PyroLiquids for POX Feed.
In-Reply-To: <001101c07448$191d6cc0$ecf346cf@Hauserman>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20010102075405.007ba9c0@pop3.demon.co.uk>

Dear Mr. Hausermann,

With regards to your questions on the possible uses of mixed biomass
derived pyrolysis liquids as a source of fuel gas for fuel cells, some work
has been done in this area at NREL. I previoulsy posted a reference to
this work:

----

Chornet, E., Czernik, S., Wang, D., Gregorie, C. and Mann, M., 'Biomass to
hydrogen via pyrolysis and reforming', in Proc. 1994 DOE/NREL Hydrogen
Program Review, 1994, pp. 407-432.

Wang, D., Czernik, S., Montane, D., Mann, M. and Chornet, E., 'Biomass to
hydrogen via fast pyrolysis and catalytic steam reforming of the pyrolysis
oil or its fractions', Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., May 1997, vol. 36, no. 5, pp.
1507-1518.

Here's the abstract for this one:

Pyrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass and reforming of the pyroligneous oils
are being studied as a strategy for producing hydrogen. A process of this
nature has the potential to be cost competitive with conventional means of
producing hydrogen. We propose a regionalized system of hydrogen
production, where small- and medium-sized pyrolysis units (<500 Mg/day)
provide bio-oil to a central reforming unit to be catalytically converted
to H2 and CO2. Thermodynamic modeling of the major constituents of the
bio-oil has shown that reforming is possible within a wide range of
temperatures and steam-to- carbon ratios. In addition, screening tests
aimed at catalytic reforming of model compounds to hydrogen using Ni-based
catalysts have achieved essentially complete conversion to H2. Existing
data on the catalytic reforming of oxygenates have been studied to guide
catalyst selection. A process diagram for the pyrolysis and reforming
operation is discussed, as are initial production cost estimates. A window
of opportunity clearly exists if the bio-oil is first refined to yield
valuable oxygenates so that only a residual fraction is used for hydrogen
production.

-----

In answer to your questions:

>>>Has anyone adentified a mixed biomass pyrolysis liquid product, that
might be used as feed to a catalytic POX process for on-board vehicular
H2-CO production?

The simple answer to this one is no, due to the propeties of biomass
derived , raw fast pyrolysis liquids. The Effective Hydrogen Index of
pyrolysis liquids is less than zero [value needs to be above 1 for
catalystic processing], therefore any attempts to catalytically upgrade the
vapours or liquids to a more hydrocarbon-type fuel will lead to severe
coking of the catalyst and a very expensive, since a source of hydrogen is
additionally required.

Raw liquids with a water content of 26.7wt% [wet basis] have a molar ratio
of CH2.3O0.96N0.0004, containg approx 68% [LHV basis] of the original wood
energy [yield of organics ~63wt% on a dry wood basis]

>>>At this point, the only specifications are --
(1) It must be completely volatile below around 350-400C (650-750F)

Biomass derived , raw pyrolysis liquids are not volatile - they char
extensively at 100ºC to give approx 50wt% coke and some low molecular
weight aqueous distillate. This is one of the major stumbling blocks in
the development of catalytic processing of the liquids, asides from the
high hydrogen requirement, in the upgrading of pyrolysis liquids to
transport fuels.

>>>(2) It must be eeventually producable at a cost roughly comparable to
gasoline or diesel, but preferably a lot lower.

Biomass fast pyrolysis is not economically viable, certainly not lower, at
this time with the scael of technology available, than conventional fuels.
Some companies may claim its possible, but I would like to see irrefutable
evidence that it is.

>>>(3) It must be amenable to a process of Partially Catalytic Oxidation
(POX) either alone or with a lesser amount of steam reforming, all in same
catalyst bed, to form some/any H2-CO-CO2-H20 mixture, as high in H2 as
possible. The initial step would be followed by a water-gas shift reactor,
to near-complete conversion of CO to H2.

Possible - see NREL work referenced above.

(4) It must be no more prone to carbonization on catalyst surfaces than is
diesel during POX and reforming.

I'm afraid that's a problem as indicated above.

I hope that answers your questions.

Cordner

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From H.Parker at ttu.edu Tue Jan 2 05:39:21 2001
From: H.Parker at ttu.edu (Harry W. Parker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biodiesel question again
In-Reply-To: <3A50D507.2BDA61F7@montana.com>
Message-ID: <009f01c074a6$6b42b1a0$299b0f18@lbbck1.tx.home.com>

Hello Cal and all,

>From a BTU point of view, the amount of energy used for production of crops,
including fertilizer is relatively small compared to the energy produced.
In that regard ethanol and biodiesel are OK fuels. It is the investment and
labor costs associated with growing crops which make them too expensive to
compete with fossil fuel. Another thought is that you are using food or
postential food crops for energy in a world where people are starving, but
that is another consideration.

Harry

Harry W. Parker, Ph.D., P.E.
Professor of Chemical Engineering
& Consulting Engineer
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409-3121
806.742.1759 fax 742.3552

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From douglasmcc at cnl.com.au Tue Jan 2 06:58:59 2001
From: douglasmcc at cnl.com.au (Douglas Costello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The Big Picture
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010101130506.0094d100@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <00ea01c074b0$e0d38ac0$181f38cb@douglasmcc>

Carl Sagans predistion of the rapid temperature drop due to nuclear
explosions, is based on the fact that these events place large quantities of
soot and dirt particles into the upper atmosphere, where the jet streams
spread them around the world. Research scientists working on the impact of
nuclear war on the world environment have determined that 100, 20 megaton
explosions would provide the necessary soot and partially burnt particles to
cause a worldwide nuclear winter. The end result being the collapse and
demise of human life.

Large fires such as last years in the western USA, the fires in Indonesia,
Brazil have a noticeable (measurable) impact upon global weather and
temperatures. Large volcanic eruptions such as Mt St Helens, Karakatoa?
also have these measureable impacts upon weather and temperatures.

Similarly, large meteors/asteriods hitting earth such as the one that was
responsible for the demise of the dinosaurs have been determined to place
large volumes of soot and fine dust into the upper atmosphere.

Particle size and the dark colouring of the soot. incompletely burnt
particles and dust are thought to be above the level where rain would wash
them out of the atmosphere. So, pardon the pun, The Burning Question is
what specific role does CO2, methane etc play in this process.

Researchers working in the Antarctic are looking for traces that will allow
them to determine why the last ice age some 19,000 years ago, abruptly
ended. Others have found that global temperature changes up or down can
occur at speeds of several decades rather than centuries, but as of yet they
haven't released what has driven these changes to occur.

Freezing of mammoths with food in their mouths does indicate rapid freezing
and then covering. But as for smaller life forms exhibiting a brief living
response when thawed is most likely not correct. If it were then the field
of cryogenics who be going ahead in leaps and bounds. Since all life forms
(generally) have water in their cells, ice crystals form in the cells as
they freeze rupturing the cell walls and hence resulting in a dead cell when
thawed. Exceptions being where we can have almost instantaneous freezing of
the entire organisim due to its small size. Good examples of this are
sperm, and ova for IVF and AI programs in animals and humans. Liquid
nitrogen is used to provide the freezing mechanism but still would not be
sufficient to allow a living creature to be frozen and then thawed back to
life. Those who are involved in airconditioning or refrigeration would be
very familiar at the rates items/products, cool/freeze, thaw/heat up.

Which I suppose brings us back to the central question. What processes can
we use to create the energy we require to produce, process, distribute,
consume the products we require to survive (food, clothing, transport etc).
That are environmentaly sustainable. Where does the role of CO2 etc sit in
this. Are we facing catastrophic prospective climatic changes or long term
gradual changes?

My penny's worth.

Douglas Costello

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@btl.net>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 January 2001 6:07
Subject: GAS-L: The Big Picture

> At 12:35 PM 1/1/2001 EST, you wrote:
> >Dear Peter,
> > Your earlier comment about "the end of the earth" only means humans
upon
> >it, the earth will still persist, whether or not we are here.
>
> Stand corrected Tom. Of course your right. Should have said the end of
> civilization as we know it now. Seriously doubt all humans will be gone
> either.
>
> The Garden of Eden scenario is probably a post ice age story. And the meek
> inheriting the earth -- think on that one. I take it to mean only the
> simple folks, of not exceptional mental capacity -- but with the ability
to
> grub out an existence anywhere -- not needing flush toilets, soap, two
> baths a day and most important -- TV or I-net. The true "salt" of this
> species of man. A subject well covered in the book (and movie) "Planet of

> the Apes". The book being far more specific on that point than the movie
was.
>
> So there you go -- first the Mad Max scenario -- then planet of the apes
> after!
>
> I believe that
> >global warming is like so many non-issue items that we like to get worked
up
> >over. If the human race and animal species can survive the prior
> >catastrophies such as the year without a summer after a major volcanic
> >explosion which created a year long winter, I believe in the late 1700's,
we
> >can survive other fates.
>
> Exactly! Also -- was there not a long winter after that island --
Karakatoa
> (spelling???) -- blew in the mid 1800's? One such event like that popping
> off during the wrong part of a solar cycle would quite possibly trigger an
> ice age???
>
> > There was also a pre-historic Asian volcanic explosion which reduced
the
> >human population of the earth from 1million to 100,000. We are much
better
> >able to cope with such massive crises now. Volcanism seems to have a
greater
> >direct and indirect impact upon the human race than wars. asteroids or
> higher
> >CO2 emissions.
>
> I have some old texts regarding Yucatec Mayan history. They describe a
> Mitch style hurricane that stayed over the Yucatan for five days. When it
> was over they had only 1/5 of their population left! Of which a further
> large percentage died from starvation after the fact!! So never ignore
> weather as a serious danger to life and well being! They numbered over 5
> million souls before this event! No record on the surving number as it
took
> them a hundred years to get organized enough to count heads. Had the
worlds
> best hurricane shelters (you must check out the ruins sometime) and years
> of experience dealing with these events.
>
> > I hate to see such a relatively minor concern take up so much energy
and
> >possibly dramatically impact the human race productivity and progress.
> >
>
> Well Tom -- if natural events don't get us -- over population surely will!
> Some where in all that information I just looked over was a statement
> saying that human production of CO2 (breathing) is greater than all
> combustion sources!! Now -- factor in all the meat animals that also
> produce CO2 that we raise for our food! And what about cow farts! All that
> methane with 40 times more absorption! Hey -- 6 billion humans -- how much
> CO2 is produced every breath!! How many cow farts to a Big Mac??
>
> As a life form -- we may have more "smarts" than the rest -- but we are
> just as accountable to natural events. Anytime a single species of life
> overpopulates its niche -- a series of safe guards come in to play to
> eventually even that playing field again.
>
> For this present species of man -- it has been traditionally war! Survival
> of the fittest being the ultimate bottom line. Nature really does not care
> if that survivor is a scientist or a peon. The peon always stands the
> better chance when the real crunch comes though -- such in massive natural
> disorders. The scientists usually survive war better than the peon -- who
> is always cannon fodder.
>
> In the meantime -- we should be organizing ourselves to take advantage of
> Insurance company's investment funds to build more biomass power plants --
> especially in 3rd world. Being as first world uses to much power to be
> supplied in this fashion -- and insists on consuming fossil fuels until
the
> very last gram is done!
>
> Tom Reed -- you can make another fuel cost chart with a price of $20 per
> ton for "dried" fire wood. That for Belize (current price the bakeries are
> paying). Even cheaper for the rest of Central America. That makes biomass
> power plants highly competitive to fossil fuel plants -- in 3rd world.
>
> Peter Singfield / Belize
>
>
> >Tom Taylor
> >The Gasification List is sponsored by
> >USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> >and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> >
> >Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> >http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> >http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> >http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> >http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> >http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
> >
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From douglasmcc at cnl.com.au Tue Jan 2 07:00:11 2001
From: douglasmcc at cnl.com.au (Douglas Costello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biodiesel question
In-Reply-To: <5a.f2626fa.27820ff1@cs.com>
Message-ID: <00ee01c074b1$15b39d20$181f38cb@douglasmcc>

Tallow as an ingrediant in animal rations is most likely no longer allowed
due to BSE and so its value at present could be approaching zero.

Douglas Costello

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry W. Parker" <H.Parker@ttu.edu>
To: <Reedtb2@cs.com>; <gasification@crest.org>
Cc: <bioconversion@crest.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 January 2001 6:09
Subject: Re: Re: GAS-L: Biodiesel question

> Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 12:37:16 -0600
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0046_01C073EF.9313CBE0"
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0046_01C073EF.9313CBE0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Hello Tom and all,
>
> The consideration with regard to waste vegetable oil, and tallow for =
> biodiesel is that these materials already have significant value in =
> animal rations and as pet food. Not sure how that economic comparison =
> would look.
>
> >From the farmer's point of view, using waste oils for biodiesel does not
=
> increase the markets for his agricultural crops.=20
>
> The supply of waste oils is rather small. Some individuals have just =
> chosen just to add up to 5 or 10 % of well filtered used vegetable oils =
> to petroleum diesel and so utilize it as fuel. =20
>
>
> Harry
>
> Harry W. Parker, Ph.D., P.E.
> Professor of Chemical Engineering
> & Consulting Engineer
> Texas Tech University
> Lubbock, TX 79409-3121
> 806.742.1759 fax 742.3552
>
> =20
>
>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0046_01C073EF.9313CBE0
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> Hello Tom and all,
>
> The consideration with regard to waste = vegetable=20 oil, and tallow for
> biodiesel is that these materials already have = significant=20 value in
> animal rations and as pet food. Not sure how that = economic=20
comparison
> would look.
>
> From the farmer's point of view, using = waste oils=20 for biodiesel does
> not increase the markets for his agricultural crops.=20
>
> The supply of waste oils is rather=20 small. Some individuals have just
> chosen just to add up to 5 = or 10 %=20 of well filtered used vegetable
> oils to petroleum diesel and so utilize = it as=20 fuel.
>
>
> Harry
>
> Harry W. Parker, Ph.D., = P.E.
> Professor of=20 Chemical Engineering
> & Consulting Engineer
> Texas Tech=20 University
> Lubbock, TX 79409-3121
> 806.742.1759 fax = 742.3552
>
>
>
>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0046_01C073EF.9313CBE0--
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Tue Jan 2 07:52:20 2001
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Water + fuel mixes
In-Reply-To: <3A478165.A730DA9E@montana.com>
Message-ID: <NEBBLHHHOLFOEGCILKHEOEHICDAA.kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>

Emulsification of oil does indeed work. It is not at all a question of
"burning water", but simply that the emulsified fuel progresses through the
combustion process more efficiently. In the mid-1970's, when there was the
"other Oil Crisis", I installed such a system, that emulsified 3,500 USGPH
#6 oil, for use in blast furnaces to replace metallurgical coke very
successfully.

The fundamental Gunnerman Process was probably similar in concept. However,
at the time of the Cat Test Work, it seemed that there was a lot of hocus
pocus and slip-shod thinking abounding. There were many super shallow
discussions on the process on alt.sci.energy, suggesting basically that
"something for nothing" was possible. The mis-direction may have been a
result of simple ignorance, or alternatively, it may have been allowed to
exist, simply as a way to protect the fundamental technology which the test
work was attempting to prove, or disprove.

Kevin Chisholm

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gasification@crest.org
> [mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]On Behalf Of Cal Schindel
> Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 1:18 PM
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: GAS-L: Water + fuel mixes
>
>
> Tom Reed said: "Caterpillar Tractor spent lots of money on "burning
> water" with Rudy Gunnerman."
>
> I am not completely knowledgeable about what was happening with the
> Gunnerman water + fuel mix, but don't believe there was a lot of
> deception going on. Any internal combustion engine wastes a lot of heat
> which get blown out the tail pipe. The Gunnerman process was creating
> an emulsion of water plus fuel. What happens is the heat previously
> wasted is now utilized to create steam inside the cylinder making the
> cycle more efficient.
>
> Studebaker pickup trucks back about 1948-1950 had a water injection
> option from the factory which would increase mileage to sometimes 25
> miles per gallon (at least that is what my uncles truck got). Previous
> to that in WWII water injection was used to give brief bursts of extra
> power on takeoff from short runways with bombers.
>
> If Caterpillar took Gunnerman's fuel and tried to make it work, I doubt
> that anyone was thinking they were really "burning water." They were
> just extending fuel by making the burning process more efficient. The
> obvious problem is what happens to the emulsified mix when it freezes.
>
> Anyway, that is my take on the Gunnerman process.
>
> Cal

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Tue Jan 2 08:15:48 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The Big Picture
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010102065916.008eb100@wgs1.btl.net>

From: "Douglas Costello" <douglasmcc@cnl.com.au>
At 10:40 PM 1/2/2001 +1100, you wrote:

**********Snipped***********

>Particle size and the dark colouring of the soot. incompletely burnt
>particles and dust are thought to be above the level where rain would wash
>them out of the atmosphere. So, pardon the pun, The Burning Question is
>what specific role does CO2, methane etc play in this process.

Drought! Part of the cascade!

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/drght_home.html

Gives a broad look at this subject in connection with global warming.

I few years back drought caused the burning of large areas of forest here
in Central America. The smoke from this reached to the Mid-West USA.

That was just a small event! A "taste" if you will.

Also the reason why I used the Sagan model.

Climate Change due to global warming leads to severe drought. Eventually we
have the mother of all forest fires. This blocks sun's rays. Plummets
temperatures. Triggers ice age.

A little bit of extra CO2 could trigger this cascade of events.

What do we really know??

"Global Warming is accepted as fact by most of the scientific
community. However, Greenhouse Warming is more controversial because
it implies that we know what is causing the Earth to warm. Although
it is known for certain that atmospheric concentrations of these
greenhouse gases are rising dramatically due to human activity, it is
less well known exactly how increases in these greenhouse gases
factor in the observed changes of the Earth's climate and global
temperatures."

There are so many variables to be concerned with. Apparently computer
modeling of CO2 increase fits well with the actual climatic changes we are
witnessing -- in this past ten years.

Maybe in this present situation -- weather patterns of the past 1000'nds of
years is of no practical value in plotting future weather. We have added
some new variables.

Still -- this is the present "bottom-line":

"The last decade of the 20th Century was the warmest in the entire
global instrumental temperature record, starting in the mid-19th
century. All 10 years rank among the 15 warmest, and include the 6
warmest years on record.This warmth is unusual for the past century,
but what about in the context of past centuries or millennia? It is
only through the reconstruction of past climate that we can truly
evaluate the magnitude of this warming."

The message of "Cry-Wolf" is that once a subject of alarm is presented to
often and/or to passionately -- people become inured to any real danger later.

Keep an open mind! Do not disregard CO2 from fossil fuel combustion as a
non-viable reason for global warming simply because mass-media is pushing
this view.

The global weather situation is always an incredible balance of countless
variables. We do not know just how small a change in any variable will
trigger a cascade of changes.

An incredibly huge amount of fossil fuels have been converted to free CO2
in the past 50 years at an ever escalating rate -- enough to make a
measurable difference in our atmosphere. Can anyone be so sure this makes
no difference to our global climatic conditions?

What else is there to actually point a finger at?

Peter Singfield / Belize
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From jgordes at earthlink.net Tue Jan 2 08:59:22 2001
From: jgordes at earthlink.net (jgordes)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The Big Picture
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010102065916.008eb100@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <4.2.2.20010102082859.00aa8e90@127.0.0.1>

Dear Peter and All,

One other theory which has been put forward which may feed into your "ice
age" scenario is that some scientists have said that global warming would
change the saline concentrations in the oceans and lead to a weakening of
the Northern Conveyor which influences the Gulf Stream which helps to keep
Europe at higher latitudes than ourselves warm. This would bring a "deep
freeze" at least to them.

Best,
Joel

At 07:01 AM 01/02/2001 -0600, you wrote:

>From: "Douglas Costello" <douglasmcc@cnl.com.au>
>At 10:40 PM 1/2/2001 +1100, you wrote:
>
>**********Snipped***********
>
> >Particle size and the dark colouring of the soot. incompletely burnt
> >particles and dust are thought to be above the level where rain would wash
> >them out of the atmosphere. So, pardon the pun, The Burning Question is
> >what specific role does CO2, methane etc play in this process.
>
>Drought! Part of the cascade!
>
>http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/drght_home.html
>
>Gives a broad look at this subject in connection with global warming.
>
>I few years back drought caused the burning of large areas of forest here
>in Central America. The smoke from this reached to the Mid-West USA.
>
>That was just a small event! A "taste" if you will.
>
>Also the reason why I used the Sagan model.
>
>Climate Change due to global warming leads to severe drought. Eventually we
>have the mother of all forest fires. This blocks sun's rays. Plummets
>temperatures. Triggers ice age.
>
>A little bit of extra CO2 could trigger this cascade of events.
>
>What do we really know??
>
>"Global Warming is accepted as fact by most of the scientific
>community. However, Greenhouse Warming is more controversial because
>it implies that we know what is causing the Earth to warm. Although
>it is known for certain that atmospheric concentrations of these
>greenhouse gases are rising dramatically due to human activity, it is
>less well known exactly how increases in these greenhouse gases
>factor in the observed changes of the Earth's climate and global
>temperatures."
>
>
>There are so many variables to be concerned with. Apparently computer
>modeling of CO2 increase fits well with the actual climatic changes we are
>witnessing -- in this past ten years.
>
>Maybe in this present situation -- weather patterns of the past 1000'nds of
>years is of no practical value in plotting future weather. We have added
>some new variables.
>
>Still -- this is the present "bottom-line":
>
>"The last decade of the 20th Century was the warmest in the entire
>global instrumental temperature record, starting in the mid-19th
>century. All 10 years rank among the 15 warmest, and include the 6
>warmest years on record.This warmth is unusual for the past century,
>but what about in the context of past centuries or millennia? It is
>only through the reconstruction of past climate that we can truly
>evaluate the magnitude of this warming."
>
>The message of "Cry-Wolf" is that once a subject of alarm is presented to
>often and/or to passionately -- people become inured to any real danger later.
>
>Keep an open mind! Do not disregard CO2 from fossil fuel combustion as a
>non-viable reason for global warming simply because mass-media is pushing
>this view.
>
>The global weather situation is always an incredible balance of countless
>variables. We do not know just how small a change in any variable will
>trigger a cascade of changes.
>
>An incredibly huge amount of fossil fuels have been converted to free CO2
>in the past 50 years at an ever escalating rate -- enough to make a
>measurable difference in our atmosphere. Can anyone be so sure this makes
>no difference to our global climatic conditions?
>
>What else is there to actually point a finger at?
>
>
>Peter Singfield / Belize
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>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

Joel N. Gordes
Environmental Energy Solutions
P.O. Box 101
Riverton, CT 06065
(860) 379-2430

"Dedicated to executing ideas, not killing them!"

Be sure to visit our web site at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jgordes

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From jgordes at earthlink.net Tue Jan 2 08:59:31 2001
From: jgordes at earthlink.net (jgordes)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L:More on Climate Change
In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20010101113655.00a65700@127.0.0.1>
Message-ID: <4.2.2.20010102083222.00aaa6b0@127.0.0.1>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20010102/5d2e54f4/attachment.html
From snkm at btl.net Tue Jan 2 10:37:35 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: "Global Warming and Drought" - an overview
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010102090916.008c0b10@wgs1.btl.net>

(Peter Singfield - Belize)

Global Warming and Drought -- the possible consequences to burning of
forests, creation of large cloud formations, blocking solar radiation.

One more "cascade" in a series that occurs with global warming. What are
the consequences?

"Extensive drought-induced fires burned over 475,000 acres in Florida
and cost $500M in damages. In the same year, Canada suffered its
fifth-highest fire occurrence season in 25 years. Starting in 1998,
three years of record low rainfall plagued northern Mexico. 1998 was
declared the worst drought in 70 years. It became worse as 1999
spring rainfalls were 93% below normal."

and

"Along with this increased vulnerability,
concern exists because some research suggests that drought in the
future may be amplified in certain areas due to changes in climate
variability and extremes resulting from global warming."

and

"The impact of droughts over the last few decades have shown that some
regions and sectors of the population are becoming increasingly
vulnerable to drought. Compounding these vulnerabilities is the
uncertainty of the effects of human activities and global warming
on climate in general and on drought in particular."

OK folks -- all the following excerted from:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/drght_home.html

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

Drought: A Paleo Perspective -- Home Page

Cornstalk, Steinbeck quote

...Now the wind grew strong and hard,
it worked at the rain crust
in the corn fields.

Little by little the sky
was darkened by the mixing dust,
and the wind felt over the earth,
loosened the dust and carried it away.

...from The Grapes of Wrath,
written by John Steinbeck.

Droughts occur throughout North America, and in any given year, at
least one region is experiencing drought conditions. The major
drought of the 20th century, in terms of duration and spatial extent,
is considered to be the 1930s Dust Bowl drought which lasted up to 7
years in some areas of the Great Plains. The 1930s Dust Bowl drought,
memorialized in John Steinbeck's novel, The Grapes of Wrath, was so
severe, widespread, and lengthy that it resulted in a mass migration
of millions of people from the Great Plains to the western U.S. in
search of jobs and better living conditions.

Just how unusual was the Dust Bowl drought? Was this a rare event or
should we expect drought of similar magnitude to occur in the future?
Rainfall records used to evaluate drought extend back 100 years, and
are too short to answer these questions. However, these questions can
be answered by analyzing records from tree rings, lake and dune
sediments, archaeological remains, historical documents and other
environmental indicators, which can extend our understanding of past
climate far beyond the 100-year instrumental record.

This Web site was designed to explain how paleoclimatic data can
provide information about past droughts and about the natural
variability of drought over timescales of decades to millennia. We
note that droughts are a world wide phenomenon and affect the global
community. However, the focus of these Web pages is North America

The Story

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

Drought is an elusive climate event. The effects of drought,
economically and environmentally, are often subtle to begin with, but
can end up being incredibly costly and devastating.

How do we define drought? What have we learned about past droughts?
How can information about past drought further our understanding and
better prepare us for the droughts of the future?

These questions will answered in the following sections:

* What is drought?
* Why are we concerned about drought?
* 20th Century drought
* Paleoclimatology and drought

What is Drought?

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

In Drought and Its
Causes and Effects, Tannehill (1947) wrote: "We have no good
definition of drought. We may say truthfully that we scarcely know a
drought when we see one. We welcome the first clear day after a rainy
spell. Rainless days continue for a time and we are pleased to have a
long spell of such fine weather. It keeps on and we are a little
worried. A few days more and we are really in trouble. The first
rainless day in a spell of fine weather contributes as much to the
drought as the last, but no one knows how serious it will be until
the last dry day is gone and the rains have come again... we are not
sure about it until the crops have withered and died."

The difficulty of recognizing the onset or end of a drought is
compounded by the lack of any clear definition of drought. Drought
can be defined by rainfall amounts, vegetation conditions,
agricultural productivity, soil moisture, levels in reservoirs and
stream flow, or economic impacts. In the most basic terms, a drought
is simply a significant deficit in moisture availability due to lower
than normal rainfall. However even this simple definition is
complicated when attempts are made to compare droughts in different
regions. For example, a drought in New Jersey would make for wet
conditions in the deserts of Arizona!

Drought, as measured by scientists, is defined by evaluating
precipitation, temperature, and soil moisture data, for the present
and past months. A number of different indices of drought have been
developed to quantify drought, each with its own strengths and
weaknesses. Two of the most commonly used are the Palmer Drought
Severity Index (PDSI) and the Standard Precipitation Index (SPI).

Drought conditions are monitored constantly using these and
other indices to provide current information on drought-impacted
regions. For more complete information about drought definitions,
indices, and current drought conditions, see the Web pages of the
National Drought Mitigation Center or the links found at the NOAA
Drought Information Center for the U.S., and Drought Watch on the
Praries for Canada.

Because of the elusive nature of drought, we do not think of droughts
in the same way as other weather-related catastrophes, such as
floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes. However, although droughts may be
less spectacular, they are often more costly than other types of
natural disasters, and no region in North America is immune to
periodic droughts.

Why Are We Concerned About Drought?

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

Although the major droughts of the 20th century, the 1930s Dust Bowl
and the 1950s droughts, had the most severe impact on the central
U.S., droughts occur all across North America. Florida suffered from
the 1998 drought along with the states of Oklahoma and Texas.
Extensive drought-induced fires burned over 475,000 acres in Florida
and cost $500M in damages. In the same year, Canada suffered its
fifth-highest fire occurrence season in 25 years. Starting in 1998,
three years of record low rainfall plagued northern Mexico. 1998 was
declared the worst drought in 70 years. It became worse as 1999
spring rainfalls were 93% below normal. The government of Mexico
declared five northern states disaster zones in 1999, and nine in
2000. The U.S. West Coast experienced a six-year drought in the late
1980s and early 1990s, causing Californians to take aggressive water
conservation measures. Even the typically humid northeastern U.S.
experienced a 5-year drought in the 1960s that drained reservoirs in
New York City down to 25% of capacity. In fact, almost every year,
some region of the North America experiences drought.

Drought is a natural hazard that cumulatively has affected more
people in North America than any other natural hazard (Riebsame et
al. 1991). The cost of losses due to drought in the United States
averages $6-8 billion every year, but range as high as $39 billion
for the three year drought of 1987-1989, which was the most costly
natural disaster documented in U.S. history. Continuing uncertainty
in drought prediction contributes to crop insurance payouts of over
$175 million per year in western Canada.

Beyond the monetary costs, the impacts of drought on society, the
economy, and the natural environment are tremendous. Although
measures such as development of irrigation systems, financial aid
programs and interbasin water transfers have been undertaken to
mitigate the impacts of drought in recent decades, some regions of
the U.S. are becoming more vulnerable to the impacts of drought.

Although irrigation has made it possible to grow crops on
land that was once considered barren, this practice has led to a
reliance on ground water and surface storage in reservoirs.

Increasing demands on water have resulted in the depletion of ground
water reserves in many areas, which can make the removal of
additional water uneconomical if not impossible, especially during a
drought. In many urban areas of the semi-arid and arid western U.S.,
population growth, expansion into marginal areas, and the subsequent
development is overtaxing water supplies and heightening
vulnerability to drought. Along with this increased vulnerability,
concern exists because some research suggests that drought in the
future may be amplified in certain areas due to changes in climate
variability and extremes resulting from global warming.

Scientists have much to learn about the characteristics of drought
and the conditions that lead to the persistence of drought. Although
some progress has been made, (for instance, droughts that are related
to El Nin~o and the Southern Oscillation (ENSO)[11] are now more
predictable on a seasonal scale), scientists still cannot predict
longer, multi-year droughts.

The two major droughts of the 20th century, the 1930s Dust Bowl
drought and the 1950s drought, lasted five to seven years and covered
large areas of the continental U.S. Complete scientific understanding
of how and why these two drought episodes occurred remains elusive.
>From a societal perspective, the important question is, how unusual
are these events? Most instrumental records (from thermometers and
rain gauges) are only about 100 years long, so they are too short to
answer this question. However, paleoclimatic proxy data are a
valuable tool to investigate this question by providing a longer
context within which to evaluate the reoccurrence of these major
droughts over hundreds to thousands of years.

For more complete information on the impacts of drought in North
America, see the National Drought Commission report titled "Preparing
for Drought in the 21st Century"

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/drought/finalreport/accesstoreports.htm

20th Century Drought

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

The Dust Bowl Drought

The Dust Bowl drought was a natural disaster that severely affected
much of the United States during the 1930s. The drought came in three
waves, 1934, 1936, and 1939-40, but some regions of the High Plains
experienced drought conditions for as many as eight years. The "dust
bowl" effect was caused by sustained drought conditions compounded by
years of land
Photos from Library of Congress and U.S. National Archives management
practices that left topsoil susceptible to the forces of the wind.
The soil, depleted of moisture, was lifted by the wind into great
clouds of dust and sand which were so thick they concealed the sun
for several days at a time. They were referred to as" black blizzards
[8]".

The agricultural and economic damage devastated residents of the
Great Plains. The Dust Bowl drought worsened the already severe
economic crises that many Great Plains farmers faced. In the early
1930s, many farmers were trying to recover from economic losses
suffered during the Great Depression. To compensate for these losses,
they began to increase their crop yields. High production drove
prices down, forcing farmers to keep increasing their production to
pay for both their equipment and their land. When the drought hit,
farmers could no longer produce enough crops to pay off loans or even
pay for essential needs. Even with Federal emergency aid, many Great
Plains farmers could not withstand the economic crisis of the
drought. Many farmers were forced off of their land, with one in ten
farms changing possession at the peak of the farm transfers.
PDSI Animation, 1930s and 1950s (6 year time frame)

In the aftermath of the Dust Bowl, it was clear that many factors
contributed to the severe impact of this drought. A better
understanding of the interactions between the natural elements
(climate, plants, and soil) and human-related elements (agricultural
practices, economics, and social conditions)of the Great Plains was
needed. Lessons were learned, and because of this drought, farmers
adopted new cultivation methods to help control soil erosion in dry
land ecosystems. Subsequent droughts in this region have had less
impact due to these cultivation practices.

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

The 1950s Drought

Fueled by post-war economic stability and technological advancement,
the 1950s represented a time of growth and prosperity for many
Americans. While much of the country celebrated a resurgence of
well-being, many residents of the Great Plains and southwestern
United States were suffering. During the 1950s, the Great Plains and
the southwestern U.S. withstood a five-year drought, and in three of
these years, drought conditions stretched coast to coast. The drought
was first felt in the southwestern U.S. in 1950 and spread to
Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska by 1953. By 1954, the drought
encompassed a ten-state area reaching from the mid-west to the Great
Plains, and southward into New Mexico. The area from the Texas
panhandle to central and eastern Colorado, western Kansas and central
Nebraska experienced severe drought conditions. The drought
maintained a stronghold in the Great Plains, reaching a peak in 1956.
The drought subsided in most areas with the spring rains of 1957.

Courtesy of Baylor University, Texas Collection The 1950s drought was
characterized by both low rainfall amounts and excessively high
temperatures. Texas rainfall dropped by 40% between 1949-1951 and by
1953, 75% of Texas recorded below normal rainfall amounts. Excessive
temperatures heated up cities like Dallas where temperatures exceeded
100^*F on 52 days in the summer of 1953. Kansas experienced severe
drought conditions during much of the five-year period, and recorded
a negative Palmer Drought Severity Index [9]from 1952 until March
1957, reaching a record low in September of 1956.

A drought of this magnitude creates severe social and economic
repercussions and this was definitely the case in the southern Great
Plains region. The drought devastated the region's agriculture. Crop
yields in some areas dropped as much as 50%. Excessive temperatures
and low rainfall scorched grasslands typically used for grazing. With
grass scarce, hay prices became too costly, forcing some ranchers to
feed their cattle a mixture of prickly pear cactus and molasses. By
the time the drought subsided in 1957, many counties across the
region were declared federal drought disaster areas, including 244 of
the 254 counties in Texas.

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

The 1987 - 1989 Drought

PDSI Instrumental Maps of 1988 Drought The three-year drought of the
late 1980s (1987-1989) covered 36% of the United States at its peak.
Compared to the Dust Bowl drought, which covered 70% during its worst
year, this does not seem significant. However, the 1980s drought was
not only the costliest in U.S. history, but also the most expensive
natural disaster of any kind to affect the U.S. (Riebsame et al.
1991). Combining the losses in energy, water, ecosystems and
agriculture, the total cost of the three-year drought was estimated
at $39 billion. Drought-related losses in western Canada exceeded
$1.8 billion dollars in 1988 alone.

The drought, beginning along the west coast and extending into the
northwestern U.S., had its greatest impact in the northern Great
Plains. By 1988, the drought intensified over the northern Great
Plains and spread across much of the eastern half of the United
States. This drought affected much of the nation's primary corn and
soybean growing areas, where total precipitation for April through
June of 1988 was even lower than during the Dust Bowl. The drought
also encompassed the upper Mississippi River Basin where low river
levels caused major problems for barge navigation. The summer of 1988
is well known for the extensive forest fires that burned across
western North America, including the catastrophic Yellowstone fire.
Forest Fire in Yellowstone. In addition to dry conditions, heat waves
during the summer of 1988 broke long-standing temperature records in
many midwestern and northeastern metropolitan areas.

The 1987-89 drought was the first widespread persistent drought since
the 1950s and undoubtedly took people by surprise. Many had not
experienced the 1950s drought and others had forgotten about the
harsh realities of drought. The financial costs of this drought were
an indication that many parts the country are now more vulnerable to
drought than ever before. This increased vulnerability was due in
part to farming on marginally arable lands and pumping of ground
water to the point of depletion. Although surplus grain and federal
assistance programs offset the impacts of the 1987-89 drought, these
types of assistance programs would be less feasible during a
lengthier drought.

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

Another Dust Bowl?

What is the likelihood of another Dust Bowl-scale drought in the
future? No one is yet able to scientifically predict multi-year or
decadal droughts, but the paleoclimatic record can tell us how
frequently droughts such as the 1930s Dust Bowl occurred in the past
or if droughts of this magnitude are indeed a rare event. If such
droughts occurred with some regularity in the past, then we should
expect them to occur in the future.

Paleoclimatology and Drought

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

World Wide Museum of Natural History Paleoclimatology is the study of
past climate. The word is derived from the Greek root paleo-, which
means ancient, and the term "climate" meaning the weather conditions
over an interval of time, usually several decades. Paleoclimate is
climate that existed before humans began collecting instrumental
measurements of weather (e.g., temperature from a thermometer,
precipitation from a rain gauge, sea level pressure from a barometer,
wind speed and direction from an anemometer). Instead of instrumental
measurements of weather and climate, paleoclimatologists use natural
environmental (or proxy) records to infer past climate conditions.
Paleoclimatology not only includes the collection of evidence of past
climate conditions, but the investigation of the climate processes
underlying these conditions.

For more information regarding Paleoclimatology, please visit NOAA's
Paleoclimatology Program's - Education and Outreach pages.

How do we reconstruct drought from paleoclimatic data?
Records of rainfall (or other variables that reflect drought, such as
changes in lake salinity, vegetation, or evidence of blowing sand)
are preserved in tree-rings, buried in the sediments of sand dunes
and lakes, contained within historical documents, and preserved in
archaeological remains. These recorders of climate are called proxy
climate data - that is they substitute for rain gauges and other
instrumental recorders of drought. By analyzing records taken from
these proxy sources of paleodrought data, scientists can extend our
records of drought far beyond the 100-year record provided by
instruments.

To reconstruct drought or drought-related variables from
environmental proxy data, the proxy data are calibrated with the
instrumental record to determine how well the natural record
estimates the climate record. The mathematical relationship between
the proxy data and the climate record is defined, then used to
produce a model. The model is then used to reconstruct the
instrumental record from the proxy record for the length of the
proxy.Tony Caprio and the Laboratory of Tree Ring Research Archives

How does paleoclimatic data help us understand drought?
Proxy records from tree rings, lake and dune sediments, historical
records, and archaeological remains have all provided information
about past droughts in the United States. Each record provides a
piece of the puzzle, and together, they provide a more complete
history than any one proxy would.

Historical records, such as diaries and newspaper accounts, can
provide detailed information about droughts for the last two hundred
(mid-western and western U.S.) or three hundred (eastern U.S.) years.
Tree-ring records can extend back 300 years in most areas, and
thousands of years in some regions. In trees that are sensitive to
drought conditions, tree rings provide a record of drought for each
year of the tree's growth. For records longer than those provided by
trees and historical accounts (and for regions where we may not find
trees and/or historical accounts), scientists turn to sediments from
dunes and lakes.

Lake sediments, if the cores of the sediments are sampled at very
frequent intervals, can provide information about variations
occurring at frequencies less than a decade in length. Lake level
fluctuations can beCalifornia Academy of Sciences Diatom Collection
recorded as geologic bath tub rings as beach material sediments are
deposited either high (further from the center under wetter
conditions) or lower (closer to the center under drier conditions)
within a basin as the water depth and thus lake level changes in
response to drought. Droughts can increase the salinity of lakes,
changing the species of small, lake-dwelling organisms that occur
within a lake.

Pollen grains get washed or blown into lakes and accumulate in
sediments. Different types of pollen in lake sediments reflect the
vegetation around the lake and the climate conditions that are
favorable for that vegetation. So, a change in the type of pollen
found in sediments from, for example, an abundance of grass pollen to
an abundance of sage pollen, can indicate a change from wet to dry
conditions. courtesy of Eric Grimm

Records of more extreme environmental changes can be found by
investigating the layers within sand dunes. The sand layers are
interspersed among layers of soil material produced under wetter
conditions, between the times when the sand dune was active. For a
soil layer to develop, the climate needs to be wet for an extended
period of time, so these layers reflect slower, longer-lasting
changes.

Taken together, these different proxies record variations in drought
conditions on the order of single seasons to decadal and
century-scale changes, providing scientists with the information
about both rapid and slow changes, and short and long periods of
drought. These records are needed to put individual droughts in
perspective, as well as to characterize droughts of the 20th century.

The Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Instrumental records of drought for the United States extend back
approximately 100 years. These records capture the major 20th century
droughts, but are too short to assess the reoccurrence of major
droughts such as those of the 1930s and 1950s. As droughts continue
to have increasingly costly and devastating impacts on our society,
economy and environment, it is becoming even more important to put
the severe droughts of the 20th century into a long-term perspective.
This perspective can be gained through the use of paleoclimatic
records of drought.

Scientists have developed paleoclimatic records of drought from a
variety of types of proxy data that span the past hundreds to tens of
thousands of years, and longer. These records demonstrate patterns of
natural drought variability and allow us to compare 20th century
droughts with those of the past. These records can also be examined
in light of what we know about the circulation features that are
important to drought today, such as ENSO. Research using both
paleoclimatic records of drought and circulation features can
determine how slowly changing climate conditions may influence
periods of long or more frequent droughts.

The sections below highlight some of the data and studies for four
catagories of time, beginning with the 20th century instrumental
record of drought, and ending with paleoclimatic records of drought
more than two thousand years ago. These studies have yielded much
information about climate and drought conditions of the past and
demonstrate the usefulness and importance of paleoclimate data.

* The Instrumental Record
This section highlights aspects of drought concerning varying
patterns of drought and the relationship of ENSO to patterns of
drought. Links to other web pages on current drought, climate,
and ENSO conditions are included as well as information about
obtaining these records for the 20th century.
* The Last 500 Years
Droughts of the last four centuries are well documented in
paleoclimatic proxies such as historical documents and tree
rings. Spatial patterns of drought for every year since 1700 have
been generated from a gridded network of tree-ring
reconstructions and are featured in this section. Highlighted in
this section are those periods with droughts that appear to have
been more severe than any we have experienced in the 20th
century.
* The Last 2000 Years
A number of tree-ring records exist for the last two millennia
which suggest that 20th century droughts may be mild when
evaluated in the context of this longer time frame. The evidence
from long tree-ring records is augmented with paleodrought
records from other proxies, such as lake sediments that reflect
changes in salinity and precipitation/evaporation balances.
* Even Longer Records
Paleoclimatic data in this section document drought conditions
back to the beginning of the Holocene (10,000 years before
present). These records demonstrate that North America
experienced periods of extremely dry conditions that were severe
and sustained enough to result in the eastward expansion of
prairie into forested areas, fluctuations in lake levels, and
mobilization of sand dunes over large areas of the Great Plains
which are now covered with vegetation. These changes are also
reflected in salinity and chemistry records from sediments of
lakes in the northern Great Plains.

A Final Word

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

How is the paleoclimatic record of drought relevant for
understanding or predicting drought today, or in the future?
The North American record of past drought allows us to determine what
has been the range of natural variability of drought over hundreds if
not thousands of years. This long-term perspective is important
because although severe droughts have occurred in the 20th century, a
more long-term look at past droughts, when climate conditions appear
to have been similar to today, indicates that 20th century droughts
do not represent the possible range of drought variability.

The paleoclimatic record of past droughts is a better guide than what
is provided by the instrumental record alone of what we should expect
in terms of the magnitude and duration of future droughts. For
example, paleoclimatic data suggest that droughts as severe at the
1950s drought have occurred in central North America several times a
century over the past 300-400 years, and thus we should expect (and
plan for) similar droughts in the future. The paleoclimatic record
also indicates that droughts of a much greater duration than any in
20th century have occurred in parts of North American as recently as
500 years ago. These data indicate that we should be aware of the
possibility of such droughts occurring in the future as well. The
occurrence of such sustained drought conditions today would be a
natural disaster of a magnitude unprecedented in the 20th century.

In addition to establishing a baseline of drought variability over
the long term, the paleoclimatic record of drought provides
information about drought under a range of naturally varying climate
conditions, some of which are the same as the climate of today and
some which are quite different. This paleoclimatic perspective can be
used to learn about the underlying process and characteristics of
drought under very different future climate conditions.

The impact of droughts over the last few decades have shown that some
regions and sectors of the population are becoming increasingly
vulnerable to drought. Compounding these vulnerabilities is the
uncertainty of the effects of human activities and global warming
on climate in general and on drought in particular. A number of
climate model simulations for doubled CO2 conditions suggest an
increased frequency of drought in midcontinental regions (e.g.
Gregory et al, 1997, Mearns et al, 2000 whereas other model
simulations and recent decadal trends in the instrumental record
suggest wetter conditions, at least in the short term, due to an
intensification of the hydrologic cycle associated with warmer sea
surface temperatures. Better constrained answers to the question of
the severity of future droughts requires improved understanding and
modeling of the processes underlying the drought behavior exhibited
in both the instrumental and the paleoclimate records.

What can we do to better understand past droughts and predict future
droughts?

Our understanding of what causes drought conditions to persist for
years and decades is far from complete. Much work is needed to
comprehensively understand drought and the causes of drought, and to
improve drought prediction capabilities. Putting together the pieces
of past droughts through the use of paleoclimatic data is a vital
part of building this understanding and developing an improved
capacity to anticipate droughts in the future.

Focused efforts are needed to bring together paleoclimatic records of
past droughts with scientists working to better understand the
workings of the climate system. Currently, scientists are working on
this sort of focused effort for western Canada. In the Prarie Drought
Paleolimnology Project, paleoecological reconstructions will be
incorporated into novel models specifically developed for use with
long-term climatic data. The models will be used to predict drought
frequency, duration and intensity over the next 5-50 years. More such
efforts are needed to understand the drought across all of North
America.

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From LINVENT at aol.com Tue Jan 2 10:39:41 2001
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re:Crop production & fossil fuels
Message-ID: <21.5864dad.27834d48@aol.com>

Dear Biogenizers,
The presumed use of fossil fuels for plant production involves three
compoents, fertilizers which are derived from natural gas, i.e., ammonia,
liquid fuels for equipment operation, and natural gas or electicity derived
from fossil fuels for pumping except in the higher rainfall parts of the
country.
The use of nitrogen fertilizers is a short cut to increased production
which bypasses increased soil nutritional programs which we have been doing
for years and the growers use no nitrogen and produce as much or more than
neighbors who still use nitrogen fertilizers and suffer the ravages of
drought damage induced by high nitrates in the crops and poor nutrient
compensation system. Our sister company, Agronics has done this for decades,
much to the chagrin of the chemical and Ag industry which is solely
maintained by an artifical system. One recent report showed that application
of our geological humus increased productivity than nitrogen. The KSU
researcher was very impressed, particularly since it was on dryland corn. No
rain after planting with a 21% increased yield.
Additionally, we can produce all of the nitrogen compounds from biomass
through gasification.
LIquid fuels for harvesting: Will the plant oils be adequate to operate
the equipment which is used to plant, cultivate, harvest, and transport them
to market? That is a real prime question. Otherwise they can be made from
biomass through gasification of the non-food valued components. The food
market value should be much higher for these components.
Irrigation can be derived from plant stalk residues through gasification.
Overall energy balances and economics have to be considered in these
aspects.

Sincerely,

Leland T.Taylor

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Tue Jan 2 10:56:47 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re:Crop production & fossil fuels
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010102094121.0099f300@wgs1.btl.net>

At 10:27 AM 1/2/2001 EST, you wrote:
>Dear Biogenizers,

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

> LIquid fuels for harvesting: Will the plant oils be adequate to operate
>the equipment which is used to plant, cultivate, harvest, and transport them
>to market? That is a real prime question.
>
>Leland T.Taylor

Tom -- that certainly would be no problem if you used manual labor and
horse for delivery!

I often wonder if it is not mechanization that is the real cause of our
decline?

Maybe if a large segment of the human race returned to productive labor
raising food?? Subsistence existence.

Hey -- eventually -- when fossil fuels do run out -- and with the present
mind set -- that is what we will be returning to. Just stepping up the
clock a little is all.

What ever happened to nuclear power!

Peter Singfield / Belize
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From LINVENT at aol.com Tue Jan 2 11:41:46 2001
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Global Warming
Message-ID: <f7.632a5dc.27835bdc@aol.com>

Dear Keith et. al,
Hamaker's book is correct in many respects. It's timing and severity of
it's premises are a bit out of line, but there is plenty of evidence to
support the underlying assumptions.
We have seen that plants will survive on demineralized soils, but not the
ones which humans need for support. As an example, Costa Rican (and other
rain forest) soils are demineralzed by heavy rains and will not support high
valued crops. Other crops will grow, but not very well. Latteritic soils
which have been deforested will take generations to regrow under
demineralized conditions. Under remineralized conditions, their regrowth rate
is much faster.
As a side note, much of the world's CO2 is stored in limestone. This is
also a supply of CO2 for plant growth. Anyone know how much vs. what is in
petroleum and coals? When applied to soils, it will provide a supply of CO2
to the root system and reduces the amount needed to be gathered through the
leaves. Lime is a prime remineralizing mineral with extraordinary benefits.
The problem of feeding humans is more critical than what is the long term
climatic implications. It is a matter of economics. Most farmers in the US
are going broke and rely upon subsidy of some form to stay in business. Crop
prices in real terms are the lowest in the history of the US. The "Global
Economy" has decimated the ag production system in this country, making them
compete with foreign govermentally subsidized production. This is a clear and
present danger to feeding the population. Unless the growers double or triple
their production, they cannot make enough to pay debt and operating expenses.
Remineralization is a manner of moving to this goal.
By the way, the Mt. St. Helens eruption was the equivalent of 500 nuclear
bombs and did not produce the nuclear winter predicted by Sagan and others.
Pinutabo was probably bigger. Pinutabo's fallout was almost immediately
precipitated by a typhoon which hit at the same time as the eruption, a very
interesting coincidence which reduced the wide spread effects.
I like Hausermann's comments about passing through a cloud which obscures
the sun. This would explain many of the events which our history does not.
It may repeat periodically which further explain various life form changes
which cannot be otherwise explained. Perhaps we passed through a cloud of
lithium which was coincidental to the dinosaur extinction. Lithium is also
toxic to growing plants and if present in relatively small quantities,
interferes with calcium uptake, reducing plant growth.
The reversal of the polar magnetic fields which appears to occur every
100kyears may also have an effect, changing the Van Allen belt filtering upon
the atmosphere, allowing for incident radiation which is hazardous to
animals. Lower animals such as insects and cockroaches seem to survive
everything, perhaps they are the meek?
Tom Taylor

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From keith at journeytoforever.org Tue Jan 2 12:37:52 2001
From: keith at journeytoforever.org (Keith Addison)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biodiesel question
In-Reply-To: <5a.f2626fa.27820ff1@cs.com>
Message-ID: <v04210105b6779977c7ea@[211.133.18.100]>

Waste oil prices have slumped in Europe because of this, also because
of the dioxin scare in Belgium. Biodiesel companies in Germany and
Austria are buying up all they can not only locally but in
neighbouring countries, because they can't meet the local demand for
biodiesel. There's been research work in Ireland on transesterifying
tallow specifically to meet the BSE problem. The quantities of waste
oil available are not so small - perhaps yes, if you're thinking of
the amounts that would be required to replace all the dinodiesel, but
there are companies in the US producing large quantities of biodiesel
partly or entirely from waste oils. And I think waste oil collection
is far from optimal.

Best wishes

Keith Addison

>Tallow as an ingrediant in animal rations is most likely no longer allowed
>due to BSE and so its value at present could be approaching zero.
>
>Douglas Costello
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Harry W. Parker" <H.Parker@ttu.edu>
>To: <Reedtb2@cs.com>; <gasification@crest.org>
>Cc: <bioconversion@crest.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, 2 January 2001 6:09
>Subject: Re: Re: GAS-L: Biodiesel question
> >
> > Hello Tom and all,
> >
> > The consideration with regard to waste vegetable oil, and tallow for =
> > biodiesel is that these materials already have significant value in =
> > animal rations and as pet food. Not sure how that economic comparison =
> > would look.
> >
> > >From the farmer's point of view, using waste oils for biodiesel does not
>=
> > increase the markets for his agricultural crops.=20
> >
> > The supply of waste oils is rather small. Some individuals have just =
> > chosen just to add up to 5 or 10 % of well filtered used vegetable oils =
> > to petroleum diesel and so utilize it as fuel. =20
> >
> >
> > Harry
> >
> > Harry W. Parker, Ph.D., P.E.
> > Professor of Chemical Engineering
> > & Consulting Engineer
> > Texas Tech University
> > Lubbock, TX 79409-3121
> > 806.742.1759 fax 742.3552
> >

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From keith at journeytoforever.org Tue Jan 2 12:38:01 2001
From: keith at journeytoforever.org (Keith Addison)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Biodiesel question again
In-Reply-To: <3A50D507.2BDA61F7@montana.com>
Message-ID: <v04210104b6776e3b9eec@[211.133.18.100]>

Hello Harry

>Hello Cal and all,
>
> >From a BTU point of view, the amount of energy used for production of crops,
>including fertilizer is relatively small compared to the energy produced.
>In that regard ethanol and biodiesel are OK fuels. It is the investment and
>labor costs associated with growing crops which make them too expensive to
>compete with fossil fuel. Another thought is that you are using food or
>postential food crops for energy in a world where people are starving, but
>that is another consideration.
>
>Harry
>
>Harry W. Parker, Ph.D., P.E.
>Professor of Chemical Engineering
> & Consulting Engineer
>Texas Tech University
>Lubbock, TX 79409-3121
>806.742.1759 fax 742.3552

About 780 million people don't have enough food to meet basic daily
needs. But that's not because there's not enough food. There's more
food per capita now than there's ever been before. And it's a myth
that most of it's grown in the rich countries. The US, for instance,
is the world's biggest ever food importer. People starve because
they're victims of an inequitable economic system, not because
they're victims of scarcity and overpopulation. The links below are
good resources on this issue, they've done their homework and they've
got their numbers right.

The Myth of Scarcity
http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/1998/w98v5n1.html
12 Myths About Hunger
http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/1998/s98v5n3.html

Also, of course, a great deal of "food" is grown to feed livestock,
not people. With ethanol, for instance, the distillers dried grains
by-product is more nutritious than the original unprocessed grain
(because of the yeast), so in a sense, on a nutritional scale, you
get the ethanol for nothing, or less than nothing.

Best wishes

Keith Addison

From "The Myth of Scarcity"

The world today produces enough grain alone to provide every human
being on the planet with 3,500 calories a day. That's enough to make
most people fat! And this estimate does not even count many other
commonly eaten foods - vegetables, beans, nuts, root crops, fruits,
grass-fed meats, and fish. In fact, if all foods are considered
together, enough is available to provide at least 4.3 pounds of food
per person a day. That includes two and half pounds of grain, beans
and nuts, about a pound of fruits and vegetables, and nearly another
pound of meat, milk and eggs.

Abundance, not scarcity, best describes the supply of food in the
world today. Increases in food production during the past 35 years
have outstripped the world's unprecedented population growth by about
16 percent. Indeed, mountains of unsold grain on world markets have
pushed prices strongly downward over the past three and a half
decades. Grain prices rose briefly during the early 1990s, as bad
weather coincided with policies geared toward reducing
overproduction, but still remained well below the highs observed in
the early sixties and mid-seventies. All well and good for the global
picture, you might be thinking, but doesn't such a broad stroke tell
us little? Aren't most of the world's hungry living in countries with
food shortages - countries in Latin America, in Asia, and especially
in Africa?

Hunger in the face of ample food is all the more shocking in the
Third World. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
of the United Nations, gains in food production since 1950 have kept
ahead of population growth in every region except Africa. The
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) found in a
1997 study that 78% of all malnourished children under five in the
developing world live in countries with food surpluses.

Thus, even most "hungry countries" have enough food for all their
people right now. This finding turns out to be true using official
statistics even though experts warn us that newly modernizing
societies invariably underestimate farm production - just as a
century ago at least a third of the U.S. wheat crop went uncounted.
Moreover, many nations can't realize their full food production
potential because of the gross inefficiencies caused by inequitable
ownership of resources.

Finally, many of the countries in which hunger is rampant export much
more in agricultural goods than they import. Northern countries are
the main food importers, their purchases representing 71.2 percent of
the total value of food items imported in the world in 1992. Imports
by the 30 lowest-income countries, on the other hand, accounted for
only 5.2 percent of all international commerce in food and farm
commodities.

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From LINVENT at aol.com Tue Jan 2 12:53:28 2001
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Global Warming
Message-ID: <36.101b00e4.27836c9d@aol.com>

Dear gasification list,
I made a mistake in the element linked to dinosaur disappearance, it is
iridium. Iridium is not toxic to plants. However, any interplanetary cloud
with iridium could have done the same thing as a proposed meteorite. How
about a meteorite that induced massive volcanism at the same time?
I believe that there is a theory that the comet over Russia exploded at
high altitude and the shock wave caused the extensive damage as there were no
craters found and ground zero was similar to that of Hiroshima, the trees
were still standing as was Hiroshima Castle.
Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Jan 2 13:49:51 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Global warming elsewhere...
Message-ID: <3e.58741eb.278379ea@cs.com>

I am as interested in GW as anyone on this list, and have expressed my controversial views often here. (Using up fossil fuel will avert the next ice age which is now overdue, etc.)

I like what Peter says below in its analysis and modesty. I resent the GW mafia that dictates that because they are a majority, they must be correct. (One with God constitutes a majority!)

I DO believe that most of the prescriptions against GW are correct and that we should stop burning up fossil fuel so fast, save a little for our kids and find alternatives before it is too late.

Maybe we have heard all the possible arguments and may have to wait for the future to guide us....
~~~~~~~
We here in GASIFICATION and STOVES are working to do all the right things.

Therefore, I humbly suggest that we divert the GW discussion to BIOENERGY or some other place that CREST can designate, and get to the business of

BETTER GASIFIERS and BETTER STOVES.

Your administrator, TOM REED

In a message dated 1/2/01 6:04:56 AM Mountain Standard Time, snkm@btl.net writes:

**********Snipped***********

Drought! Part of the cascade!

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/drght_home.html

Gives a broad look at this subject in connection with global warming.

I few years back drought caused the burning of large areas of forest here
in Central America. The smoke from this reached to the Mid-West USA.

That was just a small event! A "taste" if you will.

Also the reason why I used the Sagan model.

Climate Change due to global warming leads to severe drought. Eventually we
have the mother of all forest fires. This blocks sun's rays. Plummets
temperatures. Triggers ice age.

A little bit of extra CO2 could trigger this cascade of events.

What do we really know??

There are so many variables to be concerned with. Apparently computer
modeling of CO2 increase fits well with the actual climatic changes we are
witnessing -- in this past ten years.

Maybe in this present situation -- weather patterns of the past 1000'nds of
years is of no practical value in plotting future weather. We have added
some new variables.

Still -- this is the present "bottom-line":

The message of "Cry-Wolf" is that once a subject of alarm is presented to
often and/or to passionately -- people become inured to any real danger later.

Keep an open mind! Do not disregard CO2 from fossil fuel combustion as a
non-viable reason for global warming simply because mass-media is pushing
this view.

The global weather situation is always an incredible balance of countless
variables. We do not know just how small a change in any variable will
trigger a cascade of changes.

What else is there to actually point a finger at?

Peter Singfield / Belize
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Jan 2 13:50:11 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L:More on Climate Change
Message-ID: <b7.a2ff299.278379f3@cs.com>

Having hoped to see no more climate change at gasification, I can't help adding to Onar's sensible and humane comment...

Which would you prefer: ! kM of ice over Chicago (Denver is exempt) from the next glacier or a possible 2 m rise in the ocean
The Atlantic Ocean was more than 150 m below its present level at the end of the last ice age (12,000 years ago). 2 m would be a large rise for oceanfront property and (sorry, Bangladesh) some countries, but a drop of 150 m would create a very different ballgame.

So let's get that carbon back in the atmosphere.

TOM REED BEF PRESS

In a message dated 1/2/01 12:20:15 AM Mountain Standard Time, onar@netpower.no writes:

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Jan 2 13:50:23 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Global Warming
Message-ID: <57.fade62b.278379fa@cs.com>

Mark Twain once said "it isn't what we DON'T know that hurts us so much, as those things we DO know that aren't true."

I like your hypothesis particularly since it can't be tested.... yet! While the present foreshadows the future, it is not very specific....

Enough already on GW, let's tend to business....

Yours truly, TOM REED

In a message dated 1/1/01 12:22:40 PM Mountain Standard Time, hauserman@corpcomm.net writes:

Minneapolis, USA 01/01/01
Heappy New Year to All Hands!

I'm impressed by the sheer variety of all-to-rare original thought that many of you have put forth on the causes of global warming. Peter Singfield's suggestion of brief, sudden mini-ice-ages is particularly intriguing. Here's a similar one that I'd like to throw out for "peer review."

GRAND COSMIC HYPOTHESES AND THE POLITICAL FUTURE OF GASIFICATION.

Consider: 'Tis written that the ash tossed to the atmosphere by volcanic eruptions on Krakatoa, and an earlier, even bigger, also Indonesian erruption tinted sunsets red for the next year and are blamed for brief major global coolings, such as the famous 170-whatever "year without a Winter."
This assumes that the several cubic kilometers of dust spread through Earth's atmosphere was enough to absorb enough IR radiation to cause such cooling. While I have not looked up the actual numbers, the kg/km3 -- kg/cubic km of Earth's atmosphere, would be not too impressive a number. But now suppose that some much lower, but temporary and abnormal, level of dust occurred in a relatively tremendous volume of space - the tapered tube through which the Sun's light passes to reach earth? Should not very minor variations in such space dust cause truly major chillings of Earth?
Now Consider: It's estimated that Sun with its planets orbits the Galaxy in roughly 230,000,000 years. It and all other orbiting stars, as well as nebulae and other, undefined "dark matter" move in quite different orbits, with respect to tangential velocity, elipticity, and tilt with rspect to the galactic plane. So many of these orbits pass closely or intersect, and quite differently each time around. So looking at the awesomely dense, obviously mobile, star-birthing clouds poofing out of the Horsehead and Eagle nebulae, f'rinstance -- one must wonder what even a dilute wisp of one of these clouds could do to the IR-absorptive dust level between Earth ans Sun. I can envision mini-ice-ages, in which a permanent snow pack covers most of Earth for a mere few centuries - not long enough for glaciers to form and do any permanent geological sculpting. So there is n!
o legible geological record of such events - except possibly for the occasional, random extinctions of species that define the geological epochs. Could not such "wisps" be too dilute to even be noticed within a few hundred light years, and yet dense enough to increase by an order of magnitude the absorptive dust level in the Solar System????? This galaxy is a scary place! In fact, since the recent ice age cycles, for the last two million year or so, are not at all convincingly explained, could they not be a result of the Solar System crossing ways with a series of rather larger but more dilute dust clouds every 200,000 years or so?

This, I assume, is not a scientifically appealing hypothesis, as there is no apparent experiment to confirm it. It must also be of no media or political interest - along with the other intriguing ideas presented here through GAS-L - as there is nothing for anyone to insist that something be done about. But meanwhile, the cult of official stature assures that any amateure, non-technical activist or politician can find a warm, fuzzy feeling - a buzz of rightious indignation, by insisting that somebody else be made to incur some great expense or inconvenience to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This constituency now has enough critical mass that any credentialed scientist can be assured of a career boost, and continued funding, by public support of the politically correct causes of global warming. But this may all work out for the best.. It provides an essential mythol!
ogy to promote public interest in gasification technologies -- so they may hopefully be ready when the world really does start running out of oil.

Again - Happy New Year to All.
Bill Hauserman

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Jan 2 13:50:34 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Water + fuel mixes
Message-ID: <13.f81d872.278379ed@cs.com>

Glad to find a sensible person who knows a bit about the GUnnerman story. Some of us go back a long way with Gunnerman (I first met him in 1977) and he is definitely clever and also a scammer and it is always hard to separate one from the other.

The most recent problem was not "burning water", but using 50% which is neither thermodynamically or kinetically justified. Certainly varying smaller amounts of water can be very beneficial. Maybe the motor companies will get this sorted out before we run out of oil, but if it had a real competitive advantage you would think that someone other than Studebaker would have found it.

Have you heard of ORIMULSION? It is a 30% water emulsion/bitumen from Venezuela (?) being marketed for a price between coal and oil and replacing oil in many burners world wide.

What it does in seawater spills is complex and interesting. Our product, SeaSweep absorbs the bitumen after the emulsion separates in salt water. It may make Orimulsion acceptable, even in California. (See www.seasweep.com).

So, more science and less smoke and mirrors will make us all hapier - but maybe Rudy Gunnerman poorer.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF

In a message dated 1/2/01 5:41:47 AM Mountain Standard Time, kchishol@fox.nstn.ca writes:

Kevin Chisholm

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Tue Jan 2 14:14:10 2001
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biodiesel question
In-Reply-To: <5a.f2626fa.27820ff1@cs.com>
Message-ID: <NEBBLHHHOLFOEGCILKHEMEIHCDAA.kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>

Dear
Tom

I am
"new to biodiesel", and am very interested in your comment that it is inherently
viable when made from waste vegetable oils.

Certainly, the diesel substitution market is more
attractive than the furnace oil substitution market, but what concerns me
initially is the cost of collection..... many small suppliers, widely
distributed.

Would
you be able to indicate roughly the "smallest economic unit" for biodiesel
conversion, ie, how many litres per day would have to be processed so that the
venture would be self-financing?

Assuming that the waste vegie oil is "free for the
taking", how much does it cost to collect it? There would certanly be a limit to
"restaurant density", so there would be a fair amount of driving for
pick-up.

Given
that there was enough "collection work" to keep the truck occupied, how many
people would be required to operate the facility sized to process the "daily oil
collection?"

Any
general insights you could provide to give a general perspective on process
attractiveness would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Kevin
Chisholm


 -----Original Message-----From:
owner-gasification@crest.org [mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]On Behalf
Of Reedtb2@cs.comSent: Monday, January 01, 2001 12:53
PMTo: gasification@crest.orgCc:
bioconversion@crest.orgSubject: Re: GAS-L: Biodiesel
question
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Dear Cal and all: There is no doubt
in my mind that biodiesel from WASTE vegetable oil is viable.
Growing new virgin oil is a much shakier proposition and probably
will cost 2 to 3 X as much. So, the answer depends on the cost of
oil AND our ability to raise crops without using oil. Could take a
few decades to kick the petroleum dependency. I hope we will have a
few to spare. The dreamers are always looking for miracle crops.
We chemists try to improve conversion efficiency instead.
Time will tell.... Yours truly,
TOM
REED BEF/CPC

From H.Parker at ttu.edu Tue Jan 2 14:24:29 2001
From: H.Parker at ttu.edu (Harry W. Parker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Water + fuel mixes
In-Reply-To: <NEBBLHHHOLFOEGCILKHEOEHICDAA.kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>
Message-ID: <002801c074ef$c2d1a9a0$299b0f18@lbbck1.tx.home.com>

Hello Kevin and all,

Emulsifying a small amount of water into diesel makes modest improvements in
the performance of diesel fuels. There is a good reference in my paper
cited in this e-mail.

The question is -- it worth the effort to maintain the stability of the
emulsion during normal fuel storage and movement activities to achieve
modest performance improvements? I am not sure at this point.

Gunnerman claims special additives but I very much doubt their unique
properties. Perhaps just PR.

I proposed making a very economical emulsifier from a biomass source, soy
oil. If it were applied to "all" diesel fuel this could be a significant
use for soy oil -- perhaps better than biodiesel. My paper is referenced
as follows:

Parker, H.W., R.W. Tock, M.P. Kumar, & J. Bailey, "Eco-Friendly Diesel Fuel
Additive," Paper 244i, Annual National American Institute of Chemical
Engineers Meeting, Los Angles, Nov. 16-21, (1997).

The graduate student I was supporting on the project left and I did not push
the project further. I would be pleased to renew this research, if funds
were available.

Harry W. Parker, Ph.D., P.E.
Professor of Chemical Engineering
& Consulting Engineer
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409-3121
806.742.1759 fax 742.3552

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From H.Parker at ttu.edu Tue Jan 2 15:33:25 2001
From: H.Parker at ttu.edu (Harry W. Parker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biodiesel question
In-Reply-To: <5a.f2626fa.27820ff1@cs.com>
Message-ID: <004801c074f9$63049fa0$299b0f18@lbbck1.tx.home.com>

No, tallow, as with anyother oil or grease can be heated to 400F plus where
no "living" BSE residues can exist.

The residue, "tankage" where there is an effort to perserve the protein
value of the dead animals being rendered for animal feed has the potential
of BSE.

Harry

Harry W. Parker, Ph.D., P.E.
Professor of Chemical Engineering
& Consulting Engineer
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409-3121
806.742.1759 fax 742.3552

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From keith at journeytoforever.org Tue Jan 2 18:26:49 2001
From: keith at journeytoforever.org (Keith Addison)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biodiesel question
In-Reply-To: <5a.f2626fa.27820ff1@cs.com>
Message-ID: <v0421011bb67810e4d877@[211.133.18.100]>

Hello Harry

>No, tallow, as with anyother oil or grease can be heated to 400F plus where
>no "living" BSE residues can exist.

Yes. But are prions "living"? I don't know. It's not even certain
they cause the thing.

>The residue, "tankage" where there is an effort to perserve the protein
>value of the dead animals being rendered for animal feed has the potential
>of BSE.

Here's the link:

Dealing with high levels of Free Fatty Acids (FFA): first stage
alkaline reaction, second stage acid-based reaction -- "Cost
Reduction in Bio-Diesel Production", B. Rice, A. Fröhlich and R.
Leonard, Crops Research Centre, Oak Park, Carlow, Ireland.
http://www.teagasc.ie/research/reports/crops/4321/eopr-4321.htm

Summary

As part of a programme to assess bio-diesel production from low-cost
materials, the availability of waste oils and fats in Ireland and the
EU was assessed, and the behaviour of their esters in vehicles was
measured. The utilisation of beef tallow from BSE risk organisms was
given special attention...

The present project had three objectives:
* To further explore the possibility of producing bio-diesel from
tallow, in particular that from organisms considered to carry a risk
of BSE transmission. At present this material has no other market and
a high disposal cost. ...

Best wishes

Keith Addison

>Harry
>
>Harry W. Parker, Ph.D., P.E.
>Professor of Chemical Engineering
> & Consulting Engineer
>Texas Tech University
>Lubbock, TX 79409-3121
>806.742.1759 fax 742.3552

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From douglasmcc at cnl.com.au Wed Jan 3 03:49:58 2001
From: douglasmcc at cnl.com.au (Douglas Costello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biodiesel question
In-Reply-To: <5a.f2626fa.27820ff1@cs.com>
Message-ID: <01cc01c0755f$b64211a0$181f38cb@douglasmcc>

Keith & Others,

Maybe I was a little unclear on the low to nil value for tallow because of
BSE. I was commenting on the use of any animal byproduct in feed ration
formulation for livestock. Specifically in response to Harry's remark that
it had an economic value higher asa animal food stuff compared to its use in
biodiesel.

I think the laws that have been enacted because of BSE would preclude the
use of any animal byproduct in animal feed formulation, making large
quatities available for biodiesel manufacture.

Douglas Costello

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Addison" <keith@journeytoforever.org>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 3 January 2001 4:30
Subject: Re: Re: GAS-L: Biodiesel question

> Waste oil prices have slumped in Europe because of this, also because
> of the dioxin scare in Belgium. Biodiesel companies in Germany and
> Austria are buying up all they can not only locally but in
> neighbouring countries, because they can't meet the local demand for
> biodiesel. There's been research work in Ireland on transesterifying
> tallow specifically to meet the BSE problem. The quantities of waste
> oil available are not so small - perhaps yes, if you're thinking of
> the amounts that would be required to replace all the dinodiesel, but
> there are companies in the US producing large quantities of biodiesel
> partly or entirely from waste oils. And I think waste oil collection
> is far from optimal.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Keith Addison
>
> >Tallow as an ingrediant in animal rations is most likely no longer
allowed
> >due to BSE and so its value at present could be approaching zero.
> >
> >Douglas Costello
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Harry W. Parker" <H.Parker@ttu.edu>
> >To: <Reedtb2@cs.com>; <gasification@crest.org>
> >Cc: <bioconversion@crest.org>
> >Sent: Tuesday, 2 January 2001 6:09
> >Subject: Re: Re: GAS-L: Biodiesel question
> > >
> > > Hello Tom and all,
> > >
> > > The consideration with regard to waste vegetable oil, and tallow for =
> > > biodiesel is that these materials already have significant value in =
> > > animal rations and as pet food. Not sure how that economic comparison
=
> > > would look.
> > >
> > > >From the farmer's point of view, using waste oils for biodiesel does
not
> >=
> > > increase the markets for his agricultural crops.=20
> > >
> > > The supply of waste oils is rather small. Some individuals have just
=
> > > chosen just to add up to 5 or 10 % of well filtered used vegetable
oils =
> > > to petroleum diesel and so utilize it as fuel. =20
> > >
> > >
> > > Harry
> > >
> > > Harry W. Parker, Ph.D., P.E.
> > > Professor of Chemical Engineering
> > > & Consulting Engineer
> > > Texas Tech University
> > > Lubbock, TX 79409-3121
> > > 806.742.1759 fax 742.3552
> > >
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Ken.Boak at dataflex.co.uk Wed Jan 3 04:09:33 2001
From: Ken.Boak at dataflex.co.uk (Ken Boak)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Simple Prime Movers
Message-ID: <C058888A18F6D3118D700008C79F15DD11E8B1@NT_COMMS_1>

Dear List Members,

As a newcomer to gasification I am still finding my way but it appears clear
at this stage that we should be devising new types of prime mover which will
run directly on the output of a gasifier, and not attempting to further
complicate the internal combustion engine with additional dust separation
systems.

I have also on the way, looked at biofuels, and although these appear to be
just about economically viable, there does appear to be a lot of chemical
processing required to tailor these fuels to the fussy requirements of the
modern automotive diesel engine. Even Diesel's 1895 prototype would run on
raw peanut oil but not now after 100 years of tinkering.
There is also the questionable use of methanol and caustic soda currently
being used by early amateur biodiesel producers. Neither of these substances
are pleasant and need to be kept out of the environment and water courses.
Bioethanol from corn is a fruitless exercise, you would be better off
burning the cobs in the fire box of a 1900 Steam Locomobile and get more
mileage per ton. There is also the disposal of the unused distillate, which
in commercial volumes is proving a major headache.

Gasification looks to me to be the ideal solution. You take a raw fuel, all
the processing is done within a simple thermal reactor vessel, and the
result is a combustible gas, charcoal and lots of excess heat. I was very
impressed by Alex English's Big Top gasifier intended for batch mode
production. I would be keen to see this adapted to use steam reformation of
the charcoal, in situations where the charcoal was not used directly for
stove heating, iron smelting or other foundry work.

I can visualise a small metal craftworking community, with a gasifier at the
centre of the village, deriving from it all their heat, light and power
needs.

So back to prime movers - I have come at this from a 10 year background in
Stirling engine technology, and have yet to see evidence of a practical
commercial Stirling cycle engine, perhaps this 5kW ($2500) offering from
Stirling Technology is fairly close to what is needed.

http://www.stirling-tech.com/index.htm

There are others, such as the 1kW Whispergen ($11,000), the 10kW Solo 161
($20,000), the ST4-120 ($25,000 -50,000) and the Sigma PPS (not yet
available) but as you can see from the figures in brackets most of these
are beyond economic viability or not yet out of the lab.

If you have the ability to generate steam, and can tolerate about 40lbs
steam/hp/hr then a Tesla turbine may be what you need. The Tesla turbine is
simple to build from stamped metal discs and virtually bomb-proof. A new
10" diameter (110hp) design has emerged from the fertile endeavours of Frank
Germano. I leave you with his web site to ponder.

http://www.frank.germano.com/

All comments gratefully appreciated,

Ken Boak, Redhill, Surrey , UK

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From KENATGM at aol.com Wed Jan 3 05:41:38 2001
From: KENATGM at aol.com (KENATGM@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Simple Prime Movers
Message-ID: <81.5075e4c.278458f0@aol.com>

In a message dated 1/3/01 1:00:00 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Ken.Boak@dataflex.co.uk writes:

> If you have the ability to generate steam, and can tolerate about 40lbs
> steam/hp/hr then a Tesla turbine may be what you need. The Tesla turbine
is
> simple to build from stamped metal discs and virtually bomb-proof. A new
> 10" diameter (110hp) design has emerged from the fertile endeavours of
Frank
> Germano. I leave you with his web site to ponder.
>

Hi Ken:

Tesla Turbines are mind bogglingly wasteful. If I needed to generate power
with steam on a small scale I'd look at a uniflow reciprocating engine.
Figure on a worst case basis you'd quadruple your output over the Tesla
Turbine.

Regards,

Ken Helmick
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From keith at journeytoforever.org Wed Jan 3 08:50:19 2001
From: keith at journeytoforever.org (Keith Addison)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Re: Biodiesel question
In-Reply-To: <5a.f2626fa.27820ff1@cs.com>
Message-ID: <v04210105b678ca366591@[202.233.244.135]>

Hi Douglas

>Keith & Others,
>
>Maybe I was a little unclear on the low to nil value for tallow because of
>BSE. I was commenting on the use of any animal byproduct in feed ration
>formulation for livestock. Specifically in response to Harry's remark that
>it had an economic value higher asa animal food stuff compared to its use in
>biodiesel.

No, I think you were clear. I was also partly responding to Harry.

>I think the laws that have been enacted because of BSE would preclude the
>use of any animal byproduct in animal feed formulation, making large
>quatities available for biodiesel manufacture.

A current British government estimate is that 100,000 tonnes of used
cooking oil is available there per annum. In fact that's all that's
collected but per-capita usage is 35kg per annum of which 15kg to
20kg is used in fryers, which works out at more than 1 million tonnes
per annum. That's probably about average for most countries - they
only collect about 10% of about 50%.

The government also suggests used oil will get cheaper, but British
biodiesel people doubt that. Two years ago cleaned used oil was worth
over £200 per tonne. It's now gone down to around £80 and collectors
are going bust. They think as demand increases (because of
anticipated biodiesel demand) the price will rise to make it worth
the collectors' while. I think you're right, the BSE laws and the
other food scares will change that. Anyway, even if the price went up
by 25% to £100 a tonne to make it worth collecting, I don't think
that's too much to pay for fuel feedstock. Most of the people I know
there still get it for nothing and have more than they can use.

Anyway, if it's not fit for human consumption, which it sure ain't,
BSE or not, then how can it be fit for animal consumption if the
animals are raised for human consumption? That always puzzled me and
I see people are starting to ask that question following the food
scares. One biofueller in Britain got a load of yukky black grease
from a well-known international fast-food chain that measured more
than 50% FFAs, imagine what that'll do to your arteries, whether
you're a human or a cow (which is built to eat grass after all), and
"cleaning" it (filtering?) won't help much. Fit for soap or biodiesel
and that's all.

Best wishes

Keith Addison

>Douglas Costello
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Keith Addison" <keith@journeytoforever.org>
>To: <gasification@crest.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, 3 January 2001 4:30
>Subject: Re: Re: GAS-L: Biodiesel question
>
>
> > Waste oil prices have slumped in Europe because of this, also because
> > of the dioxin scare in Belgium. Biodiesel companies in Germany and
> > Austria are buying up all they can not only locally but in
> > neighbouring countries, because they can't meet the local demand for
> > biodiesel. There's been research work in Ireland on transesterifying
> > tallow specifically to meet the BSE problem. The quantities of waste
> > oil available are not so small - perhaps yes, if you're thinking of
> > the amounts that would be required to replace all the dinodiesel, but
> > there are companies in the US producing large quantities of biodiesel
> > partly or entirely from waste oils. And I think waste oil collection
> > is far from optimal.
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Keith Addison
> >
> > >Tallow as an ingrediant in animal rations is most likely no longer
>allowed
> > >due to BSE and so its value at present could be approaching zero.
> > >
> > >Douglas Costello
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Harry W. Parker" <H.Parker@ttu.edu>
> > >To: <Reedtb2@cs.com>; <gasification@crest.org>
> > >Cc: <bioconversion@crest.org>
> > >Sent: Tuesday, 2 January 2001 6:09
> > >Subject: Re: Re: GAS-L: Biodiesel question
> > > >
> > > > Hello Tom and all,
> > > >
> > > > The consideration with regard to waste vegetable oil, and tallow for =
> > > > biodiesel is that these materials already have significant value in =
> > > > animal rations and as pet food. Not sure how that economic comparison
>=
> > > > would look.
> > > >
> > > > >From the farmer's point of view, using waste oils for biodiesel does
>not
> > >=
> > > > increase the markets for his agricultural crops.=20
> > > >
> > > > The supply of waste oils is rather small. Some individuals have just
>=
> > > > chosen just to add up to 5 or 10 % of well filtered used vegetable
>oils =
> > > > to petroleum diesel and so utilize it as fuel. =20
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Harry
> > > >
> > > > Harry W. Parker, Ph.D., P.E.
> > > > Professor of Chemical Engineering
> > > > & Consulting Engineer
> > > > Texas Tech University
> > > > Lubbock, TX 79409-3121
> > > > 806.742.1759 fax 742.3552
> > > >
> >
> > The Gasification List is sponsored by
> > USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> > and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
> >
> > Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> > http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> > http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> > http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> > http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> > http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
> >
>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From keith at journeytoforever.org Wed Jan 3 08:50:31 2001
From: keith at journeytoforever.org (Keith Addison)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers
In-Reply-To: <C058888A18F6D3118D700008C79F15DD11E8B1@NT_COMMS_1>
Message-ID: <v04210104b678aaa7fb22@[202.233.244.135]>

Ken Boak wrote:

>Dear List Members,
>
>As a newcomer to gasification I am still finding my way but it appears clear
>at this stage that we should be devising new types of prime mover which will
>run directly on the output of a gasifier, and not attempting to further
>complicate the internal combustion engine with additional dust separation
>systems.
>
>I have also on the way, looked at biofuels, and although these appear to be
>just about economically viable,

You sure didn't look very hard. In France, for instance, virtually
all diesel fuel contains 5% biodiesel. In Germany pure biodiesel is
sold at 900 filling stations and there's a shortage of supply (sale
price is cheaper than petrodiesel). In the US total annual production
of biodiesel is many millions of gallons a year.

>there does appear to be a lot of chemical
>processing required to tailor these fuels to the fussy requirements of the
>modern automotive diesel engine.

No.

>Even Diesel's 1895 prototype would run on
>raw peanut oil but not now after 100 years of tinkering.

Wrong - modern diesels can and do run on raw vegetable oil, even
waste vegetable oil, unprocessed in any way except for filtering. It
has to be pre-warmed, a simple matter.

>There is also the questionable use of methanol and caustic soda currently
>being used by early amateur biodiesel producers.

And also by highly professional large-scale industrial producers in
the US, Europe and elsewhere. The "early amateurs" are using reliable
technology and it's developing fast. Collectively they probably have
a few million trouble-free miles behind them by now. They're also the
ones who're doing the most to push the issue, with at least as much
success as the industry lobbies. It's worth pushing because the
environmental benefits are great and diesels will continue to do most
of the moving for a long time to come. Also, with new ultra-low
sulphur fuels on the way (15ppm), biodiesel is destined to play a
vital role in lubrication without which older motors won't be able to
use the new fuel without expensive mods, if at all: even 1% biodiesel
can increase lubricity by 65%.

>Neither of these substances
>are pleasant and need to be kept out of the environment and water courses.

There are no toxic by-products or effluents from making biodiesel.
Biodiesel itself is less toxic than table salt and more biodegradable
than sugar.

>Bioethanol from corn is a fruitless exercise, you would be better off
>burning the cobs in the fire box of a 1900 Steam Locomobile and get more
>mileage per ton. There is also the disposal of the unused distillate, which
>in commercial volumes is proving a major headache.

If what you say about the mileage is true, then how come it's being
produced in commercial volumes? HUGE commercial volumes? Why do you
consider corn as the only option? And what is this extraordinary
conclusion that it's "fruitless" based on, flying in the face of such
massive daily evidence to the contrary? Six million vehicles in
Brazil run on ethanol, much of it 100%, and ALL Brazil's gas (petrol)
contains minimum 24 % pure anhydrous ethanol. In the US, motorists in
Arizona alone consumed over 40 million gallons of ethanol in 1998,
other states used much more. As for distillate "disposal", you might
as well say that pigs, cattle and poultry are a fruitless exercise
because of the troublesome manure "disposal" methods used by some
large-scale industrial farming outfits in the US. (Real farmers don't
"dispose" of manure.)

>Gasification looks to me to be the ideal solution.

It's a good solution to specific problems (or rather a good
technology for specific applications), as are biofuels. There is no
across-the-board ideal solution.

Anyway technical performance and even economic criteria are probably
not the major barriers to acceptance of energy technology. This is
what Gille Saint-Hilaire says about it (Quasiturbine): "Energy
efficiency seems to be an important criterion only if it can be done
with old technologies ... There are two kinds of inventions, the ones
which complete existing technologies, and the ones which replace
them. If you invent something, better make sure it is of the first
kind! ... As an automaker's engineer told me 6 years ago, piston
engine companies have invested billions in engine development over 50
years, and they will spend millions to defend them ... The truth is
that the credibility and value of a technology depend very much on
who owns it."

The Quasiturbine exists, it works, it does what it claims, and it's
viable. It could be an ideal wheel motor, for instance. But that's
all beside the point - Saint-Hilaire isn't planning on taking on the
transportation market any time soon.
http:/quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca

The same will apply to Stirlings and Tesla turbines and so on, even
when or if they do exist in viable form. They'll be marginal - don't
hold your breath for Frank Germano's Tesla turbine to "revolutionize
the power industry"! For good reasons or bad (mostly bad), the prime
mover is the IC engine, particularly diesel. Of course we should seek
better answers, but biofuels are the most effective way to improve
the existing situation, now and for decades to come, short of a real
breakthrough in liquid fuel cells or something. And probably even
then.

>You take a raw fuel, all
>the processing is done within a simple thermal reactor vessel, and the
>result is a combustible gas, charcoal and lots of excess heat. I was very
>impressed by Alex English's Big Top gasifier intended for batch mode
>production. I would be keen to see this adapted to use steam reformation of
>the charcoal, in situations where the charcoal was not used directly for
>stove heating, iron smelting or other foundry work.
>
>I can visualise a small metal craftworking community, with a gasifier at the
>centre of the village, deriving from it all their heat, light and power
>needs.

Yes, a nice picture. But if the community was in New York they might
have trouble getting their raw fuel supplies, while millions of rats
thrive on the waste grease dumped behind all the restaurants and
China diesels are cheap and effective. "Ideal" depends on the
context, which is infinitely variable.

Best wishes

Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
Handmade Projects
Tokyo
http://journeytoforever.org/

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Carl.Carley at eml.ericsson.se Wed Jan 3 09:06:13 2001
From: Carl.Carley at eml.ericsson.se (Carl Carley (EML))
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers
Message-ID: <5F052F2A01FBD11184F00008C7A4A800048622F6@EUKBANT101>

The link you sent below doesn't work, is there something missing?
cheers
carl

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk Wed Jan 3 09:31:44 2001
From: Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers
In-Reply-To: <5F052F2A01FBD11184F00008C7A4A800048622F6@EUKBANT101>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGAEKACAAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>

http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/QTIndex.html
This link works I found it via Yahoo
Gavin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gasification@crest.org [mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]
On Behalf Of Carl Carley (EML)
Sent: 03 January 2001 13:54
To: 'gasification@crest.org'
Subject: RE: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers

The link you sent below doesn't work, is there something missing?
cheers
carl

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Ken.Boak at dataflex.co.uk Wed Jan 3 09:42:43 2001
From: Ken.Boak at dataflex.co.uk (Ken Boak)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers
Message-ID: <C058888A18F6D3118D700008C79F15DD11E8B6@NT_COMMS_1>

Keith and list members,

I have obviously touched and inflamed some raw nerves - for which I
apologise.

I have used biodiesel in Germany and I must agree with you that as a
solution in the western world, to fuel existing diesel powered vehicles, it
is a good one. However, I am still cautious about the activities of amateur
producers, which may give the emerging industry bad press. It would just
take a methanol accident in a US household to set the industry back by
years.

Here in the UK, we are ideally situated for growing oilseed rape, and other
potential bio-fuel crops, but it was only in September last, that our
Government offered any tax concession on this fuel (due in April 2001). With
an alternative fuels tax concession, I would hope that the biodiesel
industry in the UK will increase to the level it has reached in Germany.

The recycling of waste vegetable oil into biofuel is a worthy cause, but is
yet to emerge in the UK. Biodiesel producers (however small) are obliged to
register to H.M. Customs and this is a minefield of bureaucracy which has
deterred most entrepreneurs so far.

Bioethanol is a separate issue, and the question has to be asked whether the
energy content in the raw feed stock could be better utilised by an
alternative technology possibly involving external combustion, either on a
farm-scale, or in centralised fluidised bed thermal power stations. The
situation is still unclear - but I personally would prefer to see an
increase in electric transportation, and an accompanying reduction in miles
travelled by internal combustion fuelled vehicles.

The requirements of a community of New Yorkers are very much different to
that of a village in the developing world - cultural exchange trips would be
a real eye-opener ;-)

I have spent time in rural China and Malaysia and I am aware of the role of
the small diesel and biofuels may prove to be an attractive viable solution.

I am still researching Tesla turbines, but their efficiency looks comparable
to a conventional turbine of the same power output. To me this suggests that
they are worth further investigation as a result of their constructional
simplicity and overall ruggedness - subject to heat input.

Likewise I am considering monotube steam boilers and uniflow reciprocating
steam engines as used by Doble in the 1920's.

Somewhere in this mix of technologies there will be application specific
solutions.

BTW I drive a diesel Peugeot which will happily travel 100km on 7 litres of
biodiesel and when that is inappropriate for the trip, there is always my
home built 4 seater EV which returns 100km for 29kWh drawn from the mains.
With a top speed of 85mph, its a great car to drive!

Regards,

Ken Boak

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From kchishol at fox.nstn.ca Wed Jan 3 11:09:30 2001
From: kchishol at fox.nstn.ca (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers
In-Reply-To: <5F052F2A01FBD11184F00008C7A4A800048622F6@EUKBANT101>
Message-ID: <NEBBLHHHOLFOEGCILKHEGELJCDAA.kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>

Dear Carl

Try:
http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/QTIndex.html

Kevin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gasification@crest.org
> [mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]On Behalf Of Carl Carley (EML)
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 9:54 AM
> To: 'gasification@crest.org'
> Subject: RE: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers
>
>
> The link you sent below doesn't work, is there something missing?
> cheers
> carl
>
>
> The Quasiturbine exists, it works, it does what it claims, and it's
> viable. It could be an ideal wheel motor, for instance. But that's
> all beside the point - Saint-Hilaire isn't planning on taking on the
> transportation market any time soon.
> http:/quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
>
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From keith at journeytoforever.org Wed Jan 3 11:46:47 2001
From: keith at journeytoforever.org (Keith Addison)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers
In-Reply-To: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGAEKACAAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>
Message-ID: <v0421010eb678ffe1021d@[202.233.244.135]>

Whoops - sorry! And I got that link off an email from Saint-Hilaire!
And thus didn't check it. Thanks for finding the right one Gavin.
There are some good diagrams in the patent document (pdf):
http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/QTUS6164263tif.PDF

Best

Keith Addison

>http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/QTIndex.html
>This link works I found it via Yahoo
>Gavin
> -----Original Message-----
>From: owner-gasification@crest.org [mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]
>On Behalf Of Carl Carley (EML)
>Sent: 03 January 2001 13:54
>To: 'gasification@crest.org'
>Subject: RE: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers
>
>The link you sent below doesn't work, is there something missing?
>cheers
>carl
>
>
>The Quasiturbine exists, it works, it does what it claims, and it's
>viable. It could be an ideal wheel motor, for instance. But that's
>all beside the point - Saint-Hilaire isn't planning on taking on the
>transportation market any time soon.
>http:/quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca
>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From keith at journeytoforever.org Wed Jan 3 11:46:51 2001
From: keith at journeytoforever.org (Keith Addison)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers
In-Reply-To: <C058888A18F6D3118D700008C79F15DD11E8B6@NT_COMMS_1>
Message-ID: <v0421010db678f69cd4a4@[202.233.244.135]>

Hi Ken

>Keith and list members,
>
>I have obviously touched and inflamed some raw nerves - for which I
>apologise.

Thankyou, but no need, no raw nerves here, least of all inflamed
ones. Just wanted to set the record straight. Don't like to stand by
and see biofuels treated so dismissively.

>I have used biodiesel in Germany and I must agree with you that as a
>solution in the western world, to fuel existing diesel powered vehicles, it
>is a good one.

Not only in the western world. But yes, very many of the existing
diesel vehicles are going to be around for a long time. For future
vehicles, the new PNGV diesel hybrids (80 mpg) seem ideal candidates
for biodiesel. And again there's the lubricity issue with the ULS
diesel fuel of the future.

>However, I am still cautious about the activities of amateur
>producers, which may give the emerging industry bad press. It would just
>take a methanol accident in a US household to set the industry back by
>years.

The "amateur" producers give the industry by far the best press it
gets, as industry sources very readily admit. Such sources have told
me that they're looking to the "amateurs" to help them create market
acceptance for biodiesel, which industry is not succeeding in doing
on its own, or at least not to their satisfaction.

If you look at the web resources available for biofuellers you'll see
a LOT of safety warnings and precautions, and they're taken
seriously. On one of the biofuels lists somebody recently got roundly
ticked off for being lax on safety warnings on his site. But this is
a different matter to what you said about it harming the environment,
isn't it?

>Here in the UK, we are ideally situated for growing oilseed rape, and other
>potential bio-fuel crops, but it was only in September last, that our
>Government offered any tax concession on this fuel (due in April 2001). With
>an alternative fuels tax concession, I would hope that the biodiesel
>industry in the UK will increase to the level it has reached in Germany.

The battle for tax concessions has been led by Terry de Winne, who's
just sent me the final draft of his proposal for the government's
"Green Challenge". The tax concession is not yet established.
http://www.biofuels.fsnet.co.uk/

>The recycling of waste vegetable oil into biofuel is a worthy cause, but is
>yet to emerge in the UK. Biodiesel producers (however small) are obliged to
>register to H.M. Customs and this is a minefield of bureaucracy which has
>deterred most entrepreneurs so far.

It's been obstructed by bureaucracy and wrong-headed taxes. Yet quite
a few biodiesellers in Britain run their cars on 100% biodiesel they
make from WVO. See, eg, "Tax man cometh for car that runs on chip
fat" (this article is wrong, there are a lot more than five of them):
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/UK/Science/2000-10/taxman221000.shtml

Greenpeace recently gave away 6,000 litres of biodiesel free to
London cabbies and all comers, with local biodiesellers assisting.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/Multimedia/Live/FullReport/2750.PDF

>Bioethanol is a separate issue, and the question has to be asked whether the
>energy content in the raw feed stock could be better utilised by an
>alternative technology possibly involving external combustion, either on a
>farm-scale, or in centralised fluidised bed thermal power stations.

There are plenty of life-cycle studies of ethanol, and the long
experience of the billions of gallons already used on the roads. It's
not necessarily a separate issue. I think ethyl esters biodiesel is
the way forward, especially where local energy self-sufficiency is
important. Ethanol is clean and you can make it yourself, methanol is
toxic and usually fossil-fuel derived and you can't easily make it
yourself. But it needs anhydrous ethanol, currently a stopping point.
Nonetheless people are working on it, we have sure-fire methods,
we'll soon have greatly improved fuel alcohol stills for small-scale
use, and people are also working on various small-scale drying
methods. Incidentally, just to get back on topic, I'm very interested
in using biomass as a heat source in distillation, and
transesterification.

>The
>situation is still unclear - but I personally would prefer to see an
>increase in electric transportation, and an accompanying reduction in miles
>travelled by internal combustion fuelled vehicles.

Electric transportation too often merely transfers the pollution from
one place to another, and in some cases the power generation can
cause more pollution, not less.

>The requirements of a community of New Yorkers are very much different to
>that of a village in the developing world - cultural exchange trips would be
>a real eye-opener ;-)

That was my point - the suitability of any technology depends on the
context, not least on the cultural context.

>I have spent time in rural China and Malaysia and I am aware of the role of
>the small diesel and biofuels may prove to be an attractive viable solution.

As have I. Yes, these and other options. Malaysia is well into
biodiesel because of their palm oil production. There are a lot of
biofuels initiatives in China now, both for biodiesel and ethanol,
and the Taiwan government is going ahead with biodiesel on an
official level.

>I am still researching Tesla turbines, but their efficiency looks comparable
>to a conventional turbine of the same power output. To me this suggests that
>they are worth further investigation as a result of their constructional
>simplicity and overall ruggedness - subject to heat input.
>
>Likewise I am considering monotube steam boilers and uniflow reciprocating
>steam engines as used by Doble in the 1920's.
>
>Somewhere in this mix of technologies there will be application specific
>solutions.

Indeed, but wide acceptance is another matter.

>BTW I drive a diesel Peugeot which will happily travel 100km on 7 litres of
>biodiesel and when that is inappropriate for the trip, there is always my
>home built 4 seater EV which returns 100km for 29kWh drawn from the mains.
>With a top speed of 85mph, its a great car to drive!

Well done. But can't you find a better source than the mains?

>Regards,
>
>
>Ken Boak

Best wishes Ken

Keith Addison

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Wed Jan 3 11:56:50 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010103102455.0094a710@wgs1.btl.net>

Hey guys -- we -- or at least I -- checked this over last year. It is a
mechanical nightmare!

I also still have the entire site still stored in "cache" on my hard drive.

Peter Singfield / Belize

At 11:59 AM 1/3/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>Dear Carl
>
>Try:
>http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/QTIndex.html
>
>Kevin
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gasification@crest.org
>> [mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]On Behalf Of Carl Carley (EML)
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 9:54 AM
>> To: 'gasification@crest.org'
>> Subject: RE: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers
>>
>>
>> The link you sent below doesn't work, is there something missing?
>> cheers
>> carl
*******snipped*********
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Ken.Boak at dataflex.co.uk Wed Jan 3 12:19:23 2001
From: Ken.Boak at dataflex.co.uk (Ken Boak)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers
Message-ID: <C058888A18F6D3118D700008C79F15DD11E8B8@NT_COMMS_1>

Keith,

If you can find me a better source of power - I will consider it.

10kWh to recharge the car plus about 3kW for domestic use should just about
meet my daily requirements.

regards,

Ken
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Jan 3 14:02:02 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers
In-Reply-To: <C058888A18F6D3118D700008C79F15DD11E8B6@NT_COMMS_1>
Message-ID: <3A537456.1585333A@c2i.net>

Ken Boak wrote:

> biodiesel and when that is inappropriate for the trip, there is always my
> home built 4 seater EV which returns 100km for 29kWh drawn from the mains.
> With a top speed of 85mph, its a great car to drive!

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

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Jan 3 14:02:09 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Global warming elsewhere...
In-Reply-To: <3e.58741eb.278379ea@cs.com>
Message-ID: <3A53745D.14F795FF@c2i.net>

>
> ~~~~~~~
> We here in GASIFICATION and STOVES are working to do all the right things.
>
> Therefore, I humbly suggest that we divert the GW discussion to BIOENERGY or
> some other place that CREST can designate, and get to the business of
>
> BETTER GASIFIERS and BETTER STOVES.
>
> Your administrator, TOM REED

..hear, hear! The Global Warming traffic here suggest another mailing
list may be warranted, named something intuitively like the "Global
Warming List"...

..also, I keep getting these 40 kB mammoth "html-formatted" messages
because a few of you guys, get exited and forget to check and cut out
irrelevant stuff in what you quote automatically.

..Netscape and Microsoft software quotes _everything_ you respond to,
automatically, unless _you_ _unset_ this "feature". (Netscape for Linux
even does this right, placing your prompt _after_ the quoted text,
helping you produce better context and more readable messages.)

..myself, I prefer posting not in the "html-format", but in the "plain
text" format, and manually click the "quote" button whenever I decide to
quote.

..Netscape hides these options under the "Edit -> Preferences ->
Messages and Formatting" menu tree, Microsoft too hides these options in
a similar way, and may even overwrite your setting whenever you upgrade
or install software.

..bandwidth _is_ expensive in most countries where gasification has a
viable potential, or is being developed.

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

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From kenboak at stirlingservice.freeserve.co.uk Wed Jan 3 14:23:07 2001
From: kenboak at stirlingservice.freeserve.co.uk (Ken Boak)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers
In-Reply-To: <C058888A18F6D3118D700008C79F15DD11E8B6@NT_COMMS_1>
Message-ID: <010601c075b8$f17ce3e0$6bbd883e@boakk>

Arnt and list members,

Here are the requested URLs for the electric car: 1) Construction 2) Use

http://www.geocities.com/kenboak/avt100.html

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

I hope to get some more of the archive material up there when I get a
chance.

We have an AVT100 for sale priced at US$ 4000.

Buyer must arrange shipping from Northern Ireland

Contact Rob at AVT for details. - see link on my site

Sorry to deflect so much off gasification topic - anyone wishing more info
please email me directly

kenboak@stirlingservice.freeserve.co.uk

Best Wishes,

Ken.

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From joacim at ymex.net Wed Jan 3 15:09:14 2001
From: joacim at ymex.net (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: Economics vs thermodynamics, was: Re: GAS-L: Biodiesel questionagain
In-Reply-To: <009f01c074a6$6b42b1a0$299b0f18@lbbck1.tx.home.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10101031045480.1478-100000@localhost>

On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Harry W. Parker wrote:

> Hello Cal and all,
>
> >From a BTU point of view, the amount of energy used for production of crops,
> including fertilizer is relatively small compared to the energy produced.
> In that regard ethanol and biodiesel are OK fuels. It is the investment and
> labor costs associated with growing crops which make them too expensive to
> compete with fossil fuel. Another thought is that you are using food or
> postential food crops for energy in a world where people are starving, but
> that is another consideration.

Aren't investments and labour costs also a form of energy consumption?
I think the whole field of economics could be incorporated in
thermodynamics. ;) (I'll use a somewhat `sloppy' definition of `energy'
herein. It's just foddery anyway.)

It's not just the food a worker eats that is energy, the worker also need
to have a good enough life to be motivated for, and cope with a perhaps boring
job. He needs energy to travel to work, to visit friends, to go shopping,
need clothes, a home, toys and tools... All this takes energy. He needs
education/training to become able to do his job, the more education is
necessary to pass the knowledge threshold for a specific task, the longer
time it will take, and thus the more energy is invested in his skills.

It's the same thing for a machine: Not only takes it energy to produce the
machine itself, the machines for making the machine and so on, it also
takes energy to educate a designer/inventor to design the machine, and the
machine that makes the parts for the machine etc etc.

The crop field itself has energy/work bound into it. Plowing work is tied
into the ground's lowered entrophy etc.

Horses eat oats. Tractors eat diesel. Both also consumes energy for
"breeding/development". Neither horses, tractors, wheat fields, lathes nor
computers fall out, ready, from the sky, so to speak. (alas)

Capital is investment is labour is energy then, isn't it? If it is, why
not combine the two fields into the same science? Wouldn't that be the way
to go to formalise a "Grand Theory of Big Picture?" =)
The GTBP would be very complex and full of unbound variables, no doubt, but
the field of economics is already filled to the brim with approximations
and wild guesses [author ducks]. But as along as economists and scientists
speak different languages, I can't see how they can communicate.

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From VHarris001 at aol.com Wed Jan 3 15:27:49 2001
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers
Message-ID: <5f.f05a771.2784e246@aol.com>

In a message dated 01/03/2001 9:33:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Ken.Boak@dataflex.co.uk writes:

>
> Likewise I am considering monotube steam boilers and uniflow reciprocating
> steam engines as used by Doble in the 1920's.
>
> Somewhere in this mix of technologies there will be application specific
> solutions.

It's hard to argue with the overwhelming success of the reciprocating piston
engine as the prime mover of choice. To displace the piston engine will take
an innovation which provides "substantial" (as opposed to marginal)
efficiency gain. The primary reason for this is because the development
costs of a new system must be recouped in the energy savings of a new
technology - otherwise there is no financial motivation to change the extant
system. This is the underlying difficulty in all alternative fuel systems.

When fuel prices substantially rise on a permanent basis - not an
intermittent spike - then the increased cost savings of energy consumed can
provide the financing necessary to drive the development of more efficient
technologies (including more efficient piston engines). Until then, you're
probably on the right track to stay with the reciprocating piston engine as a
prime mover.

I also might note that it is difficult to argue with the success of the
internal combustion engine as the reciprocating engine of choice in prime
movers - with the notable exception of marine steam turbines and a smattering
of steam locomotives still operating commercially throughout the world. This
is mostly attributable to cost savings in 1) the centralization of refining
capacity (which has the added benefit of taking the dangerous and dirty
external combustion process off the vehicle), and 2) the mass distribution of
refined fuels to the location of use.

While other available technologies can and do use these distributed refined
fuels, biomass gasification in prime movers is different: it proposes to
close-couple the internal and external combustion processes on one vehicle.
That is, gasification will put the dangerous and dirty external combustion
process back on the vehicle. And as if this isn't sufficiently problematic,
gasification will also be required to provide a consistent Btu content, ash
and tar-free fuel for direct consumption by an internal combustion engine.
While I understand this is being done in the laboratory, I remain relatively
unconvinced that this "clean" gasification process will transfer well to the
field - at least for some time or at considerable development cost.

This leaves us - for now - with dirty gas as the source of energy for our
prime mover. We either clean it up (and dispose of the residue), or figure
out how to run an IC engine on dirty gas, or burn the dirty gas externally
and power an external combustion engine. Of the three, I'm of the opinion
that - with extant technology - the last option is the best. While the
latter introduces an additional energy consuming step (e.g. the boiler and
related systems) and therefore is theoretically less efficient - nonetheless
- it is reliable and available technology.

Surely gasifiers and boilers on small steam engine vehicles is unpractical
and, as such, has limited use. There may be certain unique circumstances
where both trained labor and biomass are available that would make this
combination useful (locomotives) - however I suspect they are few and far
between. Given that they are available, I would venture to guess that
biomass to steam - even if less efficient than biomass-to-IC engine - will
remain the technology of choice, particularly in vehicle use. And, as above,
this will remain true until the cost of fuel increases sufficiently that the
savings on fuel will finance the development of the next technology to the
point where it is practical. As far as close-coupled gasifier-to-IC engine
systems, I for one remain skeptical.

On the other hand, biomass-to-steam is a proven technology that is robust and
available. And while "low-tar gasification" remains problematic, standard
"starved-air" combustion technology is well developed. Further, a high-tar
content is beneficial in biomass-to-steam systems, allowing for a wide
variety of fuels and moisture content to be utilized.

All that being said, there still remains, even today, a substantial barrier
for biomass-to-steam projects: the low cost of traditional fuels. Save a
tremendous efficiency breakthrough, where labor costs are high relative to
fuel costs, biomass fuel will largely remain in the position it holds today -
discussed but unfinanced. Where labor costs are low, there is generally
either insufficient public funds, or insufficient revenue for private
financing, of biomass development. Therefore, we don't want it `cause it
costs too much (in labor), and they don't want it `cause it costs too much
(they can't afford it).

This relegates biomass-to-steam to a financial model that usually can only be
justified by cost-avoidance of processing or disposal of the biomass. Except
for localized pockets (generally markets controlled through government
intervention), in the US, mega-fills, treatment lagoons, land application of
sludge, etc. are resulting in steadily cheap processing and disposal options.
Cheap fuel and cheap disposal translates to few biomass projects here.

The situation may be different in other countries where neither fuel or
disposal are so cheap, and where biomass projects move forward - propelled by
a somewhat more favorable economic model and, perhaps - compelled by force of
law. And then only undertaken on a large scale.

I'm not sure a *biomass* based prime mover solution is available "somewhere
in this mix of technologies," or even on the horizon - close-coupled or not.
And while the next technologically "significant" efficiency improvement may
be just over the horizon, I'd wager it'll use traditional refined fuels, not
an on-board external biomass combustion system.

At least not until fuel prices go through the roof.

I'd be interested in hearing the view of others of successful biomass
(especially gasification) projects, particularly where they have been
cost-justified.

Regards,
Vernon Harris
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From renertech at xtra.co.nz Wed Jan 3 16:08:28 2001
From: renertech at xtra.co.nz (renertech)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers
In-Reply-To: <C058888A18F6D3118D700008C79F15DD11E8B6@NT_COMMS_1>
Message-ID: <002901c07678$5118b260$5e6a60cb@renertech>

For Ken Boak, From one Ken to another.
Saw your original message just before I pulled the plug and went to bed last
night. This morning I find 16 E-mails on the board and most of your comments
replied to. May I, nevertheless, add one more topic. It was during OPEC
1, in the late 1970s that the Pacific Isands found them selves receiving
lots of offers of renewable fuels projects and alternative power supply
systems under all sorts of NGO, Unilateral and Multilateral Aid programs.
This was because the major Oil companies, along with the U.N. Agencies, had
decreed that the remote Pacific Islands would be the first place on the
Globe where alternative
power systems would become viable projects to those small countries
concerned. One small Mission High School that I was concerned with, got a
greenwood gasifier producing around 50 KW that ran for 15 years and finally
fell apart in the mid 1990's. Interestingly enough, they were contacted
last August by the original European manufacturer, now owned by Shell, who
have offered to rebuild the plant and start them off again. The
motivation, apparantly, being the conclusion that World petroleum reserves
would be on the down hill run by 2015 or therabouts, and the Oil Majors
wanted to be in control of all petroleum alternatives by 2010???
However, back to your point Ken, those small islands and remote villages
that you mentioned have a much much cheaper and more viable alternative
than all the so-called prime movers that you mentioned. And that is the
used automotive engine.
In my day it was Landrover firewall/dashboards and chassis' that rusted
out prematurely and left a surplus of perfectly good petrol and diesel
engines, with which all the bush mechanics and other local talent were very
familiar,"Ugly American" style. From Charcoal to Green wood
gasification, From rotten coconut oil to putrid tallow for diesel fuel,
from pigs poo to power, onto dragging water hyacinth out of the river to
make biogas, you name it we did it. O.K. those old auto engines didn't
last as long as they might of, but there were always plenty more, and plenty
of 'local yokels' who knew how to put them back together again.
Nowadays automotives don't have solid chassis, and no part of the body
has a steel section thicker than several spot welded layers of the original
sheet steel that they were pressed out of. That is bad news for not only
those close to the sea, Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands, but also for
those countries that get rid of winter ice by using salt on their roads.
However, those same sheet metal bodies, have engines that will run and last
three times longer than any Landrover of my vintage. So, don't waste your
time on new alternatives yet, until you can no longer buy good used prime
movers by the container load for around $200 apiece.
All the best for the New Year.

Ken C Calvert.
Renertech.Coffee.
159 St.Andrew St.
Invercargill. New Zealand. 9501.
Phone +64 3217 7015
Fax. +64 3217 7032
Mobile. 025 54 74 38
E-Mail. renertech@xtra.co.nz
www.coffee.20m.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Boak" <kenboak@stirlingservice.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From kenboak at stirlingservice.freeserve.co.uk Wed Jan 3 17:00:07 2001
From: kenboak at stirlingservice.freeserve.co.uk (Ken Boak)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers
In-Reply-To: <C058888A18F6D3118D700008C79F15DD11E8B6@NT_COMMS_1>
Message-ID: <003a01c075ce$df6c3fa0$52a2883e@boakk>

Ken,

Thanks for the description of South Sea engineering talent at work.

Your words are duly noted!

Ken.

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From H.Parker at ttu.edu Wed Jan 3 17:21:53 2001
From: H.Parker at ttu.edu (Harry W. Parker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: High energy consumption essential Re: Economics vs thermodynamics,
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10101031045480.1478-100000@localhost>
Message-ID: <01e301c075d1$a4f4dfa0$299b0f18@lbbck1.tx.home.com>

Hello Joacim and all,

Joacim raises a most important rhetorical question, "Aren't investments and
labor costs also a form of energy consumption?"

The answer is yes, and in many ways yes. We are a society that requires
high energy consumption to support both our physical and societal
infrastructures. In no way can we return to the pre-petroleum life style
in which about 80% of our population labored hard in agriculture just to
provide food and fiber via biomass. Even that bioenergy life style
depended on coal to power factories, and locomotives, and for space heating.

Harry

Harry W. Parker, Ph.D., P.E.
Professor of Chemical Engineering
& Consulting Engineer
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409-3121
806.742.1759 fax 742.3552

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From onar at netpower.no Wed Jan 3 19:26:37 2001
From: onar at netpower.no (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Onar_=C5m?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: Economics vs thermodynamics, was: Re: GAS-L: Biodiesel questionagain
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10101031045480.1478-100000@localhost>
Message-ID: <001101c075e2$3caf3d30$198221d4@cinderella>

> Capital is investment is labour is energy then, isn't it? If it is, why
> not combine the two fields into the same science? Wouldn't that be the
way
> to go to formalise a "Grand Theory of Big Picture?" =)

I guess economy has as little to do with gasification as global warming, but
I can't resist a reply.
Most people think that economy primarily is monetary in nature. It isn't.
The definition of general
economics is THE THEORY OF LIMITED RESOURCES. Thus, in this sense a gasifier
is an
economy. Thermodynamics itself is not about limited resources, but
applications of it, such as
gasifiers, most certainly are.

Why can't the two be combined? Because you don't need energy to have an
economy. A computer is
an economy: limited ram, limited processing power, limited speed etc.
However, it usually doesn't take
more energy to run one program than another.

Onar.

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au Wed Jan 3 21:00:18 2001
From: p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au (Peter M. Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: dry enough, hot enough
In-Reply-To: <74.6725d93.278091f7@cs.com>
Message-ID: <MABBLNDIPBCNELBBMAGDGEGFCAAA.p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au>

Dear Tom:

I don't have any more idea of the gasifier used than what Shah put in his
document. Pre processing of wood fuel by torrefaction however would I
believe result in cleaner better quality gas which would relieve some of the
expense and difficulty of cleaning for IC use. Shah's results seem to
confirm this.

It would also make the job of designing and operating the gasifier somewhat
easier since the fuel will be relatively uniform.

The big trick is in efficiently processing the fuel in the first place. Get
that right and future of gasification will be somewhat enhanced.

Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gasification@crest.org
[mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]On Behalf Of Reedtb2@cs.com
Sent: Sunday, 31 December 2000 11:43 PM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: Re: GAS-L: dry enough, hot enough

Dear Peter:

Shah said that they used a fixed bed, countercurrent gasifier for their
torrefied wood tests. Was this really an "updraft" gasifier? I didn't
think
anyone still used them with wood, since they generate typically 10-20% tar.

I should think the torrefied wood would generate even a higher percentage of
tar in this gasifier. It would be interesting to see the comparable results
for a conventional or stratefied downdraft gasifier. I would expect less
than 0.1% tar.

Please pass these comments on to Shah if possible....

Your truly, TOM REED

In a message dated 12/29/00 5:02:04 PM Mountain Standard Time,
p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au writes:

<<
Dear All,

Microwave drying of wood has been developed by the CSIRO over here. No
doubt by others in the field as well. Ultimately the aim is to be able to
precisely dry individual boards coming out of a sawmill. It could of
course
be applied to sawdust or other cellulose fuels as well.

On refined wood fuels see Jim Arcates website www.techtp.com

From a copy of an FAO paper on this site:

DEVELOPMENTS ON TORREFIED WOOD
AN ALTERNATIVE TO CHARCOAL FOR REDUCING DEFORESTATION

P Girard & N Shah
Centre Technique Forestier Tropical
Department of Cirad
45 Bis, Avenue de la Belle Gabrielle
94736 Nogent Sur Marne cedex
FRANCE

(extract)

5.2 Gasifier Fuel

Long-term gasification trials (4) have been carried out with a fixed bed
countercurrent gasifier. The producer gas generated fed a PERKINS motor
coupled to a 24 kW electrical generator. measurements were made
continuously, comparing equal loads of 77 kg wood and torrefied wood.
Results are summarized in Table 5

Torrefied wood as compared to wood gave the following results:

* A much higher furnace temperature (over 1300 C) that increases carbon
monoxide production but will entail the development of an appropriate
firebox.
* Much greater regularity in the composition of gases during functioning.
* Very clean and high quality gas.
* Greater autonomy for the same load (over 30%).

Thanks to a high degree of reproducibility and standardization, torrefied
wood facilitates the operation, regulation and optimization of gasifiers.
Although it has less energy value than charcoal, it has the advantage of
being more convenient to use. Its superior mechanical properties make it
less friable, which improves gas transfer and avoids dust formation that
clogs up filters. However, contrary to expectations, the acetic acid
content
in condensates is similar whether wood or Torrefied wood is used for
gasification, which means that the problem of corrosion remains.

(end extract)

From the table mentioned above 77kg of TW yielded 245m3 of gas compared to
192m3 of gas from a @19% moisture content unrefined sample of the same
weight.

I call that an improvement !

Cheers,
Peter
>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au Wed Jan 3 21:00:44 2001
From: p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au (Peter M. Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re:Crop production & fossil fuels
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010102094121.0099f300@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <MABBLNDIPBCNELBBMAGDEEGFCAAA.p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au>

Someone mentioned going back to raising crops with animals.

In our fast paced development (in some nations) we seem to think this was in
our distant past. My Grandfather was a bullock driver. My children shake
their heads in disbelief.

We cannot go back on any significant scale. It is not lost skills.

I have seen some interesting figures on replacing modern agricultural
equipment with horses and bullocks, rather than dig this out I will relate a
story told to me by an old farmer/neighbour whilst leaning on our boundary
fence looking across his paddock which sums up the problems.

He was reminiscing about farming in the early 1930's. They maintained a
horse team for the purpose.

"We use to grow the oats to feed the horses so we could grow the oats....."

An example of a closed system ?

Cheers,
Peter

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au Wed Jan 3 21:00:56 2001
From: p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au (Peter M. Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: dry enough, hot enough
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10012301416520.591-100000@localhost>
Message-ID: <MABBLNDIPBCNELBBMAGDIEGFCAAA.p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au>

I am not sure that defining energy roles by the "quality" of the energy is
as appropriate as using the right form of energy for the job.

I suggested perhaps microwave drying for biomass as fuel may have
application. This will depend on the cost of the dryer and the need of the
application for fast compact and efficient drying as opposed to whether it
was more energy efficient to use direct heat.

The most energy efficient way is to spread it in Sun to dry (not including
the energy required to spread and regather). This is not always the most
practical.

Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gasification@crest.org
[mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]On Behalf Of Joacim Persson
Sent: Sunday, 31 December 2000 2:30 AM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: RE: GAS-L: dry enough, hot enough

On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, Peter M. Davies wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Microwave drying of wood has been developed by the CSIRO over here. No
> doubt by others in the field as well. Ultimately the aim is to be able to
> precisely dry individual boards coming out of a sawmill. It could of
course
> be applied to sawdust or other cellulose fuels as well.

...boiling water with electricity? ?:-P

I can understand it makes sense to use electricity for drying wood for
building materials, or for lab tests, where energy efficiency isn't as
important as economical efficiency with process speed, precision etc in
consideration -- but drying biomass /fuel/ with electricity?
Electricity is one of the highest qualities of energy, heat is one of the
lowest qualities. Producing heat from electricity is like using diamonds for
road filling or for mixing concrete.

If we assume that all heat motors have losses in the form of heat, and the
objective is to produce high-quality mechanincal/electrical power with this
heat motor, then why use the high-quality mechanical power to produce heat?
We have plenty of heat available in temperatures high enough for drying
fuel.

For a plain IC motor, the exhaust heat only, is about as much, or more,
power as produced on the crank shaft. That's *a lot* of heat.

Let's say we want 20kW on the crank shaft, and have 33% efficiency with 33%
losses in the form of exhaust heat. (unreal numbers really, in reality we
have less crank shaft power and more exhaust heat)
Let's say then we have 20kW of exhaust heat, 20kW coolant heat, 20kW shaft
power, and a gasifier with 80% efficiency. 60kW gas power then, with 80%
efficiency we need 75kW worth of fuel. Let's say we can recapture only half
the exhaust heat effectively for boiling out water from the fuel with, i.e.
we have 10kW drying power.

How much water can we boil with 10kW?

Vaporisation heat for water is 2.26 MJ/kg
(10*10^3)/(2.26*10^6) ~= 0.0044 kg/s or 4.4 g/s

What is the fuel consumption in kg then? We burn wood at a rate worth 75kW.
Gravimetric heating value of (dry) wood is 18 MJ/kg
75kW of wood of 18MJ/kg is (75*10^3)/(18*10^6) ~= 0.0042 kg/s, or 4.2 g/s

4.4/4.2 ~= 1.05, or 105% moisture (of dry weight)

So with 80% gasifier efficiency, 33% exhaust heat and 50% efficient heat
recapturing we can dry wood of with 105% moisture (compared to fuel dry
weight), with the exhaust heat losses from an IC motor. 105% moisture is
soaking wet wood. Density for wood is about 0.6-0.7 kg/dm³. If we fill all
the pores in the wood with water, we still wouldn't reach 105% water. We
would need to shovel a bit of snow in there as well, and still feed
completely dry fuel to the gasifier, using half the exhaust heat in this
example.

We could recapture coolant heat as well. When using water for coolant, and
no pressure we only get a bit less than 100°C, but one could put the motor
cooling system under pressure or switch to a coolant with a higher boiling
temperature and get coolant heat with a temperature above boiling
temperature for water.

Of course, all this is possible only because IC motors are so *bad*. If we
had heat motors of 99% efficiency, we would have plenty of shaft power
instead. Then it would make sense to dry fuel with shaft power, i.e.
electricity, i.e. microwaves. But instead, we have ~70--90 % heat losses
from the motor, available.

The nice thing about gasifier powered motors is that if we compare with a
diesel or petrol motor, in the latter we'd have precious little use for
exhaust (or coolant) heat. We don't need 10ths of kW's to keep the driver
warm, and it's rather pointless (and dangerous) to boil and superheat the
fuel or whatever one could use it for. But in a combustion process, as in
a gasifier, a little extra heat may be useful here and there; for drying,
or for preheating fuel or air.

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br Thu Jan 4 03:44:30 2001
From: antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br (Antonio G. P. Hilst)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L:More on Climate Change
In-Reply-To: <b7.a2ff299.278379f3@cs.com>
Message-ID: <3A53B543.8FCE326F@merconet.com.br>

Dear Onar,
Tell me, pls, your source of "the poor people of Brazil... ". I sugest
you take a look on population density in Brazilian Amazonia as compared
with timber exploiters there. :80% (More than 130 million) live in urban
areas, less than 40 million live in country area including Amazon, say
8 million square kilometers.
Antonio
Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:
Dear Onar
and all:
Having hoped to see no more
climate change at gasification, I can't help
adding to Onar's sensible
and humane comment...
Ask yourself,
what is the greatest threat to the biosphere right now: global
warming or poverty?
It is the poor people of Brazil that are destroying the
Amazon rain
forests, not climate change. I therefore postulate that the best
thing we can
do to diminish the threat to the biosphere is to exterminate
poverty, and
there is only one humane way to achieve this: sustained economic
growth.
Which would you
prefer: ! kM of ice over Chicago (Denver is exempt) from the
next glacier
or a possible 2 m rise in the ocean
The Atlantic
Ocean was more than 150 m below its present level at the end of
the last ice
age (12,000 years ago). 2 m would be a large rise for
oceanfront property
and (sorry, Bangladesh) some countries, but a drop of 150
m would create
a very different ballgame.
So let's get
that carbon back in the atmosphere.
TOM REED
BEF PRESS

In a message
dated 1/2/01 12:20:15 AM Mountain Standard Time,
onar@netpower.no
writes:

Ask yourself,
what is the greatest threat to the biosphere right now:
global warming
or poverty? It is the poor people of Brazil that are
destroying the
Amazon rain forests, not climate change. I therefore
postulate that
the best thing we can do to diminish the threat to the
biosphere is
to exterminate poverty, and there is only one humane way to
achieve this:
sustained economic growth.

Onar.

From antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br Thu Jan 4 03:44:32 2001
From: antonio.hilst at merconet.com.br (Antonio G. P. Hilst)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Water + fuel mixes
In-Reply-To: <NEBBLHHHOLFOEGCILKHEOEHICDAA.kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>
Message-ID: <3A53B8A3.B9A62BFB@merconet.com.br>

Harry,
Your msg recalls me what I heard in a diesel additives meeting: Scania, the
swedish truck fabricator, recomends 3% ethanol as antifreezing agent.
Antonio

Harry W. Parker wrote:

> Hello Kevin and all,
>
> Emulsifying a small amount of water into diesel makes modest improvements in
> the performance of diesel fuels. There is a good reference in my paper
> cited in this e-mail.
>
> The question is -- it worth the effort to maintain the stability of the
> emulsion during normal fuel storage and movement activities to achieve
> modest performance improvements? I am not sure at this point.
>
> Gunnerman claims special additives but I very much doubt their unique
> properties. Perhaps just PR.
>
> I proposed making a very economical emulsifier from a biomass source, soy
> oil. If it were applied to "all" diesel fuel this could be a significant
> use for soy oil -- perhaps better than biodiesel. My paper is referenced
> as follows:
>
> Parker, H.W., R.W. Tock, M.P. Kumar, & J. Bailey, "Eco-Friendly Diesel Fuel
> Additive," Paper 244i, Annual National American Institute of Chemical
> Engineers Meeting, Los Angles, Nov. 16-21, (1997).
>
> The graduate student I was supporting on the project left and I did not push
> the project further. I would be pleased to renew this research, if funds
> were available.
>
> Harry W. Parker, Ph.D., P.E.
> Professor of Chemical Engineering
> & Consulting Engineer
> Texas Tech University
> Lubbock, TX 79409-3121
> 806.742.1759 fax 742.3552
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From douglasmcc at cnl.com.au Thu Jan 4 04:27:12 2001
From: douglasmcc at cnl.com.au (Douglas Costello)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Re: Biodiesel question
In-Reply-To: <5a.f2626fa.27820ff1@cs.com>
Message-ID: <020a01c0762e$1d6e1260$181f38cb@douglasmcc>

Keith,

Couldn't agree more with the thinking and prospective direction for use of
these waste byproducts. What you raise regarding fitness for use is really
a very good example of a very poor application of economics without taking
into account the true cost to society. BSE is a good example of this type
of thinking.

I have a query regarding biodiesel. There are a number of farmers in my
state (Victoria Australia) who are collecting this used vegetable oil and
animal fats, filtering out the particulates and then using it directly in
their tractors and other farm equipment. There are requirements such as
starting on diesel and finishing on diesel but the bulk of their energy
requirements is derived from using these perceived waste products directly.

The small inconvenience they have on startup and shut down would seem to not
make it worthwhile to actually process this material into biodiesel as it
can be used directly.

How far could one take this approach before the need to produce biodiesel
became imperative?

Regards

Douglas Costello

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Addison" <keith@journeytoforever.org>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Thursday, 4 January 2001 0:43
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Re: Biodiesel question

> Hi Douglas
>
> >Keith & Others,
> >
> >Maybe I was a little unclear on the low to nil value for tallow because
of
> >BSE. I was commenting on the use of any animal byproduct in feed ration
> >formulation for livestock. Specifically in response to Harry's remark
that
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From renertech at xtra.co.nz Thu Jan 4 05:04:19 2001
From: renertech at xtra.co.nz (renertech)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: dry enough, hot enough
In-Reply-To: <MABBLNDIPBCNELBBMAGDIEGFCAAA.p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au>
Message-ID: <00a401c076e4$b39ff6c0$b66360cb@renertech>

To Peter Davies, Peter, Your figures on waste heat from the radiator and
exhaust etc.of a gas engine as being sufficient to dry or indeed semi
torrify the fuel used are well within reality in a practical sense.
Spreading the wood out to dry in the sun is Not! Dry firewood, in the Third
World, is a very valuable commodity and very scarce. You would be more
likely to have it stolen than used for making gas. In practical terms, the
heat from the exhaust gas of an IC engine is quite sufficient to dry
green wood cut straight off the stump. The secret is to reduce it into
small enough sizes to allow the thermo dynamics to do their stuff in a
favourable time period.
We ran a gasifier in the Pacific islands, on a sustainable cycle using
Leucaena coppice wood. The stumps were cut at around 18-24 months, when the
poles were wrist size and 15-20ft high. Those poles had the greenery
slashed off with a machete, to recycle the nutrients, and the poles were fed
into an automatic docking saw and cut into 50-60mm lengths. The dynamics
from them on were
adjusted to get the right drying times, but revolved around an old two
thousand gallon tank used as a hopper up on a pipe frame with a conical
bottom bottom of heavy sheet metal and a 300x300 mm slide shute about
wheelbarrow height off the ground. The prime mover was an old Toyota 6
cylinder Landcruiser motor, with the exhaust pipe blowing into a venturi
horn adjusted to suck enough cold air in with it as it was blown into the
base of the fuel hopper to get maximum drying without actually setting the
wood alight in the base of the hopper.
The wood blocks took three days to work their way down to the slide shoot,
and they were dryed so quickly and they had so many shrinkage cracks that
you could pull them apart in your hands. And they were so torrefied that
you could just about light them up with a match. The gasification system
was a conventional down draft design straight out of the Gengas Manual.
This fuel production system, on an 18month cycle was; A/. totally
sustainable; B/. did not interfere with the needs of the local women to
scavange for dry wood fuel for their cooking; C/. Provided a cash income
for local workers rather than losing good money straight out of the country
to some Oil Company: D/. It could be intergrated with a local village land
use system, because the Leucaena was a leguminous species well known for
rejuvenating
old garden lands worn out by generations of swidden agriculture.
Yours Sincerely, Ken Calvert. Renertech.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter M. Davies" <p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 5:55 PM
Subject: RE: GAS-L: dry enough, hot enough

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From keith at journeytoforever.org Thu Jan 4 05:27:19 2001
From: keith at journeytoforever.org (Keith Addison)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers
In-Reply-To: <C058888A18F6D3118D700008C79F15DD11E8B8@NT_COMMS_1>
Message-ID: <v04210103b679c6065f2a@[211.133.18.149]>

Ken

>Keith,
>
>If you can find me a better source of power - I will consider it.

A gasifier? You could power it on waste restaurant grease if you
could prise it away from the rats. :-) I don't know, depends on your
circumstances. It's your footprint, your problem, not mine.

Best wishes

Keith Addison

>10kWh to recharge the car plus about 3kW for domestic use should just about
>meet my daily requirements.
>
>
>regards,
>
>
>Ken
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From H.Parker at ttu.edu Thu Jan 4 06:05:55 2001
From: H.Parker at ttu.edu (Harry W. Parker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Water + fuel mixes == need for antifreeze in the water
In-Reply-To: <NEBBLHHHOLFOEGCILKHEOEHICDAA.kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>
Message-ID: <007f01c0763c$92992800$299b0f18@lbbck1.tx.home.com>

Hello Antonio and all,

>From the transesterfication reaction for preparing my additive I just left
the glycerol and excess polyol in the mixture. It could serve as
antifreeze, but there might not be enough. Depends on the local climate.
One could consider including rather large amounts of methanol in the water,
since the methanol would also serve as a fuel, not just an aid for more
effective combusion and it is relatively inexpensive.

Harry

Harry W. Parker, Ph.D., P.E.
Professor of Chemical Engineering
& Consulting Engineer
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409-3121
806.742.1759 fax 742.3552

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From keith at journeytoforever.org Thu Jan 4 06:41:56 2001
From: keith at journeytoforever.org (Keith Addison)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010103102455.0094a710@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <v04210100b67a0ff076e4@[211.133.18.149]>

>Hey guys -- we -- or at least I -- checked this over last year. It is a
>mechanical nightmare!
>
>I also still have the entire site still stored in "cache" on my hard drive.
>
>Peter Singfield / Belize

A lot of people disagree with you about that, Peter. I works, it does
what it claims - a high-powered, low-vibration motor.

Best

Keith Addison

>At 11:59 AM 1/3/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> >Dear Carl
> >
> >Try:
> >http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/QTIndex.html
> >
> >Kevin

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From LINVENT at aol.com Thu Jan 4 08:21:52 2001
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers
Message-ID: <50.f98f602.2785c8b4@aol.com>

Re: Quasiturbine: Wankel step aside, this design has many more sealing
problems. Tom Taylor
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From LINVENT at aol.com Thu Jan 4 08:22:19 2001
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers
Message-ID: <9b.f0f4757.2785c675@aol.com>

Mr. Keith Addison,
I enjoyed reading your response to the comments about prime movers and
other issues. Very accurate and succinct. Tom Taylor
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Thu Jan 4 08:38:37 2001
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers
In-Reply-To: <C058888A18F6D3118D700008C79F15DD11E8B6@NT_COMMS_1>
Message-ID: <ion85to5ols4r425ilomog7pkkk9ncrsdl@4ax.com>

On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 01:39:43 +0900, you wrote:

>
>Not only in the western world. But yes, very many of the existing
>diesel vehicles are going to be around for a long time. For future
>vehicles, the new PNGV diesel hybrids (80 mpg) seem ideal candidates
>for biodiesel. And again there's the lubricity issue with the ULS
>diesel fuel of the future.

Just a couple of points as I suggest most of this discussion is better
on BIOENERGY: I agree high speed diesel is likely to be the popular
technology for a while yet. The methyl/ethyl ester route enables
fossil fuel substitution now. It appears to help address both urban
health problems from particulates, deal with a waste previously in the
animal feed chain and is carbon neutral.

This particulates problem from ic engines interests me, in fact soot
formation particularly interest me whether from engines or stoves or
gasifiers. I wonder what the different health implications are between
PM10s formed round elemental carbon in a diesel exhaust or the pm2.5s
of silicon dioxide and alkali metals likely to result from feeding a
ic engine from a clean downdraft gasifier.
>
>>However, I am still cautious about the activities of amateur
>>producers, which may give the emerging industry bad press. It would just
>>take a methanol accident in a US household to set the industry back by
>>years.
>
>The "amateur" producers give the industry by far the best press it
>gets, as industry sources very readily admit. Such sources have told
>me that they're looking to the "amateurs" to help them create market
>acceptance for biodiesel, which industry is not succeeding in doing
>on its own, or at least not to their satisfaction.

I take the point, however home or small scale production is
problematical, not least of which are that the byproduct is of poor
quality and contains reagent that an industrial user would recover. I
guess a home producer may use 50% more alcohol to produce the
methoxide than an industrial system.

>
>>Here in the UK, we are ideally situated for growing oilseed rape, and other
>>potential bio-fuel crops, but it was only in September last, that our
>>Government offered any tax concession on this fuel (due in April 2001). With
>>an alternative fuels tax concession, I would hope that the biodiesel
>>industry in the UK will increase to the level it has reached in Germany.
>
>The battle for tax concessions has been led by Terry de Winne, who's
>just sent me the final draft of his proposal for the government's
>"Green Challenge". The tax concession is not yet established.
>http://www.biofuels.fsnet.co.uk/

This is an excellent point in a UK context, currently we rebate LPG
exceedingly heavily, ostensibly as it is a low polluting transport
fuel (there is an issue that it was becoming a problem because of
increased production from gas distribution). If the current DTI
greenfuels consultation results in a 20p/ltre reduction in road fuel
costs then biodiesel will become a premium road fuel, it will not
compete against rebated fossil fuels in stationary/agricultural uses.
<snip>
>
>>Bioethanol is a separate issue, and the question has to be asked whether the
>>energy content in the raw feed stock could be better utilised by an
>>alternative technology possibly involving external combustion, either on a
>>farm-scale, or in centralised fluidised bed thermal power stations.
>
>There are plenty of life-cycle studies of ethanol, and the long
>experience of the billions of gallons already used on the roads. It's
>not necessarily a separate issue. I think ethyl esters biodiesel is
>the way forward, especially where local energy self-sufficiency is
>important. Ethanol is clean and you can make it yourself, methanol is
>toxic and usually fossil-fuel derived and you can't easily make it
>yourself. But it needs anhydrous ethanol, currently a stopping point.

Isn't the point here that synthesised methanol is anhydrous to start
with, I thought you would have similar saponification problems with
methanol if it were similarly contaminated with 5% water.

>Nonetheless people are working on it, we have sure-fire methods,
>we'll soon have greatly improved fuel alcohol stills for small-scale
>use, and people are also working on various small-scale drying
>methods. Incidentally, just to get back on topic, I'm very interested
>in using biomass as a heat source in distillation, and
>transesterification.

It looks to me that co production of both ethanol and biodiesel would
integrate well at a farm scale. As you mentioned somewhere else the
byproducts may be saleable as farm feeds. I see a problem in UK though
as:
1 I believe there is a GATT set limit on extra feed production
2 I wonder if animal feed is possible from a non food grant aided
crop.

Still the possibilities of using the adsorption characteristics of
cellulosic biomass to dry the ethanol/water constant boiling mixture
to the anhydrous state and then use the biomass in a further heating
role look interesting.

>
>>The
>>situation is still unclear - but I personally would prefer to see an
>>increase in electric transportation, and an accompanying reduction in miles
>>travelled by internal combustion fuelled vehicles.
>
>Electric transportation too often merely transfers the pollution from
>one place to another, and in some cases the power generation can
>cause more pollution, not less.

Valid with a smart charge controller and a variable renewable source
with no fuel cost, like solar or wind power in the absence of a grid
intertie though.
<snip>
>>BTW I drive a diesel Peugeot which will happily travel 100km on 7 litres of
>>biodiesel and when that is inappropriate for the trip, there is always my
>>home built 4 seater EV which returns 100km for 29kWh drawn from the mains.
>>With a top speed of 85mph, its a great car to drive!
>
>Well done. But can't you find a better source than the mains?
>
A quick calculation here suggests the diesel is likely to be more
efficient use of fuel unless the electricity is surplus and generated
by wind/wave/pv/hydro:

Diesel 7ltre -> 75.82 kWhr(t) 25% conversion?? ->19kWhr per 100km
electric 29kWhr per 100km

So the electricity must be generated very efficiently to make the
energy account balance, this neglects also the cost per kWhr of
battery O+M and replacement, which I have seen calculated as high as
USD0.13kWhr.
AJH
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Thu Jan 4 10:00:18 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010104081723.008e8b30@wgs1.btl.net>

At 07:38 AM 1/4/2001 EST, you wrote:
>Re: Quasiturbine: Wankel step aside, this design has many more sealing
>problems. Tom Taylor

Also -- can't achieve high compression ratios! There goes engine
efficiencies out the window. Is an extremely complicated design to
manufacture. We have no idea what maintenance will be like -- but parts
certainly will be expensive!

Your dead on about the sealing problems. Would like to know how many hours
operation before it gets to "leaky".

It will be a very pricy option with very questionable benefits.

Peter Singfield / Belize

>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From keith at journeytoforever.org Thu Jan 4 13:06:03 2001
From: keith at journeytoforever.org (Keith Addison)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers
In-Reply-To: <9b.f0f4757.2785c675@aol.com>
Message-ID: <v04210105b67a4920e73d@[211.133.19.31]>

>Mr. Keith Addison,
> I enjoyed reading your response to the comments about prime movers and
>other issues. Very accurate and succinct. Tom Taylor

Thankyou Tom! I hope you find it useful.

Best wishes

Keith Addison

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From keith at journeytoforever.org Thu Jan 4 13:06:07 2001
From: keith at journeytoforever.org (Keith Addison)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Re: Biodiesel question
In-Reply-To: <5a.f2626fa.27820ff1@cs.com>
Message-ID: <v04210106b67a49f41919@[211.133.19.31]>

Hello Douglas

>Keith,
>
>Couldn't agree more with the thinking and prospective direction for use of
>these waste byproducts. What you raise regarding fitness for use is really
>a very good example of a very poor application of economics without taking
>into account the true cost to society. BSE is a good example of this type
>of thinking.

Isn't it just, and the tip of the iceberg I fear. I found this: "The
existing system is that the waste vegetable oil is recovered,
clarified by filtering or centrifuging and may (or may not) be boiled
to drive off water and sterilise. It is then sold to animal feed
producers as a high protein additive. The danger to human health is
that the animal fats contained are then recycled into the human food
chain - one hamburger, contaminated by BSE (which is a protein),
having the ability to be spread, cannibalistically, to a large number
of cattle. This is a statistically small possibility, but one which
cannot be ignored. Making biodiesel from the waste vegetable oil
reduces the possibility to zero."

>I have a query regarding biodiesel. There are a number of farmers in my
>state (Victoria Australia) who are collecting this used vegetable oil and
>animal fats, filtering out the particulates and then using it directly in
>their tractors and other farm equipment. There are requirements such as
>starting on diesel and finishing on diesel but the bulk of their energy
>requirements is derived from using these perceived waste products directly.
>
>The small inconvenience they have on startup and shut down would seem to not
>make it worthwhile to actually process this material into biodiesel as it
>can be used directly.
>
>How far could one take this approach before the need to produce biodiesel
>became imperative?

Interesting question. I'm much in favour of straight vegetable oil.
We're planning to run a new system on trial in our vehicles, which
will be a fairly gruelling trial. The real test comes at low
temperatures. This system is from Canada and has performed well there
so far. Not much of an issue in Australia, but the cold is one
constraint. I think another is convenience - it won't bother you or
me or the farmers but, sad to say, the need to switch fuels and for
dual tanks won't be a big hit with your average SUV owner. Waste oil
or fat also needs careful filtering first.

Consumer foibles aside, quite a few people see it this way: "The most
practical and sustainable alternative transport fuel is straight
vegetable oil... Biodiesel is the second most practical alternative
fuel." I'm inclined to agree.

Where straight oil or fat can't replace biodiesel is in blends with
dinodiesel and as a lubricant additive for ULS diesel. Maybe the true
role of biodiesel is as a transition fuel as we progress back to the
good ol' days of 1892, Rudolf Diesel and peanut oil! He had it right
in the first place.

>Regards
>
>Douglas Costello

Best wishes

Keith Addison

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From keith at journeytoforever.org Thu Jan 4 13:06:07 2001
From: keith at journeytoforever.org (Keith Addison)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Simple Prime Movers
In-Reply-To: <C058888A18F6D3118D700008C79F15DD11E8B6@NT_COMMS_1>
Message-ID: <v04210102b67a3ec6788f@[211.133.19.31]>

Andrew Heggie <andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 01:39:43 +0900, you wrote:
>
> >Not only in the western world. But yes, very many of the existing
> >diesel vehicles are going to be around for a long time. For future
> >vehicles, the new PNGV diesel hybrids (80 mpg) seem ideal candidates
> >for biodiesel. And again there's the lubricity issue with the ULS
> >diesel fuel of the future.
>
>Just a couple of points as I suggest most of this discussion is better
>on BIOENERGY:

Yes, I'm a bit embarrassed about it, I wouldn't have started this
discussion here. But I should respond to some of your points.

<snip>

>I take the point, however home or small scale production is
>problematical, not least of which are that the byproduct is of poor
>quality and contains reagent that an industrial user would recover. I
>guess a home producer may use 50% more alcohol to produce the
>methoxide than an industrial system.

Of course it depends on FFA quantities, but not higher than 20%
methanol, and a new method uses only 11% methanol for a high-quality
product, even with lousy oil to start with. Other people are working
on the glycerine problem. Several worthwhile other uses for it so
far, but more work needs to be done on cleaning it.

<snip>

>This is an excellent point in a UK context, currently we rebate LPG
>exceedingly heavily, ostensibly as it is a low polluting transport
>fuel (there is an issue that it was becoming a problem because of
>increased production from gas distribution).

Less polluting at the tailpipe, but almost the same as other fossil
fuels in overall greenhouse gas emissions. Not a green fuel.

>If the current DTI
>greenfuels consultation results in a 20p/ltre reduction in road fuel
>costs then biodiesel will become a premium road fuel, it will not
>compete against rebated fossil fuels in stationary/agricultural uses.

A level of 20p per litre (as opposed to 48.82p per litre for ULSD)
has been proposed.

<snip>

> >not necessarily a separate issue. I think ethyl esters biodiesel is
> >the way forward, especially where local energy self-sufficiency is
> >important. Ethanol is clean and you can make it yourself, methanol is
> >toxic and usually fossil-fuel derived and you can't easily make it
> >yourself. But it needs anhydrous ethanol, currently a stopping point.
>Isn't the point here that synthesised methanol is anhydrous to start
>with, I thought you would have similar saponification problems with
>methanol if it were similarly contaminated with 5% water.

Yes you would have, and I think the ethyl ester process is more
sensitive to water. So we have to dry the ethanol. The new
small-scale stills will produce high proof, less water to remove.

<snip>

>It looks to me that co production of both ethanol and biodiesel would
>integrate well at a farm scale.

I think so too. Farm or village community. Especially as diesels will
also run on ethanol. And on straight vegetable oil. Lots of options.
Makes extra sense considering Ken C Calvert's point about the wide
availability of cheap engines from scrapped cars.

<snip>

>Still the possibilities of using the adsorption characteristics of
>cellulosic biomass to dry the ethanol/water constant boiling mixture
>to the anhydrous state and then use the biomass in a further heating
>role look interesting.

With corn grits (or wheat), you can regenerate it for further use,
and when it finally loses its efficiency you add it to the next batch
of mash to make more ethanol. A prof here in Tokyo has patented a
method of making high-quality mole sieves from kitchen wastes,
interesting.

<snip>

> >Electric transportation too often merely transfers the pollution from
> >one place to another, and in some cases the power generation can
> >cause more pollution, not less.
>
>Valid with a smart charge controller and a variable renewable source
>with no fuel cost, like solar or wind power in the absence of a grid
>intertie though.
><snip>
> >>BTW I drive a diesel Peugeot which will happily travel 100km on
>7 litres of
> >>biodiesel and when that is inappropriate for the trip, there is always my
> >>home built 4 seater EV which returns 100km for 29kWh drawn from the mains.
> >>With a top speed of 85mph, its a great car to drive!
> >
> >Well done. But can't you find a better source than the mains?
> >
>A quick calculation here suggests the diesel is likely to be more
>efficient use of fuel unless the electricity is surplus and generated
>by wind/wave/pv/hydro:
>
>Diesel 7ltre -> 75.82 kWhr(t) 25% conversion?? ->19kWhr per 100km
>electric 29kWhr per 100km
>
>So the electricity must be generated very efficiently to make the
>energy account balance, this neglects also the cost per kWhr of
>battery O+M and replacement, which I have seen calculated as high as
>USD0.13kWhr.
>AJH

Thankyou Andrew, very useful numbers to have.

Best wishes

Keith Addison

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From joacim at ymex.net Thu Jan 4 16:35:19 2001
From: joacim at ymex.net (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: dry enough, hot enough
In-Reply-To: <MABBLNDIPBCNELBBMAGDIEGFCAAA.p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10101042220570.1478-100000@localhost>

On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Peter M. Davies wrote:

> I am not sure that defining energy roles by the "quality" of the energy is
> as appropriate as using the right form of energy for the job.

And the right form of energy to get heat would be...heat? ;)

On the side of that, a thought struck me about drying wood today...

Wen putting wet or fresh cut sticks on a camp fire, the best way to make it
burn fast is to place it resting with each end on the stones around the
fire. The the water in the stick will start boiling in the middle of it
first, pressing out the rest of the water in the process, dripping off
at the ends outside the fireplace. Then most of the water doesn't have to
be vaporised to leave the stick. This saves some vaporisation energy for the
water when drying the stick. It works very well with birch, but poorly with
fir.

...could that be applied to a whole timber log? With microwaves, the added
heat could perhaps be concentrated to a small section of the log. Only
enough water to build up a sufficient pressure (and volume) would have to
be made boiling. That should be a both fast and efficient way to get most
of the water out from very wet wood. But then, maybe that's what you meant?

It would probably not work once the log has been sawn up (and fibres cut off
everywere), it would have to be a whole tree (or branch, or stick) I think.

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Jan 4 18:45:12 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Water + fuel mixes
In-Reply-To: <NEBBLHHHOLFOEGCILKHEOEHICDAA.kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>
Message-ID: <3A546D20.26CDDFF4@c2i.net>

"Antonio G. P. Hilst" wrote:
>
> Harry,
> Your msg recalls me what I heard in a diesel additives meeting: Scania, the
> swedish truck fabricator, recomends 3% ethanol as antifreezing agent.
> Antonio
>

..??? The fuel antifreeze agents and methods I am aware of, includes
the use of propanol or other alcohols to catch any water.

..ethanol as a fuel and coolant antifreeze agent is discouraged for
socio-political reasons and encouraged when used as a fossil fuel
replacement. ;-)

..more prominent here in the wintertime Diesel trucking, is the wax
"fiber" fallout, which plugs filters and in severe cases, fuel lines.
Here we add kerosine, going beyond 20% kerosine we also add 2-stroke oil
to protect the fuel pumps from seizure, as kerosine is a poor
lubricant.

..electric heating and (hot water) coolant heating of fuel lines, tank
and fuel pumps is also used.

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

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Fri Jan 5 06:03:41 2001
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: dry enough, hot enough
In-Reply-To: <MABBLNDIPBCNELBBMAGDIEGFCAAA.p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au>
Message-ID: <sj9b5tol30t9g3ut1sag9s3g3gduotev2g@4ax.com>

On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 22:43:28 +0100 (GMT-1), Joacim wrote:

>be vaporised to leave the stick. This saves some vaporisation energy for the
>water when drying the stick. It works very well with birch, but poorly with
>fir.

This is because of how they grow. The softwood has cells with pits in
the end for sap to pass up, the hardwood has cells dedicated as
vessels. I believe a test for dryness was to see if one could blow
through a log! I find though birch dries easily if crosscut and split.
It is so perishable that left whole in a stack the wood rots to a pulp
inside the bark.

This expression of water under pressure is one way that is used to
carry waterborne preservative into a log (the sap displacement
method). While it may be possible to replace the free, or cell content
water, by this method the problem of removing the water hydrating the
cell structure will remain. IIRC drying from green to 30% is removal
of this free water, from 30% down you are removing water that is
adsorbed onto the structure.

I would doubt microwaves could be economic on anything other than high
quality sawn boards unless the electricity was very cheap, in which
event there is not much of a case for bioenergy.

You should consider also that should a physical means of expressing
water be used the viscosity of the water and its capillary attraction
will go down as temperature goes up.

AJH
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au Fri Jan 5 06:27:59 2001
From: p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au (Peter M. Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: dry enough, hot enough
In-Reply-To: <00a401c076e4$b39ff6c0$b66360cb@renertech>
Message-ID: <MABBLNDIPBCNELBBMAGDOEHACAAA.p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au>

Dear Ken,

Not all the statements were mine but I agree with the sentiment and read
your experience with interest.

Drying with engine exhaust is also described in some Indian papers I have
seen. We intend to do it (in part) using the exhaust from 150kW diesal
engine on a sawmill we have to dry the sawdust/chip produced prior to
briquetting.

Cheers,
Peter

> To Peter Davies, Peter, Your figures on waste heat from the radiator and
> exhaust etc.of a gas engine as being sufficient to dry or indeed semi
> torrify the fuel used are well within reality in a practical sense.
> Spreading the wood out to dry in the sun is Not! Dry firewood,
> in the Third
> World, is a very valuable commodity and very scarce. You would be more
> likely to have it stolen than used for making gas. In practical
(Snipped)

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au Fri Jan 5 06:28:00 2001
From: p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au (Peter M. Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: dry enough, hot enough
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10101042220570.1478-100000@localhost>
Message-ID: <MABBLNDIPBCNELBBMAGDKEHACAAA.p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au>

Dear Joacim,

You said:

> And the right form of energy to get heat would be...heat? ;)

Oops

Still your following comments pick up some interesting thoughts.

Wood is an excellent insulator, the thicker the piece the much slower the
drying process until its core temperature is raised sufficient to do the
job. Eucalypts are particularly fussy, if heat is applied externally too
quickly and evaporation is faster than moisture transfer can take place from
the centre then spitting and cracking results ruining the board. Microwave
energy can be used to apply the heating evenly through the piece. Putting
the heat where it is most needed rather than heating dry wood to get at the
moisture inside.

Cheers,
Peter

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Fri Jan 5 10:34:46 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small scale biodiesel and ethanol ... NOT
Message-ID: <3e.5b18384.27874085@cs.com>

I agree that we should move "Biodiesel" discussion to BIOCONVERSION ...

But before we do maybe I can have a last word.

Making fuel alcohol or biodiesel is a chemical process. Even though I can do both in my kitchen as a curiosity, it is not an efficient use of my time or expertise. Eventually the process will be taken over by experts who have the time, the capital and the motivation to do it full time.

The history of ETHANOL as a "farm fuel" should be an object lesson to us all. In 1980 ETHANOL from grain burst on the scene (in Wisconsin) and many idealists thought this would be the process that would break the "hold" of the oil companies on our fuel production. Subsidies were enacted to help the small producer.

Result? Archer Daniel Midlands was able to use those subsidies far more efficiently than the small farmers (who had many other jobs and no expertise) to produce ethanol almost competitively with gasoline.

Now we have ADM producing most of the ethanol used as fuel in this country and the farmers have gone back to farming.

If BIODIESEL is going to be a favored diesel fuel, some large entity like ADM will likely produce it - not the shade tree mechanics who would have to go back to school for 4-8 years to learn chemical engineering in order to compete.

If I sound like Harry Parker, it is because we both speak from long experience as chemical engineers. I spent several years in 1989-1993 promoting biodiesel from waste oil, only to get in a law suit with a large company that left a very bitter taste in my mouth.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF

In a message dated 1/4/01 10:58:34 AM Mountain Standard Time, keith@journeytoforever.org writes:

Andrew Heggie <andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com> wrote:

Yes, I'm a bit embarrassed about it, I wouldn't have started this
discussion here. But I should respond to some of your points.

<snip>

Less polluting at the tailpipe, but almost the same as other fossil
fuels in overall greenhouse gas emissions. Not a green fuel.

A level of 20p per litre (as opposed to 48.82p per litre for ULSD)
has been proposed.

<snip>

Yes you would have, and I think the ethyl ester process is more
sensitive to water. So we have to dry the ethanol. The new
small-scale stills will produce high proof, less water to remove.

<snip>

>It looks to me that co production of both ethanol and biodiesel would
>integrate well at a farm scale.

<snip>

Thankyou Andrew, very useful numbers to have.

Best wishes

Keith Addison

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Fri Jan 5 10:36:50 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biodiesel question
Message-ID: <35.ef600ed.278740b9@cs.com>

(See my response in BIOCONVERSION).

Waste vegetable oil biodiesel might be practical for your own use if you have a good supply of WVO. However, you can't expect that the fuel market will accept it, coming from a such a variable supply. Warranties voided and all that.

So... you need to find your own niche or forget it....

TOM REED

In a message dated 1/2/01 12:04:18 PM Mountain Standard Time, kchishol@fox.nstn.ca writes:

Dear Tom

I am "new to biodiesel", and am very interested in your comment that it is inherently viable when made from waste vegetable oils.

Certainly, the diesel substitution market is more attractive than the furnace oil substitution market, but what concerns me initially is the cost of collection..... many small suppliers, widely distributed.

Would you be able to indicate roughly the "smallest economic unit" for biodiesel conversion, ie, how many litres per day would have to be processed so that the venture would be self-financing?

Assuming that the waste vegie oil is "free for the taking", how much does it cost to collect it? There would certanly be a limit to "restaurant density", so there would be a fair amount of driving for pick-up.

Given that there was enough "collection work" to keep the truck occupied, how many people would be required to operate the facility sized to process the "daily oil collection?"

Any general insights you could provide to give a general perspective on process attractiveness would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Kevin Chisholm

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gasification@crest.org [mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]On Behalf Of Reedtb2@cs.com
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 12:53 PM
To: gasification@crest.org
Cc: bioconversion@crest.org
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Biodiesel question

Dear Cal and all:

There is no doubt in my mind that biodiesel from WASTE vegetable oil is
viable. Growing new virgin oil is a much shakier proposition and probably
will cost 2 to 3 X as much. So, the answer depends on the cost of oil AND
our ability to raise crops without using oil. Could take a few decades to
kick the petroleum dependency. I hope we will have a few to spare.

The dreamers are always looking for miracle crops. We chemists try to
improve conversion efficiency instead.

Time will tell.... Yours truly, TOM REED
BEF/CPC

From costaeec at kcnet.com Fri Jan 5 10:54:37 2001
From: costaeec at kcnet.com (Jim Dunham)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: dry enough, hot enough
Message-ID: <000f01c0772d$7d1c1540$9d65f0d1@default>

Peter,

We build briquetting plants all over the world. Many could benefit from your
plans for drying.

Will trade briquetting knowledge for drying knowledge.

We also have some excellent used briquetters available.

Jim Dunham
Environmental Engineering Corp.
Kansas City, MO
816-452-6663
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter M. Davies <p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Friday, January 05, 2001 5:18 AM
Subject: RE: GAS-L: dry enough, hot enough

>Dear Ken,
>
>Not all the statements were mine but I agree with the sentiment and read
>your experience with interest.
>
>Drying with engine exhaust is also described in some Indian papers I have
>seen. We intend to do it (in part) using the exhaust from 150kW diesal
>engine on a sawmill we have to dry the sawdust/chip produced prior to
>briquetting.
>
>Cheers,
>Peter
>
>
>
>> To Peter Davies, Peter, Your figures on waste heat from the radiator and
>> exhaust etc.of a gas engine as being sufficient to dry or indeed semi
>> torrify the fuel used are well within reality in a practical sense.
>> Spreading the wood out to dry in the sun is Not! Dry firewood,
>> in the Third
>> World, is a very valuable commodity and very scarce. You would be more
>> likely to have it stolen than used for making gas. In practical
>(Snipped)
>
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From keith at journeytoforever.org Fri Jan 5 12:31:04 2001
From: keith at journeytoforever.org (Keith Addison)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Biodiesel question
In-Reply-To: <35.ef600ed.278740b9@cs.com>
Message-ID: <v0421010cb67bab16110c@[211.125.13.91]>

Dear Tom

Did you know you've been translated into Spanish? See "Elaborando
Bio-diesel en la cocina":
http://eureka.ya.com/energiaweb/cocina.htm

The fuel market does accept biodiesel made from waste vegetable oil,
see below (there are many others, especially in Europe). And, um,
quite a lot of the shade-tree mechanics are qualified chemical
engineers, and other kinds of engineers.

Best wishes

Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
Handmade Projects
Tokyo
http://journeytoforever.org/

NOPEC's Biodiesel Technology Unit has developed a flexible process
for the production of methyl or ethyl esters from a variety of
vegetable oil sources, such as used cooking oils, virgin soybean oil,
and the like... A commercial-scale demonstration operation, rated at
about 10 million gallons of esters and 1 million gallons of glycerin
per year, was completed in early 1996, and serves as both a
production operation and demonstration unit for the processing of
various feedstocks.
NOPEC Corporation Biodiesel Technology Unit
http://www.nopec.com/Technology.htm

World Energy Alternatives, LLC Becomes First Fuel Supplier To Offer
Virgin and Recycled Biodiesel
Cambridge, MA - World Energy Alternatives, LLC, the nation's leading
supplier of biodiesel, announces the capability to offer recycled
biodiesel in addition to its acclaimed virgin soy biodiesel... World
Energy increases its annual output by 15 million gallons and becomes
the first supplier ever to offer biodiesel derived from both
traditional and alternative feedstocks... World Energy supplies
biodiesel made from every available feedstock, including reclaimed
restaurant oil, imparting significant cost savings without
compromising its reputation as the most reliable and dependable
integrator of premium grade biodiesel and biodiesel blends... World
Energy adds more than two new fleets per week to its national list of
biodiesel users.
http://www.worldenergy.net

Biodiesel Development Corporation
"Renewable Alternative Fuel Meeting Global Energy Demands -
Non-toxic, Biodegradeable Diesel Fuel Made From Recycled Vegetable
Oils... Biodiesel is made from vegetable oil, recycled cooking oil
and tallow."
(CEO Joe Jobe is the head of the non-profit US National Biodiesel
Board industry lobby.)
http://www.pipeline.to/biodiesel/

Southern States Power Company
SSPC has reached a custom processing and distribution agreement with
a Florida biodiesel manufacturer, NOPEC Corporation (www.NOPEC.com),
that will allow production of up to 5 million gallons of OXyG B-60
Biodiesel fuel using used vegetable waste oils and greases from major
fast food companies such as McDonalds Corporation.... SSPC will
market OXyG B-60 Biodiesel at a price substantially below the
competition by producing OXyG B-60 Biodiesel fuel primarily from used
vegetable waste oils and greases.
http://www.sspowerco.com/

PACIFIC BIODIESEL, Inc. Our fuel, made on Maui from 100%-recycled
vegetable oil, meets both U.S. and German specifications for quality
biodiesel.
Pacific Biodiesel, Inc.
http://www.biodiesel.com/

>Dear Kevin:
>
>(See my response in BIOCONVERSION).
>
>Waste vegetable oil biodiesel might be practical for your own use if you have
>a good supply of WVO. However, you can't expect that the fuel market will
>accept it, coming from a such a variable supply. Warranties voided and all
>that.
>
>So... you need to find your own niche or forget it....
>
>TOM REED
>
>In a message dated 1/2/01 12:04:18 PM Mountain Standard Time,
>kchishol@fox.nstn.ca writes:
>
>
>>
>>
>>Dear Tom
>>
>>I am "new to biodiesel", and am very interested in your comment that it is
>>inherently viable when made from waste vegetable oils.
>>
>>Certainly, the diesel substitution market is more attractive than the
>>furnace oil substitution market, but what concerns me initially is the cost
>>of collection..... many small suppliers, widely distributed.
>>
>>Would you be able to indicate roughly the "smallest economic unit" for
>>biodiesel conversion, ie, how many litres per day would have to be
>>processed so that the venture would be self-financing?
>>
>>Assuming that the waste vegie oil is "free for the taking", how much does
>>it cost to collect it? There would certanly be a limit to "restaurant
>>density", so there would be a fair amount of driving for pick-up.
>>
>>Given that there was enough "collection work" to keep the truck occupied,
>>how many people would be required to operate the facility sized to process
>>the "daily oil collection?"
>>
>>Any general insights you could provide to give a general perspective on
>>process attractiveness would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>Kevin Chisholm
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-gasification@crest.org [mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]On
>>Behalf Of Reedtb2@cs.com
>>Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 12:53 PM
>>To: gasification@crest.org
>>Cc: bioconversion@crest.org
>>Subject: Re: GAS-L: Biodiesel question
>>
>>
>>>Dear Cal and all:
>>>
>>>There is no doubt in my mind that biodiesel from WASTE vegetable oil is
>>>viable. Growing new virgin oil is a much shakier proposition and probably
>>>will cost 2 to 3 X as much. So, the answer depends on the cost of oil AND
>>>our ability to raise crops without using oil. Could take a few decades to
>>>kick the petroleum dependency. I hope we will have a few to spare.
>>>
>>>The dreamers are always looking for miracle crops. We chemists try to
>>>improve conversion efficiency instead.
>>>
>>>Time will tell.... Yours truly, TOM REED
>>>BEF/CPC

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From joacim at ymex.net Sat Jan 6 02:08:41 2001
From: joacim at ymex.net (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: dry enough, hot enough...dead enough?
In-Reply-To: <sj9b5tol30t9g3ut1sag9s3g3gduotev2g@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10101051925080.1478-100000@localhost>

On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Andrew Heggie wrote:

>
> This is because of how they grow. The softwood has cells with pits in
> the end for sap to pass up, the hardwood has cells dedicated as
> vessels. I believe a test for dryness was to see if one could blow
> through a log! I find though birch dries easily if crosscut and split.
> It is so perishable that left whole in a stack the wood rots to a pulp
> inside the bark.

Incidently, I was just reading a chapter about charcoal making in a
handbook on chemistry from 1948 (ref 2 in Gengas). There is a short
paragraph there which surprised me a bit:

`Decayed damaged wood.
In general, the carbohydrates in the wood decays first, and thus the
remaining wood is enriched on lignine. Decay damaged wood gives
charcoals that are light, soft, and counted in wt-% of the dry material,
smaller amount of tar, turpentine oil, and acetum, but larger amounts of
methanol than corrensponing sound wood. Decay damaged wood gives
charcoals that in general are more inclined to spontaneous ignition than
charcoal from sound wood. Decay damages can be of a variety of types and
vary in progress. There are cases where lignine decayes before
carbohydrates.'

This actually suggests that slightly decayed wood would be /better/ fuel
for a gasifier.(?) Less tar, (more methanol,) more reactive...
But of course, less energy.

I mentioned this for a friend of mine who's been driving his car on
producer gas for a year and a half now. He said he noticed too, that he
"got better gas" with birch that had been a bit decayed. Birch doesn't have
any turpentine to begin with though. On the other hand, according to the
same chapter, tar from birch is particulary "rich", more like pitch, and
probably not something one would want to get into the motor. (Actually,
that type of tar, from birch, is also known as `creosote.' Perhaps best for
all if it just rots away then. ;)

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From zhivago at marick.co.uk Sun Jan 7 19:00:24 2001
From: zhivago at marick.co.uk (Donald Patrick)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier Info Request...
In-Reply-To: <87.4b9871c.277759dc@cs.com>
Message-ID: <200101080000.TAA13178@crest.solarhost.com>

Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 13:27:30 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300

Try WebSite www.marick.co.uk gasifing various oddbod fuels in Germany and
Holland.. Running IC Engines and a new triple fuel burner system to fire
boilers, to produce hot water.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Reedtb2@cs.com>
To: <tr@eeco.net>; <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: 24 December 2000 13:53
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier Info Request...

Hello Everyone,

Does anybody have a lead on a great gasification technology capable of
effectively converting 3 to 4 Tons Per Day, @ 25 to 35% moisture, 1cm max,
animal wastes into heat (with the future possibility of using an IC
engine/generator)

We have an immediate need for 1,000 to 2,000+ units per year. We would
like
to invest in or form a strategic alliance with a gasification company that
can provide a cost effective and environmentally responsible system. We
have no geographic constraints.

Thanks for the help everybody! . . . and HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

Tomek Rondio

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION, (EEC)
Renewable Energy Division http://www.eeco.net
Pollution Control Division http://www.eeco.net/pollution
E-mail eeco@eeco.net
294 9th Avenue · San Francisco · California · 94118 ·
USA
TEL (415)386-6424 · FAX (415)386-6484

EEC . . . for a cleaner and healthier natural environment through
advanced,
cost effective technologies.

>>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Mon Jan 8 18:54:19 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Biodiesel question
Message-ID: <9b.f38b051.278ba9db@cs.com>

Thanks for the info! Different strokes for different folks.

TOM REED

In a message dated 1/5/01 10:24:05 AM Mountain Standard Time, keith@journeytoforever.org writes:

r Tom

Did you know you've been translated into Spanish? See "Elaborando
Bio-diesel en la cocina":
http://eureka.ya.com/energiaweb/cocina.htm

Best wishes

Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
Handmade Projects
Tokyo
http://journeytoforever.org/

From keith at journeytoforever.org Mon Jan 8 23:07:53 2001
From: keith at journeytoforever.org (Keith Addison)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Biodiesel question
In-Reply-To: <9b.f38b051.278ba9db@cs.com>
Message-ID: <v04210123b68012de8c36@[202.233.244.100]>

>Dear Keith:
>
>Thanks for the info! Different strokes for different folks.
>
>TOM REED

Surely so, Tom. No need for thanks though, it was my turn - our
website is peppered with your excellent information, on the woodstove
page, gengas, on the biodiesel pages, etc etc (with links to you of
course!). For all of which, many thanks. I've been wanting to send
you the refs, I'll do so now.

Best wishes

Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
Handmade Projects
Tokyo
http://journeytoforever.org/

>
>In a message dated 1/5/01 10:24:05 AM Mountain Standard Time,
>keith@journeytoforever.org writes:
>
>
>>r Tom
>>
>>Did you know you've been translated into Spanish? See "Elaborando
>>Bio-diesel en la cocina":
>>http://eureka.ya.com/energiaweb/cocina.htm
>>
>>The fuel market does accept biodiesel made from waste vegetable oil,
>>see below (there are many others, especially in Europe). And, um,
>>quite a lot of the shade-tree mechanics are qualified chemical
>>engineers, and other kinds of engineers.
>>
>>Best wishes
>>
>>Keith Addison
>>Journey to Forever
>>Handmade Projects
>>Tokyo
>>http://journeytoforever.org/

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Jan 9 08:35:16 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Torrefied-densified biomass
Message-ID: <d.ebc5e2b.278c6a61@cs.com>

The widespread use of biomass energy depends on a convenient supply of large quantities of biomass. Densification can help with this because it makes many kinds of waste into a very acceptable - desirable fuel. Gasifiers, pellet stoves and woodgas stoves all benefit from using densified wood.

In 1979 we found in static tests on pelletizing that

Preheating reduced the needed pressure required by a factor of 2

Energy for densification was also reduced by a factor of 2 at 225 C

The energy content of the resulting pellets rose from 19.3 kJ/g at room temperature to 21.4 kJ/g at 225 C (23.0) at 250 C)

["Biomass Densification Energy Requirements", T. Reed, G. Trezek, and L. Diaz, in Thermal Conversion of Solid Wastes", J. L. Jones and S. B. Radding, ACS Symposium Series 130, Was. D.C., 1980. I still have the pellets in my "museum".]

In a recent article the Asian Institute of Technology found significantly reduced energy and die wear from preheating biomass before pelletizing.
~~~~~

Now (1982 actually) comes torrefied wood, (wood roasted at 200-250 C to remove primarily water and CO2, leaving a higher energy content and, lower mass for shipping).

The next obvious step would be to combine the two processes, Torrefying the wood and then immediately densifying it while it is hot and weak, thus compounding the benefits of both processes.

If anyone is interested in pursuing this I would be happy to cooperate with them.

In a message dated 12/19/00 8:41:32 AM Mountain Standard Time, heat-win@cwcom.net writes:

Dear All,

In connection with greenhouses you will find much interesting
information re. charcoal and torrefied wood at .

If for example tomatoes are being grown, the vines left over can be
torrefied and used to fuel the greenhouse heating. If there aren't
enough, then other renewable fuels such as wood pellets can be used.

Regarding the lime kilns, have a look at , in
particular the RofireTM link you will find there. Cement kilns are now
being heated using RofireTM pellets made from the un-reusable fibres,
plastic, etc, left over from the recycling of paper.

Whatever else you do to counter the natural gas and oil price crises,
please go out and plant more trees!

Regards,

Thomas J Stubbing

John Flottvik wrote:

Thomas B. Reed
President - The Biomass Energy Foundation
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
Reedtb2@cs.com; 303 278 0558

Research Director,
The Community Power Corporation,
8420 S. Continental Divide Rd.
Littleton, CO 80127
303 933 3135

From costaeec at kcnet.com Tue Jan 9 10:18:05 2001
From: costaeec at kcnet.com (Jim Dunham)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Torrefied-densified biomass
Message-ID: <001301c07a4c$ee5ab8c0$9d65f0d1@default>

Tom,

Makes sense, providing of course, that the heat source is
economical.

We have heated material prior to densification, but never to
the temperatures you suggest. I would guess the determining factors would be the
cost of the required heat and the transportation costs saved.

Would be glad to help develop some data.

Jim Dunham
Environmental Engineering Corp.
Kansas City, MO
816-452-6663
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid">
-----Original Message-----From:
Reedtb2@cs.com <<A
href="mailto:Reedtb2@cs.com">Reedtb2@cs.com>To: <A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org <<A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org>Cc:
Stoves@crest.org <<A
href="mailto:Stoves@crest.org">Stoves@crest.org>; <A
href="mailto:bioenergy@crest.org">bioenergy@crest.org <<A
href="mailto:bioenergy@crest.org">bioenergy@crest.org>Date:
Tuesday, January 09, 2001 7:25 AMSubject: GAS-L:
Torrefied-densified biomassDear All: The widespread use of
biomass energy depends on a convenient supply of large quantities of
biomass. Densification can help with this because it makes many
kinds of waste into a very acceptable - desirable fuel. Gasifiers,
pellet stoves and woodgas stoves all benefit from using densified wood.
In 1979 we found in static tests on pelletizing that
Preheating reduced the needed pressure required by a factor of 2
Energy for densification was also reduced by a factor of 2 at 225 C
The energy content of the resulting pellets rose from 19.3 kJ/g at
room temperature to 21.4 kJ/g at 225 C (23.0) at 250 C)
["Biomass Densification Energy Requirements", T. Reed, G. Trezek,
and L. Diaz, in Thermal Conversion of Solid Wastes", J. L. Jones and S. B.
Radding, ACS Symposium Series 130, Was. D.C., 1980. I still have the
pellets in my "museum".] In a recent article the Asian
Institute of Technology found significantly reduced energy and die wear
from preheating biomass before pelletizing.
~~~~~
Now (1982 actually) comes torrefied wood, (wood roasted at 200-250 C
to remove primarily water and CO2, leaving a higher energy content and,
lower mass for shipping). The next obvious step would be to
combine the two processes, Torrefying the wood and then immediately
densifying it while it is hot and weak, thus compounding the benefits of
both processes. If anyone is interested in pursuing this I
would be happy to cooperate with them. In a message dated
12/19/00 8:41:32 AM Mountain Standard Time, heat-win@cwcom.net writes:

<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
TYPE="CITE">Dear All, In connection with greenhouses you will
find much interesting information re. charcoal and torrefied wood at .
If for example tomatoes are being grown, the vines left over can be
torrefied and used to fuel the greenhouse heating. If there aren't
enough, then other renewable fuels such as wood pellets can be used.
Regarding the lime kilns, have a look at , in particular the
RofireTM link you will find there. Cement kilns are now being heated
using RofireTM pellets made from the un-reusable fibres, plastic, etc,
left over from the recycling of paper. Whatever else you do to
counter the natural gas and oil price crises, please go out and plant
more trees! Regards, Thomas J Stubbing John
Flottvik wrote: Thomas B. Reed President - The
Biomass Energy Foundation 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
Reedtb2@cs.com; 303 278 0558 Research Director, The
Community Power Corporation, 8420 S. Continental Divide Rd. Littleton,
CO 80127 303 933 3135

From zhivago at marick.co.uk Tue Jan 9 13:24:48 2001
From: zhivago at marick.co.uk (Donald Patrick)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tire gasification and pyrolysis
In-Reply-To: <61BCB4275920D211AA5700A0C9DB18FB0A449247@BVMAIL02>
Message-ID: <200101091824.NAA14125@crest.solarhost.com>

Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:50:16 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300

Please contact Donald Patrick on www.marick.co.uk at his headquarters in The
Netherlands.

----- Original Message -----
From: Pletka, Ryan J. <PletkaRJ@bv.com>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: 05 December 2000 18:00
Subject: RE: GAS-L: Tire gasification and pyrolysis

>
> For clarification, the "200,000+" is tons not tires.
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Tue Jan 9 13:38:28 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Torrefied-densified biomass
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4DAB@sp0016.epz.nl>

Dear Mr Reed,

Densification of biomass will be quite a relevant subject in the near future
for small systems as well as large.

Although CV's in the order of 20-23 MJ/kg for uncompressed torrefied biomass
constitute a substantial improvement even over pre-dried wood, generally
speaking there still remains the problem of lower specific volume.

I.e. the question remains how to feed sufficient product into a system
designed for higher CV as well as for higher density fuel. Like in case of
cofiring biomass in a coal fired utility grade power plant. A clear
constraint for future truely high cofiring rates certainly is to be found in
the "volume transport" of the fuel supply system. I can imagine that this
applies to other systems, non-specificly designed for biomass conversion, as
well. The general trick to make biomass conversion pay here is: minimal
plant modification at maximal energy input per unit of volume.

So, densification may be part of the answer to technically allow for higher
cofiring rates. And economical densification, by lowering pelletizing power,
the more so. Not to mention bulk transportation cost reductions almost
proportional to reduced volume. Therefore, a combination of pelletizing and
torrefaction in my opinion is certainly worth while investigating. Also,
there may be other shapes for the pressed product than small pellets.
Please count me in to help develop data for cofiring.

Best regards,
Andries Weststeijn
EPZ
Netherlands

> ----------
> Van: Reedtb2@cs.com[SMTP:Reedtb2@cs.com]
> Antwoord naar: gasification@crest.org
> Verzonden: dinsdag 9 januari 2001 14:21
> Aan: gasification@crest.org
> CC: Stoves@crest.org; bioenergy@crest.org
> Onderwerp: GAS-L: Torrefied-densified biomass
>
> Dear All:
>
> The widespread use of biomass energy depends on a convenient supply of
> large
> quantities of biomass. Densification can help with this because it makes
> many kinds of waste into a very acceptable - desirable fuel. Gasifiers,
> pellet stoves and woodgas stoves all benefit from using densified wood.
>
> In 1979 we found in static tests on pelletizing that
>
> Preheating reduced the needed pressure required by a factor of 2
>
> Energy for densification was also reduced by a factor of 2 at 225 C
>
> The energy content of the resulting pellets rose from 19.3 kJ/g at room
> temperature to 21.4 kJ/g at 225 C (23.0) at 250 C)
>
> ["Biomass Densification Energy Requirements", T. Reed, G. Trezek, and L.
> Diaz, in Thermal Conversion of Solid Wastes", J. L. Jones and S. B.
> Radding,
> ACS Symposium Series 130, Was. D.C., 1980. I still have the pellets in my
>
> "museum".]
>
> In a recent article the Asian Institute of Technology found significantly
> reduced energy and die wear from preheating biomass before pelletizing.
> ~~~~~
>
> Now (1982 actually) comes torrefied wood, (wood roasted at 200-250 C to
> remove primarily water and CO2, leaving a higher energy content and, lower
>
> mass for shipping).
>
> The next obvious step would be to combine the two processes, Torrefying
> the
> wood and then immediately densifying it while it is hot and weak, thus
> compounding the benefits of both processes.
>
> If anyone is interested in pursuing this I would be happy to cooperate
> with
> them.
>
> In a message dated 12/19/00 8:41:32 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> heat-win@cwcom.net writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> In connection with greenhouses you will find much interesting
> information re. charcoal and torrefied wood at .
>
> If for example tomatoes are being grown, the vines left over can be
> torrefied and used to fuel the greenhouse heating. If there aren't
> enough, then other renewable fuels such as wood pellets can be used.
>
>
> Regarding the lime kilns, have a look at , in
> particular the RofireTM link you will find there. Cement kilns are
> now
> being heated using RofireTM pellets made from the un-reusable
> fibres,
> plastic, etc, left over from the recycling of paper.
>
> Whatever else you do to counter the natural gas and oil price
> crises,
> please go out and plant more trees!
>
> Regards,
>
> Thomas J Stubbing
>
>
> John Flottvik wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thomas B. Reed
> President - The Biomass Energy Foundation
> 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
> Reedtb2@cs.com; 303 278 0558
>
> Research Director,
> The Community Power Corporation,
> 8420 S. Continental Divide Rd.
> Littleton, CO 80127
> 303 933 3135
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From hauserman at corpcomm.net Tue Jan 9 15:09:38 2001
From: hauserman at corpcomm.net (Hauserman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Torrefied-densified biomass
In-Reply-To: <d.ebc5e2b.278c6a61@cs.com>
Message-ID: <002501c07a77$48c5e6c0$e1f346cf@Hauserman>

Here we have the seeds of a good idea. I
still doubt that the economics would be immediately viable, but I can envision a
mobile unit that could coarsely chop, heat and densify, by roll compactor, corn
stover, bagasse or other agwaste at the point of collection. The cost would be a
trade-off against reduced transport costs, plus some quantified cost advantage
of the higher density at the point of use. So -- does anyone know of a
diesel-driven roll compactor - producing fairly sloppy briquettes or a
corrugated wafer product - whose ekhause heat might be adequate to raise the
feed to 225-260C ?? If the heat can be available, the means of efficient
heat transfer can be designed. I don't know that there's a market, but
this is worth thinking about.

Bill
Hauserman
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
Reedtb2@cs.com
To: <A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org"
title=gasification@crest.org>gasification@crest.org
Cc: <A href="mailto:Stoves@crest.org"
title=Stoves@crest.org>Stoves@crest.org ; <A
href="mailto:bioenergy@crest.org"
title=bioenergy@crest.org>bioenergy@crest.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 7:21
AM
Subject: GAS-L: Torrefied-densified
biomass
Dear All: The
widespread use of biomass energy depends on a convenient supply of large
quantities of biomass. Densification can help with this because it
makes many kinds of waste into a very acceptable - desirable fuel.
Gasifiers, pellet stoves and woodgas stoves all benefit from using
densified wood. In 1979 we found in static tests on pelletizing
that Preheating reduced the needed pressure required by a factor of
2 Energy for densification was also reduced by a factor of 2 at 225 C
The energy content of the resulting pellets rose from 19.3 kJ/g at
room temperature to 21.4 kJ/g at 225 C (23.0) at 250 C)
["Biomass Densification Energy Requirements", T. Reed, G. Trezek,
and L. Diaz, in Thermal Conversion of Solid Wastes", J. L. Jones and S. B.
Radding, ACS Symposium Series 130, Was. D.C., 1980. I still have the
pellets in my "museum".] In a recent article the Asian
Institute of Technology found significantly reduced energy and die wear
from preheating biomass before pelletizing.
~~~~~
Now (1982 actually) comes torrefied wood, (wood roasted at 200-250 C
to remove primarily water and CO2, leaving a higher energy content and,
lower mass for shipping). The next obvious step would be to
combine the two processes, Torrefying the wood and then immediately
densifying it while it is hot and weak, thus compounding the benefits of
both processes. If anyone is interested in pursuing this I
would be happy to cooperate with them. In a message dated
12/19/00 8:41:32 AM Mountain Standard Time, heat-win@cwcom.net writes:

<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"
TYPE="CITE">Dear All, In connection with greenhouses you will
find much interesting information re. charcoal and torrefied wood at .
If for example tomatoes are being grown, the vines left over can be
torrefied and used to fuel the greenhouse heating. If there aren't
enough, then other renewable fuels such as wood pellets can be used.
Regarding the lime kilns, have a look at , in particular the
RofireTM link you will find there. Cement kilns are now being heated
using RofireTM pellets made from the un-reusable fibres, plastic, etc,
left over from the recycling of paper. Whatever else you do to
counter the natural gas and oil price crises, please go out and plant
more trees! Regards, Thomas J Stubbing John
Flottvik wrote: Thomas B. Reed President - The
Biomass Energy Foundation 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
Reedtb2@cs.com; 303 278 0558 Research Director, The
Community Power Corporation, 8420 S. Continental Divide Rd. Littleton,
CO 80127 303 933 3135

From H.Parker at ttu.edu Tue Jan 9 17:45:19 2001
From: H.Parker at ttu.edu (Harry W. Parker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Torrefied-densified biomass
In-Reply-To: <d.ebc5e2b.278c6a61@cs.com>
Message-ID: <016701c07a8b$e39353e0$299b0f18@lbbck1.tx.home.com>

Hello Tom and all,

Why Torrefication? "Mother Nature" has
accomplished the task of densification and increasing the fuel value of biomass
very effectively. The resulting improved biomass is conveniently stored in
fireproof bunkers for our use for many many years. We call
the more convenient and higher energy form biomass lignite and coal.
It supplies more than 50% of our electrical needs. If it supplied more
electricity the problem in Calif for electricity and for all of us regarding
natural gas would be greatly reduced.

For those of you who choose to believe in global
warming my associates and I are now developing the technology to return the
resulting CO2 to secure geological bunkers -- deep saline aquifers.

Harry

Harry W. Parker, Ph.D., P.E.Professor of
Chemical Engineering & Consulting EngineerTexas Tech
UniversityLubbock, TX 79409-3121806.742.1759 fax 742.3552

From arcate at msn.com Tue Jan 9 19:28:58 2001
From: arcate at msn.com (Jim Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Torrefied-densified biomass
Message-ID: <001301c07a99$bdd965a0$715c1c3f@MSNarcate>

Hello all:

I have been away for awhile but I have to get a word in about my favorite
subject: torrefied wood (TW).

Tom Reed said:

The next "obvious step" would be to combine the two processes: torrefying
the wood and then immediately densifying it while it is hot and weak, thus
compounding the benefits of both processes. If anyone is interested in
pursuing this I would be happy to cooperate with them.

Transnational Technology with Thomas Stubbing and others have been looking
into using Airless Drying and Steam Torrefaction to manufacture lump TW and
TW pellets.

We plan to torrefy wood pellets coming hot out of an existing pellet mill as
the first step in production of TW pellets. Airless Drying the raw biomass
before pelleting could also be incorporated. Torrefying oversize biomass
before pelleting could reduce costs for grinding since TW is "friable".

Tom Reed, what sort of cooperation do you have in mind ?

James R. Arcate
Transnational Technology LLC
3447 Pipa Place
Honolulu, HI 96822-1221
(808) 387 9713
http://www.techtp.com

References: we talked about this in April 2000.
http://www.crest.org/renewables/bioenergy-list-archive/0004/msg00038.html
http://www.crest.org/renewables/bioenergy-list-archive/0004/msg00039.html

Tom Reed said "However, even better than roasting the wood would be roasting
followed by densification to pellets or briquettes while it is in its hot,
weak state. Should reduce the energy for briquetting by a factor of 2-5.

Jim Arcate said: We could also produce the pellets or briquettes from
"preheated" sawdust & bark and then torrefy the briquettes. Which is
"better" ? Please see page 66 of Section 7.4 of Carbonization &
Torrefaction of Briquettes at http://www.rwedp.org/acrobat/rm23.pdf

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au Tue Jan 9 21:42:41 2001
From: p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au (Peter M. Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Torrefied-densified biomass
In-Reply-To: <d.ebc5e2b.278c6a61@cs.com>
Message-ID: <MABBLNDIPBCNELBBMAGDOEHGCAAA.p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au>

Dear
Tom,

Yes, I came to the same conclusion some time ago
that the combination of torrefaction and densification applied to biomass was
the means of accessing diffuse biomass sources to produce high quality uniform
fuel (a pre requisite for large scale application and
development).

We
have been actively pursuing this over the last few years, and will have
over the coming months the means to test it in practice with an integrated plant
drying, preheating and briquetting green sawdust and chip from our own
sawmill.

This
is just one application. There are a number of ways to achieve the
necessary drying/pre heating, my preferred one is still awaiting practical
development. In the meantime I am putting it together as best I
can.

We have also identified the necessary
domestic and industrial markets and large waste sources of suitable material in
order to expand as concepts and their products are proven.

Your
1980 paper gave me the original opening into the possibilities. We
certainly are interested in co operating with anyone who shares this
view.

Best
Regards,

Peter
Davies
OOPS -
Owner Operated Power Systems
Australia
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">

From enquiryfr at yahoo.fr Tue Jan 9 21:45:03 2001
From: enquiryfr at yahoo.fr (=?iso-8859-1?q?Josephine=20Tse?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Combustion of methane
Message-ID: <200101100245.VAA27213@crest.solarhost.com>

To: gasification@crest.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I happened to come across several of your articles
talking about flame temperature. For combustion of
methane in pure oxygen, since the adiabatic flame
temperature can reach as high as 4000 oC, I am
wondering at such a high temperature, will there be
dissociation of carbon dioxide into carbon?

My laboratory intends to do some experiments on the
measurement of flame temperature of methane, what
instrument can serve the job and is there some
standard methods to do test?

Appreciate and thank for your responses in advance!

Regards
Josephine

___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Pour dialoguer en direct avec vos amis,
Yahoo! Messenger : http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From H.Parker at ttu.edu Wed Jan 10 08:21:24 2001
From: H.Parker at ttu.edu (Harry W. Parker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Combustion of methane
In-Reply-To: <200101100245.VAA27213@crest.solarhost.com>
Message-ID: <01d401c07b06$3dedf8c0$299b0f18@lbbck1.tx.home.com>

Hello Josephine and all,

The answer to your questions depends on the ratio of O2 to CH4 considered.
CO should also be included in your considerations.

You need to use a computer program which will minimize the Gibbs free energy
of the selected mixture and do an energy balance to estimate the flame
temperature. These programs are common in chemical process simulators,
such as ChemCad, Aspen, etc.

I would strongly recommend the simulators over trying to take experimental
measurements.

Harry W. Parker, Ph.D., P.E.
Professor of Chemical Engineering
& Consulting Engineer
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409-3121
806.742.1759 fax 742.3552

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Wed Jan 10 13:20:53 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: Torrefied-densified biomass
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4DAD@sp0016.epz.nl>

Hello Mr Tom Reed and Mr Harry Parker,

Harry writes:
> Why Torrefication? "Mother Nature" has accomplished the task of
> densification and increasing the fuel value of biomass very effectively.
> The resulting improved biomass is conveniently stored in fireproof bunkers
> for our use for many many years. We call the more convenient and higher
> energy form biomass lignite and coal.
>
Is clear to those of us who actually work with coal (including yours truly).
Fact of the matter is that those coal plants -at least overhere- are forced
to partially convert to "green coal" in order to partially switch from a
long to a short carbon cycle etc. Those 500 odd US coal plants will not stay
unaffected either.

I don't want to debat the GHG carbon cycle here (again), but I do like to
point to the practical aspects of bulk biomass usage in PC-cofiring service.
This is a straightforward technical issue, being limited, among other things
and given an existing plant, quite simply by the unwieldy volume per
GigaJoule of biomass energy to be fed into that system.

So, whereas torrefaction upgrades the very energy content per kg (very
good!), densification will help reduce that volume (great!).

Let's see whether torrefaction+densification will come out more economical
than Harry's storage of CO2 in deep saline aquifers.

regards,
Andries Weststeijn
EPZ
Netherlands

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk Wed Jan 10 13:41:21 2001
From: Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: Torrefied-densified biomass
In-Reply-To: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4DAD@sp0016.epz.nl>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGAELJCAAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>

Hi all
There is a great deal of waste heat around the Coal power stations here in
the UK (30% efficiency only!)
I guess the problem is that the Biomass is too far away!

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gasification@crest.org [mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]
On Behalf Of Weststeijn A
Sent: 10 January 2001 18:07
To: Reedtb2@cs.com; gasification@crest.org; 'Harry W. Parker'
Cc: Stoves@crest.org; bioenergy@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: RE: Torrefied-densified biomass

Hello Mr Tom Reed and Mr Harry Parker,

So, whereas torrefaction upgrades the very energy content per kg (very
good!), densification will help reduce that volume (great!).

Let's see whether torrefaction+densification will come out more economical
than Harry's storage of CO2 in deep saline aquifers.

regards,
Andries Weststeijn
EPZ
Netherlands

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From jmdavies at xsinet.co.za Wed Jan 10 16:40:54 2001
From: jmdavies at xsinet.co.za (John Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Torrefied-densified biomass
In-Reply-To: <001301c07a99$bdd965a0$715c1c3f@MSNarcate>
Message-ID: <001201c07b4c$78a53dc0$26d4ef9b@p>

> Tom Reed said

> "However, even better than roasting the wood would be roasting
> followed by densification to pellets or briquettes while it is in its hot,
> weak state. Should reduce the energy for briquetting by a factor of 2-5.

As a newbie to bio-mass, do I understand correctly that the process gives
off flammable gas ?, which can be used for part of the heat required for the
process.?

Further, as my interest lies with gasifing the fuel in a steam locomotive,
any improvement in heat value and density will be beneficial due to limited
grate area and carrying capacity.

I am therefore following this thread with great interest, and will
definitely be doing some back-yard experiments as soon as my understanding
of the subject is sufficient.

John Davies,
Secunda.
South Africa.

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From joacim at ymex.net Wed Jan 10 17:01:03 2001
From: joacim at ymex.net (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Torrefied-densified biomass
In-Reply-To: <d.ebc5e2b.278c6a61@cs.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10101102110360.9376-100000@localhost>

On Tue, 9 Jan 2001 Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:

> Energy for densification was also reduced by a factor of 2 at 225 C

With total efficiency numbers in mind, the gain ought to be even bigger
than a factor two:
If the efficiency for producing mechanical power (for the densification
process) is 25% (compared to producing 100% heat rather than shaft
power/electricity from the original energy source, whatever that would be),
we have a factor 2*(1/0.25) = 8

>
> The energy content of the resulting pellets rose from 19.3 kJ/g at room
> temperature to 21.4 kJ/g at 225 C (23.0) at 250 C)

Due to losses? Or how else could the energy /per weight/ increase?
(assuming both kinds of pellets were about as bone dry, ...which on second
thought they perhaps aren't)

The pellets I have is only 17.6 kJ/g, i.e. just like plain dry wood (which
indeed is all it is ;)

The text on the bag says it contains "no additives". Apparently, something
else but wood is sometimes added when making pellets. What additives would
that be?

(manufacturer is www.brikettenergi.se btw, says so on the bag)

It's not cheap, about 3-4 times the price of ordinary firewood, counting
dry weight. It's convenient though.

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From JWCARTER33 at aol.com Wed Jan 10 17:09:32 2001
From: JWCARTER33 at aol.com (JWCARTER33@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: producer gas
Message-ID: <f3.66d68db.278de1a2@aol.com>

To: gasification@crest.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 108

Hello all,

I'm trying to locate information on the component gases produced by a typical
gasifier (e.g. methane, CO, etc.). I realize that all gas streams will
vary, and am interested in generalities only.

Thanks for your help

Jeff carter
j.carter@biofuels.com

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Wed Jan 10 17:23:12 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Torrefied-densified biomass
Message-ID: <d7.d371b9.278e37a0@cs.com>

1) Coal lends itself to very large scale use because of the requirements for removing sulfur. During WWII Hitler's synthetic fuel industry (and steel industry) ran on coal.

However, there were over a million gasifiers running on wood blocks because they can be gasified at the 10-100 kW level because there is no sulfur and steam is not required. So there is room for both.

2) Hold on a minute. I am counting on that CO2 in the atmosphere to avert or moderate the coming ice ages. Don't stick it back in the ground. That's what nature did and that's why we have ice ages.

What is worse? A 3 meter rise in the ocean level or a 400 meter drop with all the water collecting at the poles as in 12,000 years ago?

TOM REED

In a message dated 1/9/01 3:37:32 PM Mountain Standard Time, H.Parker@ttu.edu writes:

Hello Tom and all,

Why Torrefication? "Mother Nature" has accomplished the task of densification and increasing the fuel value of biomass very effectively. The resulting improved biomass is conveniently stored in fireproof bunkers for our use for many many years. We call the more convenient and higher energy form biomass lignite and coal. It supplies more than 50% of our electrical needs. If it supplied more electricity the problem in Calif for electricity and for all of us regarding natural gas would be greatly reduced.

For those of you who choose to believe in global warming my associates and I are now developing the technology to return the resulting CO2 to secure geological bunkers -- deep saline aquifers.

Harry

From p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au Thu Jan 11 02:58:36 2001
From: p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au (Peter M. Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Torrefied-densified biomass
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10101102110360.9376-100000@localhost>
Message-ID: <MABBLNDIPBCNELBBMAGDOEHKCAAA.p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au>

Dear all,

The advantage of torrefaction in association with densification is it is a
complementary step which both upgrades the fuel quality and assists the
densification process by plasticising the lignin component prior to
compression.

On cooling thermosetting takes place in the new form, further assisting
binding and retention of pellet or briquette shape. In practice we would
see the benefits in lower energy costs or higher output for the same energy
levels and lower wear on components, this has been amply proven in tests.

But wait there's more.... The briquettes are now hydrophobic and can be
stored in the open without serious deterioation (try that with an ordinary
pellet/briquette !), they are easy to ignite, and burn with a smokeless
character (the lighter polluting fractions have already been driven off
during torrefaction), their energy density is higher than bone dry wood and
their own moisture content will be less than 3%. Finally TW is friable,
easily crushed and pulverised for use in conventional PC plants through
existing coal handling equipment, no expensive refits to add biomass to the
coal diet of power plants.

There are implications here for densification machinery manufacturers as
well as boiler makers but I won't go into those.

Still people insist on expensive one off gasifier designs when if we put
together a fuel standard first then gasifiers might appear in bulk based on
a common "fuel" and cheap enough for everyone with a biomass source.

Cheers,
Peter

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au Thu Jan 11 03:13:25 2001
From: p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au (Peter M. Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Torrefied-densified biomass
In-Reply-To: <001201c07b4c$78a53dc0$26d4ef9b@p>
Message-ID: <MABBLNDIPBCNELBBMAGDMEHKCAAA.p.m.davies@bigpond.com.au>

John,

We have a historical rail society here who run monthly steam trains out of
Canberra on a otherwise disused spur line. I have considered before that
they would be a potential user of torrefied wood(TW) briquettes in place of
coal (although I fear they are addicted to heavy black smoke which would be
absent if they burned TW briquettes, and think this is might detract from
the overall experience).

However if designing a gasifier/boiler combination then TW either in block
form or pellets/briquettes would have many unique advantages over other
fuels. See my other just sent message to the list.

Jim Arcate has the best TW reference site on the web WWW.techtp.com suggest
you start there.

Cheers,
Peter Davies

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gasification@crest.org
> [mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]On Behalf Of John Davies
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 6:57 AM
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Torrefied-densified biomass
>
>
>
> > Tom Reed said
>
> > "However, even better than roasting the wood would be roasting
> > followed by densification to pellets or briquettes while it is
> in its hot,
> > weak state. Should reduce the energy for briquetting by a factor of 2-5.
>
> As a newbie to bio-mass, do I understand correctly that the process gives
> off flammable gas ?, which can be used for part of the heat
> required for the
> process.?
>
> Further, as my interest lies with gasifing the fuel in a steam locomotive,
> any improvement in heat value and density will be beneficial due
> to limited
> grate area and carrying capacity.
>
> I am therefore following this thread with great interest, and will
> definitely be doing some back-yard experiments as soon as my understanding
> of the subject is sufficient.
>
> John Davies,
> Secunda.
> South Africa.
>
>
> The Gasification List is sponsored by
> USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
> and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
> Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
> http://www.nrbp.org/bio2000.htm
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Jan 11 09:53:21 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: producer gas
Message-ID: <1e.fd0cb98.278f1f9f@cs.com>

A typical gas from downdraft gasifiers contains..

CO, 22; H2, 18; CH4, 2; CO2, 8; N2, 50 all volume percent.

The raw gas will contain 1000 ppm "tar" and 10-1000 ppm particulate (char-ash)

TOM REED

In a message dated 1/10/01 3:00:00 PM Mountain Standard Time, JWCARTER33@aol.com writes:

Hello all,

I'm trying to locate information on the component gases produced by a typical
gasifier (e.g. methane, CO, etc.). I realize that all gas streams will
vary, and am interested in generalities only.

Thanks for your help

Jeff carter
j.carter@biofuels.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Jan 11 09:53:40 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Torrefied-densified biomass
Message-ID: <c.fc02b18.278f1fa0@cs.com>

Sounds like you have a bag of wood pellets, not torrefied wood (which is dark brown, and no one makes them yet).

TOM REED

In a message dated 1/10/01 2:52:02 PM Mountain Standard Time, joacim@ymex.net writes:

On Tue, 9 Jan 2001 Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:

> Energy for densification was also reduced by a factor of 2 at 225 C

>
> The energy content of the resulting pellets rose from 19.3 kJ/g at room
> temperature to 21.4 kJ/g at 225 C (23.0) at 250 C)

Due to losses? Or how else could the energy /per weight/ increase?
(assuming both kinds of pellets were about as bone dry, ...which on second
thought they perhaps aren't)

The pellets I have is only 17.6 kJ/g, i.e. just like plain dry wood (which
indeed is all it is ;)

The text on the bag says it contains "no additives". Apparently, something
else but wood is sometimes added when making pellets. What additives would
that be?

(manufacturer is www.brikettenergi.se btw, says so on the bag)

It's not cheap, about 3-4 times the price of ordinary firewood, counting
dry weight. It's convenient though.

Joacim
-

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Thu Jan 11 12:05:57 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Torrefied-densified biomass
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4DB8@sp0016.epz.nl>

Hello Peter Davis,

You write:
> Finally TW is friable,easily crushed and pulverised for use in
> conventional PC plants through existing coal handling equipment, no
> expensive refits to add biomass to the coal diet of power plants.
>
I am interested in this very aspect.
However, I foresee cofiring of TW eventually being restricted by volume if
one indeed wants to stay away from expensive refits of the fueling system.
Thus my interest in densification AFTER torrefaction.
In a separate Email Tom Reed indicates that he "made pellets easily with
densities over 1.3 g/cm3 which is roughly twice that of unpressed TW.
So it appears a volume reduction by a factor of 2 would perhaps be possible.

You continue:
> There are implications here for densification machinery manufacturers as
> well as boiler makers but I won't go into those.
>
Given my interest, could you please expend on the "implications for boiler
makers" as you see them?

regards,
Andries Weststeijn

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From enquiryfr at yahoo.fr Thu Jan 11 12:24:16 2001
From: enquiryfr at yahoo.fr (=?iso-8859-1?q?Josephine=20Tse?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Combustion of methane
Message-ID: <200101111724.MAA30235@crest.solarhost.com>

To: gasification@crest.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Bonjour!

So, you are suggesting that it will be VERY difficult
and imprecise to measure the flame temperature of
methane in pure O2 combustion. Is that right?

What about methane combustion in air? I anticipated
that the adiabatic flame temperature will be much
lower and is around 1800-2000 oC (depending on the
excess air). In this case, will it be a higher
possibility of measuring the flame temperature more
precisely (& easily)? At this temperature range, how
would you comment on the possibility of having CO2
dissociation into C and/or CO?

Thanks & regards
Josephine

___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Pour dialoguer en direct avec vos amis,
Yahoo! Messenger : http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Thu Jan 11 13:13:09 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Torrefied-densified biomass
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4DBA@sp0016.epz.nl>

Tom Reed writes to Harry Parker et al (wed Jan 10th):
> 1) Coal lends itself to very large scale use (..of cofiring, I assume /
> AW) because of the requirements for removing sulfur.
>
Indeed, and I may add:
by partly substituting biomass derived fuels for coal (like
torrefied-densified bio-fuel) there are additional advantages to be had.
Even tradeble credits if you like. On the NOx front as well as in helping to
push down mercury emission levels (now so hotly debated at the US East
coast).

However, in order to make a real dent in emissions levels, the biomass
substitution needs to take place on a substantial scale. Pulverized coal
plants can handle a substantial "base load" of bio-fuels. But obviously "the
price must be right", varying from region to region. The regional break-even
price will be reached sooner, the more the biofuels resemble coal better.
Torrefied-densified fuels may just help reach that break-even price quicker
in more locations.

Next to cofiring solid bio-fuels there will be plenty of room for biomass
gasification of certain bio-feedstocks (after all, this is the GAS-L list).

regards,
Andries Weststeijn

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From A.Weststeijn at epz.nl Thu Jan 11 15:08:18 2001
From: A.Weststeijn at epz.nl (Weststeijn A)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: Torrefied-densified biomass
Message-ID: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4DBD@sp0016.epz.nl>

Hello Gavin,

> Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote on woensdag 10 januari 2001:
> There is a great deal of waste heat around the Coal power stations here in
> the UK (30% efficiency only!)
> I guess the problem is that the Biomass is too far away!
>
A bit of numerical perspective "from the field":

1. We won't like comparing the potential of biomass gasification on the
basis of WW2 gasifier vintage. Equally we won't like comparing the potential
of biomass cofiring on the basis of outdated coal plants.

2. A 15 year old pulverized coal plant -built back then as state-of-the-art
plant- typically has an efficiency of 40%. That is 1/3 better than Gavin
quotes.
A 5 year old coal plant typically has an efficiency of 43%.
A recent coal plant (like in Denmark) goes to 45%.
The big european design study presently running (with british utilities and
boiler+turbine companies involved) aimes at 50% for around 2010.

We operate a 7 year old 600 MWe coal plant in heat-and-power service (yes,
only gasturbines plants usually get credit for that, but coal plants can do
just as well) at better than 50% efficiency overall.

3. Biomass is too valuable a commodity to NOT convert in the most efficient
way.
Biomass does not come cheap either. Whether the price is being paid for
growing, ag waste collection, or additional plant modifications etc, it is
sure not a free ride.
But in reasonably up to date plants a fair amount of energy can be extracted
even nowadays.

4. Personally, I prefer to look ahead a few years to where bulk biomass
cofiring may play an increasingly large roll. The averige plants with
sufficient life time expectancy left at that point in time, will sure be
running at 40% efficiency or better. In heat-and-power service (district
heating, greenhouses etc) at 50% or better.

Hope this gives some perspective.
Coal is black, indeed, but coal plants can handle friable solid fuels well
with little modification. That is just what they are designed for.
So how to make that biomass friable, economically, that's the 100$ question.
Torrefaction+densification may provide part of the answer.

Best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From joflo at yifan.net Thu Jan 11 15:28:45 2001
From: joflo at yifan.net (Joel Florian)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: science fair project
Message-ID: <006601c07c0b$a2778440$459570d1@joel-s>

Dear gassifiers,

A high-school student friend has asked me to help her design a science fair
experiment. I suggested gasification and she's willing to try it. Now to
me, this project has far-reaching implications. This school is located very
near a sawmill -- in fact, the owners and workers send their children to
this school. I've been trying to sell the owners on the idea of a
cogeneration plant using gassified sawdust and sawmill waste. I don't think
money is the problem -- it is unproven high technology in their minds. I
think if a quiet, skinny high-schooler can do a simple simple presentation
of gassification and explain that people have been making wood into charcoal
for thousands of years....

At the very least I'd like to build a copy of Tom Reed's inverted downdraft
cookstove. (With your permission Tom) If I could borrow the gold-insulated
quartz tube described in some of Tom's gasification books, that would be
even better -- because everyone could see what was going on inside. Some of
Alex Engish's contraptions might be pretty impressive, too. I may be a
rash dreamer, but what I really envision:

My dream: student walks onto stage carrying a metal 5 gallon bucket, a lid
for the bucket (with integrated combustion chamber, Tesla Turbine, and
alternator),
some copper tubing, a small blower, newspaper, matches, and a feed sack of
sawdust. She first secures the bucket to the floor with bolts, then
removes the lid, fills the bucket to 4" from the top with sawdust. Then she
balls up 2 or 3 pages of newspaper, tosses them into the top of the bucket
and lights them with a match. While they are catching, she secures the
blower to the side of the bucket (near the floor, obviously there would need
to be a hole in the bucket and an extra port in the outlet of the blower --
to be used later.) By now the paper should be glowing embers and some of
the sawdust glowing too so it's time to turn on the blower. As the flames
get hotter and brighter, the lights can be dimmed. She simply puts the lid
on the bucket and connects the copper tubing from the aux blower port to the
air intake of the combustion chamber... Dim the lights further. First a
low growl begins to issue from the machine. Increasing to a nasal whine. A
few sparks fly out of the exhaust. The whine increases in pitch and volume
until it is a scream. Student casually reaches over and flips a switch --
LIGHT! A large bank of light bulbs (or a huge arc lamp) illuminate the
room. While everyone is catching their breath and adjusting to the light,
she sets a trivet and a kettle over the exhaust of the turbine. Within 30
seconds, the kettle is boiling and she pours herself a cup of tea, sits down
within 2 feet of her contraption, crosses her legs and begins her
explanation of cogeneration. After the sawdust has burned itself out and
the room lights are back on, she pours the remainder of her tea into the
bucket, removes the fan at the bottom, and holds her cup under the hole to
collect clear water.

I welcome your comments, criticism, (applause too :) ), and certainly any
concerns you have for safety and viability. Safety; ease of construction;
ease of use; simple, uncluttered appearance; small expense; and a "high
impressiveness coefficient" are high priorities for this project

Thanks,
Joel Florian

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk Thu Jan 11 15:34:14 2001
From: Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: Torrefied-densified biomass
In-Reply-To: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4DBD@sp0016.epz.nl>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGKELOCAAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>

Hi Andries

Sorry my figures are clearly not up to date.
Yes it is good if we can burn torriefied wood in a conventional power plant
this saves the cost of building a complicated biomass fuelled plant- reduces
risk to investors etc.
However if the torrefication process (necessarily carried out near the
forest) uses energy and then the TW fuel is transported to the Power
station (more energy) Is there a net benefit in CO2 emissions displaced? And
is the cost of TW fuel at the Power station gate competitive with Coal??
All the best
Gavin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gasification@crest.org [mailto:owner-gasification@crest.org]
On Behalf Of Weststeijn A
Sent: 11 January 2001 19:55
To: 'gasification@crest.org'
Subject: RE: GAS-L: RE: Torrefied-densified biomass

Hello Gavin,

Best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Thu Jan 11 16:08:28 2001
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ''Terrified'' wood and other forms of biomass
In-Reply-To: <E1780666C205D211B6740008C728DBFE9F4DBD@sp0016.epz.nl>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20010111205427.00901100@pop3.demon.co.uk>

Dear Group,

I'm not one for the philosophical etc. discussions, but I would like to
draw your gaze from gasification for a few moments. My initial apologies
to the gasification enthusiasts not interested in pyrolysis.

I have been observing comments on ''complicated'' biomass fuelled plants,
etc. and the issues of gasification, torrefaction etc. to make an energy
product. I have observed, as there is not an appropriate ''pyrolysis''
newsgroup, that the advantages of pyrolysis for the production of a more
energy dense fluid is frequently overlooked.

Accepted, fast pyrolysis is someway behind gasification in some respects,
in terms of commercial developments, however, it does have advantages,
which some gasification zealots should consider.

Everyone is discussing wood conversion to ''energy'', whether it is heat or
electricity. The advantage of a fast pyrolysis liquid is that it can be
used to make more valuable chemicals. Where do you think your chemicals
are going to come from when oil [eventually] runs out?

In the 1920's and 1930's, most bulk chemicals - methanol, acetic acid etc.
came from wood distillation plants, admittedly not the most environmentally
friendly processes at that time. Companies like Lambiotte, France and
Chemviron Carbon, Germany, PB Broste, Denmark, etc. have viable businesses
based on chemicals from wood, not at the same scale as crude oil
production, but viable, profitable businesses. I'm not going to enter the
debate on methanol synthesis via gasification - enough of this was funded
by the European Commission and many other governments in the 1980's and the
results are widely available.

Biomass via [fast] pyrolysis should be reviewed in a ''bio-refinery''
concept - use the biomass to make the most suitable products. One example
is the use of raw liquids to make slow release nitrogenous fertilisers -
high value chemicals with significant environmental benefits, resins for
OSB, recovery of levoglucosan from cellulose pyrolysis products, to name
some of the possibilities, SOx and NOx reducing agents, etc. Make some
liquids for electricity via an engine or turbine [under development] and
use the rest for chemicals and special products.

As rightly stated in previous messages, and certainly here in the UK,
biomass is a commodity, not a waste, and it commands a high price. Energy
is one of the lowest value commodities in Northern Europe [US$ 0.015/kWh]
and pool price in the UK is a mere 2.2 p/kWh. That's partly why over
100MWe of contracted power via the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation in the UK,
some of which is via gasification, some via pyrolysis, is still not in
operation after 6 years...

My humble commentary................

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Jan 11 17:51:39 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Combustion of methane
Message-ID: <c4.e522b66.278f8fae@cs.com>

Bonjour!

So, you are suggesting that it will be VERY difficult
and imprecise to measure the flame temperature of
methane in pure O2 combustion. Is that right?

Correct

No significant dissociation in air flames. The problem is that the gases have very low density and any physical object you put in the flame to measure immediately radiates the flame heat away, and so can give a temperature 500-1000 C lower than the true temperature. So you need to measure the temperature spectroscopically, calorimeetricaly etc.

Thanks & regards

Josephine

Pleasure... TOM REED

From joacim at ymex.net Fri Jan 12 02:11:17 2001
From: joacim at ymex.net (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Torrefied-densified biomass
In-Reply-To: <c.fc02b18.278f1fa0@cs.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10101111909240.18691-100000@localhost>

On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 Reedtb2@cs.com wrote:

> Dear Joachim:
>
> Sounds like you have a bag of wood pellets, not torrefied wood (which is
> dark brown, and no one makes them yet).

Yes it's a bag of wood pellets, which oddly enough is why I called it just
that. ;)

What was the 19.3 kJ/g then? Was the halved densification energy for the
torrefied pellets compared to something other than ordinary wood pellets?

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Jan 12 07:01:46 2001
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: science fair project
In-Reply-To: <006601c07c0b$a2778440$459570d1@joel-s>
Message-ID: <3A5EEEC5.2DD2EA51@c2i.net>

Joel Florian wrote:

> My dream: student walks onto stage carrying a metal 5 gallon bucket, a lid
> for the bucket (with integrated combustion chamber, Tesla Turbine, and
> alternator),

..forget the Tesla, you want a mower engine driving that alternator.
McCullough, Brigg&Stratton whatever.

> some copper tubing, a small blower, newspaper, matches, and a feed sack of
> sawdust. She first secures the bucket to the floor with bolts, then

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

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Fri Jan 12 09:28:42 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: Torrefied-densified biomass
Message-ID: <64.a40a952.27906b4b@cs.com>

Thanks for the coal perspective.

During WW II cheap coal carried the energy load for large installations.

More expensive biomass carried the load for small gasifiers, home heat etc.

It is not unlikely that this mix will continue where the convenience of biomass fuels and pellets, briquettes justifies cost at a small scale, but coal always can win in plants designed for it.

I came across the (Indian?) saying "The present foreshadows the future" the other day. How about, "The past and present guide the future"?

TOM REED BEF/CPC

In a message dated 1/11/01 1:01:50 PM Mountain Standard Time, A.Weststeijn@epz.nl writes:

Hello Gavin,

Best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Fri Jan 12 09:29:08 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: science fair project
Message-ID: <c8.f4ceed6.27906b48@cs.com>

Whoa! Very ambitious project. Where are you?

A simple natural draft stove or room heater would be a big enough bite to take first before adding on turbines etc. By all means try the natural or forced draft stoves. I wish I had a single desisgn to recommend, but each experiment is different - and (I hope) better than the last, so my stoves and heaters are always in a state of (improving) flux.
~~~~~~~
I have been impressed with the pellet stoves on the market - but they cost ~ $1,000. They can be run unvented for a long time, though venting is recommended. I have built a wood gasifier heater for my garage that cost < $20, using galvanized stovepipe parts. I have run it unvented in my garage for heating a few times and believe I can get it clean enough so venting won't be necessary. If you don't have to vent, you get 100% heat to the room (110% based on low heating value of wood).

I will describe my "room heater" and welcome comments from Alex.

My most recent experiment has been a non vented heater for my garage. It consists of a gasifier, a burner, and a heat exchange-chimney.

The gasifier was a 2 ft tall piece of 5 inch stovepipe with a stove pipe plug on the bottom using a slide valve to control air entry for gasification. I put some insulation inide the plug and a small wire grate on top of it.

The burner was a 5 inch to 4 inch reducer inserted in the top of the gasifier. In the first model there were four rows of 20 3/16 inch holes along the face of the reducer (total 80 holes).

A 2 ft 4 inch stove pipe on top of that acted as a heat exchanger and vented to the room.

I filled the gasifier with wood chips and lit the TOP with a layer of alcohol soaked chips, then put the burner-chimney on top. In a minute or two there were beautiful flames emanating from each hole, visible (with mirror) down the chimney.

It burned ~ 1/2 hour on the volatiles and another 1/2 hour on the remaining charcoal. It would burn much longer on wood pellets. It heated my garage from 5 C to 15 C.

There was a faint smell of burning wood at the end of the time. (No headache. ) My next step (Saturday) is to insulate the burner section and put an 8 inch insulating "venturi" constriction in the chimney to permit combustion to be more complete before heat exchange with the chimney starts. I hope to have NO smell and NO CO.

Good to have a CO meter available for experiments and it will look more scientifice. Available at Sears etc. for ~ $50.

I would welcome Alex's comments on this. I believe he has used venturi constrictions in natural draft chimneys. Any advice on venturi size etc?

Keep in touch...

Yours truly TOM REED BEF

In a message dated 1/11/01 1:17:09 PM Mountain Standard Time, joflo@yifan.net writes:

Dear gassifiers,

Thanks,
Joel Florian

From snkm at btl.net Fri Jan 12 11:21:09 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Returning to Gasification of Biomasses
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010112100345.0090db80@wgs1.btl.net>

Hi Folks;

Well, it would appear from the recent string of postings that we are at
loss regarding coming up with real topics regarding gasification. Let me
establish a new thread that gets us right back into this subject.

Most of my spare time for the past year or so has been dedicated to a
complete review of just what Gasification may have going for it.

Tom -- your stove example just posted is really where the answer lays.
Ultimate simplicity.

Let me continue along these lines.

The big problem with the present state of the art is over complication of a
basic premise.

Some where along the line of development designers got caught up in using
the producer gas product of biomass gasification for IC engines. This
injected untold complications into the biomass gasification process.

Re: No tars!!

In the rush to produce a clean product we are now immersed in designs of
ever increasing mechanical complexity! Further, we have entered the very
objectionable area of fuel conditioning.

Biomass fuel has to be exactly such and such a humidity level. Fuel has to
be exactly such and such a size -- no discrepancies allowed -- or call off
all bets!!

I do not believe gambling and design engineering go together!!

The goal is to have a usable fuel for the least amount of effort!!

To be able to burn a biomass fuel mixture of varying physical size. From
dust to blocks.

As example -- to "chip" green woods and burn these at 45% humidity would be
"reasonable" for fuel conditioning. Wood chipping being long a well
developed process that requires the minimum of energy to accomplish in a
straight forward manner a uniform fuel "conditioning". Drying chips to 45%
humidity is easily accomplished using just a small amount of "waste" heat
in a simple device. Further, green wood biomass can even be at 45%.

OK folks -- download a diagram of and description of such a gasification
device at:

http://www.hurstboiler.com/multic.htm

This is an excellent device for converting biomass to steam at the greatest
of efficiencies using the gasification process.

The problem is converting steam to net power.

In this example (Multi Fuel Hybrid furnace/Boiler) we are limited by low
pressure and temperature steam. To low for high steam-heat to
mechanical-energy conversion efficiencies.

But to build this boiler for high efficiency temperature/pressure steam
would price it out of the market -- that market being small power plants
for 3rd world.

Well, I have been very busy designing a solution to this -- and it revolves
around binary working fluids.

I have been preparing a text supporting how this can be applied to a
gasifier boiler. It has grown quite large as it goes from theory to
practice. I use as examples existing technology -- existing plants.

One of the problems of converting this technology to practical use in small
"Power" plants is the cost of high efficiency steam to mechanical energy
conversion devices. At present -- this is an expensive multi-stage turbine.
So I have designed a simple unaflow steam engine that can operate on
"back-pressure".

All this folks is well along the road.

I am shooting for greater than 50% over all power plant efficiency. That is
50% plus of fuel btu value coming out as "net" electrical power!

This in a "plant" size as small as 5 kwh!!

And all components of extremely economic nature.

No more gas cleaning, fuel conditioning, loss of heat -- etc. etc. You put
a shovel of wood chips in (or sawdust -- or sander dust -- or rice husks --
or hogged anything) and out comes 50% plus of the btu heat value as
electrical power.

Sounds like a dream? Well, start with the furnace I reference. I'll start
posting the workings of binary fluid power plants -- bit by bit.

Finally I will clearly demonstrate a simple reciprocating unaflow engine
that will handle heat to power conversions at efficiency levels equal if
not greater than turbines -- but at sizes from 1 kwh to 500 kwh.

We need no torrefaction -- no "pellets" -- no exotic fuel drying mechanisms
-- no gas product "cooling" and cleaning.

Further -- I happily invite all the criticisms possible pointing out why
this can never be done. In the end -- I promise that all on this list will
be convinced it can!!

I will be using "off-the-shelf" technology to "prove" this concept -- and
we start with the boiler/furnace pointed to above.

Stay tuned -- next is the thermodynamics of binary working fluids power
conversions.

Biomass gasification is "real". It just got lost going down a dead end.
Time to turn round and find the right road to the destination. That being
practical application now!

Peter Singfield / Belize

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From joflo at yifan.net Fri Jan 12 13:56:03 2001
From: joflo at yifan.net (Joel Florian)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: science fair project
Message-ID: <003f01c07cc7$ba068720$2c9570d1@joel-s>

Dear Tom, I live in Alaska -- about 100 miles from Valdez
(ironic that I should be thinking about wood gasification when there is a huge
oil pipeline pumping millions of gallons per day very close to me).
Your burner is beautifully simple. I don't understand the bottom part with
plug, insulation, grate and slide valve. Why do you need insulation?
Is the slide valve on the side of the stovepipe or is it perpendicular --closing
off the whole pipe? Would this work with sawdust? (sawmill sawdust
which is chips approximately 1/16" x 1/8" x 1/4") Or would the pressure
drop across the sawdust be such that I would need a blower at the bottom?
I'd like some way to make the flames visible for the science project -- could I
scale it down and use a kerosine lamp chimney for a "heat exchanger" and
convection inducer? Is there some way we could pipe the gas from the
gasifier to a little single-burner stove? That would be more impressive
(to the casual observer) than flames inside a stovepipe. I will
definately get a CO alarm.

I read in a live-off-the-land book that you can build a simple
sawdust stove with a coffee can and a piece of pipe. I hope I remember
correctly. I think you punch a whole bunch of holes around the bottom edge
of the coffee can, set the can bottom down on the ground, hold the pipe upright
in the center of the can and pack sawdust in the annular space between the can
and the pipe. When full, remove the pipe and use diesel, paper, tinder,
etc to start a fire in the center hole. According to the book, it burns
hot and smokeless for a long time. If I rememer the design right, that
would be a simple crossdraft gasifier, right? (seems like I remember
something about a hole in the center and the can being propped up on rocks too,
so it may not even be acting as a gasifier)

One other thing: the only reason I keep thinking about
Tesla turbines instead of reciprocating engines is that the TT won't mind
eating ash and tar and I don't want to mess with filters etc for a Briggs.
How long could I run an old briggs on raw wood gas before it seized up? If
I ran it for say 10 hours would it be ruined?

Joel Florian, Alaska
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Dear Joel and Alex: Whoa! Very
ambitious project. Where are you? A simple natural draft
stove or room heater would be a big enough bite to take first before
adding on turbines etc. By all means try the natural or forced
draft stoves. I wish I had a single desisgn to recommend, but each
experiment is different - and (I hope) better than the last, so my stoves
and heaters are always in a state of (improving) flux.
~~~~~~~
I have been impressed with the pellet stoves on the market - but they cost
~ $1,000. They can be run unvented for a long time, though venting
is recommended. I have built a wood gasifier heater for my garage
that cost < $20, using galvanized stovepipe parts. I have run it
unvented in my garage for heating a few times and believe I can get it
clean enough so venting won't be necessary. If you don't have to
vent, you get 100% heat to the room (110% based on low heating value of
wood). I will describe my "room heater" and welcome comments
from Alex. My most recent experiment has been a non vented
heater for my garage. It consists of a gasifier, a burner, and
a heat exchange-chimney. The gasifier was a 2 ft tall piece of
5 inch stovepipe with a stove pipe plug on the bottom using a slide valve
to control air entry for gasification. I put some insulation inide
the plug and a small wire grate on top of it. The burner was
a 5 inch to 4 inch reducer inserted in the top of the gasifier.
In the first model there were four rows of 20 3/16 inch holes along
the face of the reducer (total 80 holes). A 2 ft 4 inch stove
pipe on top of that acted as a heat exchanger and vented to the room.
I filled the gasifier with wood chips and lit the TOP with a
layer of alcohol soaked chips, then put the burner-chimney on top.
In a minute or two there were beautiful flames emanating from each
hole, visible (with mirror) down the chimney. It burned ~
1/2 hour on the volatiles and another 1/2 hour on the remaining charcoal.
It would burn much longer on wood pellets. It heated my garage
from 5 C to 15 C. There was a faint smell of burning wood
at the end of the time. (No headache. ) My next step
(Saturday) is to insulate the burner section and put an 8 inch insulating
"venturi" constriction in the chimney to permit combustion to be more
complete before heat exchange with the chimney starts. I hope to
have NO smell and NO CO. Good to have a CO meter available for
experiments and it will look more scientifice. Available at Sears
etc. for ~ $50. I would welcome Alex's comments on this.
I believe he has used venturi constrictions in natural draft
chimneys. Any advice on venturi size etc? Keep in touch...
Yours truly
TOM
REED BEF In a message dated
1/11/01 1:17:09 PM Mountain Standard Time, joflo@yifan.net writes:

<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"
TYPE="CITE">Dear gassifiers, A high-school student friend has asked
me to help her design a science fair experiment. I suggested
gasification and she's willing to try it. Now to me, this project
has far-reaching implications. This school is located very near a
sawmill -- in fact, the owners and workers send their children to this
school. I've been trying to sell the owners on the idea of a
cogeneration plant using gassified sawdust and sawmill waste. I
don't think money is the problem -- it is unproven high technology in
their minds. I think if a quiet, skinny high-schooler can do a
simple simple presentation of gassification and explain that people have
been making wood into charcoal for thousands of years.... At the
very least I'd like to build a copy of Tom Reed's inverted downdraft
cookstove. (With your permission Tom) If I could borrow the
gold-insulated quartz tube described in some of Tom's gasification
books, that would be even better -- because everyone could see what was
going on inside. Some of Alex Engish's contraptions might be
pretty impressive, too. I may be a rash dreamer, but what I
really envision: My dream: student walks onto stage carrying a
metal 5 gallon bucket, a lid for the bucket (with integrated combustion
chamber, Tesla Turbine, and alternator), some copper tubing, a small
blower, newspaper, matches, and a feed sack of sawdust. She
first secures the bucket to the floor with bolts, then removes the lid,
fills the bucket to 4" from the top with sawdust. Then she balls
up 2 or 3 pages of newspaper, tosses them into the top of the bucket and
lights them with a match. While they are catching, she secures the
blower to the side of the bucket (near the floor, obviously there would
need to be a hole in the bucket and an extra port in the outlet of the
blower -- to be used later.) By now the paper should be glowing
embers and some of the sawdust glowing too so it's time to turn on
the blower. As the flames get hotter and brighter, the lights can
be dimmed. She simply puts the lid on the bucket and connects the
copper tubing from the aux blower port to the air intake of the
combustion chamber... Dim the lights further. First a low
growl begins to issue from the machine. Increasing to a nasal whine.
A few sparks fly out of the exhaust. The whine increases in
pitch and volume until it is a scream. Student casually reaches
over and flips a switch -- LIGHT! A large bank of light bulbs (or
a huge arc lamp) illuminate the room. While everyone is catching
their breath and adjusting to the light, she sets a trivet and a kettle
over the exhaust of the turbine. Within 30 seconds, the kettle is
boiling and she pours herself a cup of tea, sits down within 2 feet of
her contraption, crosses her legs and begins her explanation of
cogeneration. After the sawdust has burned itself out and the room
lights are back on, she pours the remainder of her tea into the bucket,
removes the fan at the bottom, and holds her cup under the hole to
collect clear water. I welcome your comments, criticism,
(applause too :) ), and certainly any concerns you have for safety
and viability. Safety; ease of construction; ease of use; simple,
uncluttered appearance; small expense; and a "high impressiveness
coefficient" are high priorities for this project Thanks, Joel
Florian

From snkm at btl.net Fri Jan 12 14:21:31 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Returning to Gasification of Biomasses
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010112125148.008e0a90@wgs1.btl.net>

At 01:19 PM 1/12/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>Dear Peter
>
>You do have a lot of good points in your proposed system. However, you have
>some bad points, too!! :-)
>
>I doubt very much that you can get 50% "wood to wire" efficiency.... this is
>phenomenal.
>
>1: Wood combustion and heat recovery in a boiler is perhaps in the range of
>85% efficient...... this covers losses up the stack, and heat losses from
>the boiler system.
>

First -- moisture content of fuel does not enter this formula -- simply
lowers the but value -- and we are aiming at 50% of the btu value.
Traditional losses increase with wet fuels due to moisture/vapor losses up
the stack. However -- residential "condensing" furnaces (hot water) get
better than 90%. I am not working with steam -- but isobutane vapor. The
isobutane vapor produced by a heat exchanger -- hot (pressurized) water one
side -- isobutane to vapor the other side. Efficiency near 100% for that
pass-over.

My cold side return from the isobutane circuit will be passing through an
economizer -- condensing water vapor in stack gasses -- before returning to
water/isobutane heat exchanger.

>2: A generator is about 90% efficient.... the losses are friction, windage,
>resistance, etc.

Actually -- better than 95% but agreed -- exotic.

But I am seriously looking at linear generators -- remember -- small
systems here.

Check:

http://www.sunpower.com/tech_papers/pub68/purdue.html

"Efficiencies of 92 % are typical but can be higher at greater cost.
Efficiency has been verified with dynamometer tests. The efficiency remains
almost constant from rated power down to about 25% of rated power."

And -- "Look Ma -- no spur gears!!"

>
>3: An "engine" has a pure mechanical efficiency of about 90%.... the losses
>are friction, windage, pumping, cooling, parasitic electrical loads, etc.
>(Bear in mind that one of the most "efficient" machine elements is a spur
>gear set; they run about 98% efficiency.) What I mean here by efficiency is
>that whatever energy the engine generates, 90% will be available to do
>useful work.

Again -- you can reasonably increase that to 95%. for instance -- I will be
using nylon for piston sealing. Molibium disulfide impregnated teflon for
piston followers -- etc. Plus linear generation of electrical power.

>
>SO... right away we drop to .85*.90*.90 = 61.2% of input energy remaining.
>To end up with a "net efficiency" of 50%, one has to have a "conversion
>engine" with a thermodynamic conversion efficiency of:
> 50%/61.2% = 81.6%
>

.85*.90*.90 = 68.8 percent

.95*.90*.95 = 81.2 percent

>Carnot Cycle Efficiency is an absolute maximum of "(T2-T1)/T2"
>where T2 is the highest temperature of the working fluid, T1 is the lowest
>working fluid temperature (eg, condenser) You hafta use Absolute
>Temperatures.
>
>Assume 1,500 F steam temperature, and 100F condensor temp. . Carnot Cycle
>efficiency is a max of:
>[(1500+460) - (100+460)]/ (1500+460) = (1960-560)/1960 = 1400/1960 = 71%
>Max. Cycle eff.
>
>Even with 1,500F steam temperature, you still cannot get near tyhe 81%
>required cycle efficiency, to yield 50% overall efficiency.

Glad to have you on board Kevin. The basic premise is working fluid
efficiency is totally dependent on how much heat one invests above the
change of state temperature. Efficiency is the ratio of that energy
(extractable) over heat of vaporization energy (non-extractable).

Your quite right about steam. One has to go to a very "exotic" (exotic
turbine blades as example) 1500F temperature to achieve that efficiency
level with "steam".

Now go to this site and work out what you can do with iso-butane at say a
more reasonable (from mechanical perspective) 600F.

http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/fluid/

Now -- to begin getting an idea of dual working fluid -- or "binary cycle"
systems check out these Urls:

http://id.inel.gov/geothermal/articles/reed/index.html

http://doegeothermal.inel.gov/geothermal/

Can give you quite a few more. Here is just one example of operating plant:

http://ogdencorp.net/energy/oei/geo.htm

Then there is the Kalina Cycle which promises even more "cheating" of
Carnot Cycle -- which is specific to water as a working fluid -- and is not
the end all regarding how to extract mechanical energy from heat!!

http://doegeothermal.inel.gov/fy95/energy/enrgy05.htm#I6

Now you could still be right -- maybe we can only get a "piddling" 40% over
all efficiency to start. But if they can claim possible over all
efficiencies for a coal fired "steam" plant in England -- I do not feel
uncomfortable claiming the same for my purposes.

This list has been sleeping with WWII technology to long!! The world of
science moves on -- and my point is that this list can also jump on for the
ride. But first -- it has to lose a whole lot of preconceived concepts.

Later I will "attack" the conventional wisdom of partial combustion
gasifiers that supply producer gas. We would be much better to look at
steam reformation of biomass directly to synthesis gas. And I can supply
some interesting Urls regarding experimentation along those lines.

Direct conversion of biomass to synthesis gas in a hot water bath. Granted
- very hot! Still -- no need to dry fuel at all -- and no matter what the
physical characteristics of the fuel. From synthesis gas -- all forms of
chemical conversions to so many important industry chemicals and portable
fuels are available. Hey -- from sewage sludge to rice husks -- insert and
produce synthesis gas!

We really have been missing the boat here -- time to say good bye to WWII
technology and move on -- or even -- move back by another 100 years --
where these style technologies were already being practiced with success.

Of course -- I certainly would enjoy visiting that WWII gasifier museum!
But then, I would also visit an motorcycle racing museum and look over that
old Harley Flat Head Road racer! But neither would I advise a developing
country to get involved with.

Technology moves on folks --

Check out those Urls and then come back at me!!

Peter

>
>Kindest regards,
>
>kevin

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Fri Jan 12 14:33:04 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Binary Cycle Biomass Gassification Power Plants
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010112131521.008e0a90@wgs1.btl.net>

Folks --

Here is the "Intro" to a paper I am preparing regarding binary cycle power
plants using biomass gasification.

Peter Singfield / Belize

The following article is in regards to designing a simple external
combustion engine for use in alternative energy production from biomasses.
Specifically the gasification process -- where a device partially combusts
the biomasses resulting in producer gas as a "product".

There are two popular methods for utilizing a biomass gasifier to produce
mechanical energy. One is through firing a conventional steam power plant.

The other is direct use of gasifier product as a fuel gas in an internal
combustion engine.

As this article goes into great depth further on -- conventional steam
power plants are not cost effective below 10 megawatts. But for a good
example of such -- one need only to study the fine Foster wheeler,
fluidized bed gasifiers. These gasify biomass to directly fire conventional
steam power plants. Starting size -- 9.4 megawatts.

For years now there has been a movement to adapt biomass gasification to
small and micro power plants. Those being in the range of 5 to 1000 kWh
production. And especially in the 50 to 500 kWh range. A great amount of
research has been invested in: conditioning" producer gas product to direct
fire internal combustion engines. The main objective being to clean the
product of tars so that the engines are not destroyed.

Ergo -- industry has been concerned with cleaning producer gas sufficiently
to directly operate an internal combustion engine to produce mechanical
energy in the 5 kw to 1 megawatt areas - some even going to the 5 megawatt
area. This has been accomplished, but it has been at great cost in extra
complications in gas cleaning devices and loss of thermal efficiencies
resulting from such processing.

Over all efficiencies - here defined as total btu value of fuel put in over
net power derived - is 21% for the fluidized bed gasifier/boiler/steam
turbine as incorporated in the Foster Wheeler example above and 16% in the
direct fueling of I.C. engines.

In the end -- one can easily conclude that producer gas from biomass for
small power plants can be viable only as long as the device stays simple
and reliable. And using a gasifier device to run an internal combustion
engine rapidly loses ground in achieving this goal.

Further - the simplest producer gas to IC engine designs use diesel
supplementation. That is they supplement diesel fuel by up to 65%
(ideally). So one is still dependent on fossil fuels - 35% worth.

Biomass gasifiers not concerned with high tar levels can operate with fuel
containing up to 50% humidity, compared to gasifiers for IC engine
operation that require fuel with no more than 17% humidity. Further, these
still require a complicated scrubbing/cleaning operation to be preformed on
the product after exiting the gasifier.

The "dirty" producer gas supplied by the first example burns very well. In
fact, can be used to replace any other "heating" gas. Gas fired boilers are
much less complicated than solid fuel fired boilers.

As the product of this style gasifier requires no cooling to condense out
tars there are no thermodynamic losses. The hot product from the gasifier
(up to 1800 F) is fed directly to the boiler furnace. This is a gain of at
least 10% in "over-all" thermal efficiencies when compared to product
prepared for IC engines where the gas must be cooled to less than 250 F to
condense tars.

Direct firing of product from biomass gasifier results in great
simplification of the entire process since no fuel conditioning is required
to eliminate tars. Gasifier design varies greatly according to how free of
tar one wished the product to be. Gasifiers designed for product to fire
furnaces can burn widely assorted fuel shapes mixed together and of
relatively high humidity content (drying biomass is an expense to be
avoided as much as possible).

Gasifiers for IC engines are restricted in fuel requirements to keep tar
levels as low as possible. They require uniform consistency fuels -- no
"dust" - and within a strict sizing perspective -- not to large -- not to
small -- plus 17% or less humidity. The devices required to further scrub
out all residual tars includes cooling the very hot product to a low
temperature - - losing a large amount of residual thermal energy. The
mechanical apparatus required for filtering and scrubbing the cooled
product before introduction to the IC engine are complicated, expensive,
maintenance intensive and prone to failure.

So why not just stick with direct firing a steam boiler?

Steam boilers and devices for mechanical conversion (today - that is only
turbines) are extremely costly! Steam power plants require very high
temperatures and pressure to get any efficiency numbers. And this increases
prices accordingly.

Modern power plants fire exotic high temperature, high pressure, boilers
through direct combustion of coal. Exotic steam turbines convert the high
temperature, high pressure, steam produced to electrical energy. They
achieve better than 40% over all efficiencies in conversion of fuel to
electrical energy.

But in order to get these results they need operate at temperatures of 1400
F or more and pressures greater than 5000 PSI.

This means exotic materials and extremely expensive devices. So much so
that for the micro, to small to medium gasifier application -- the system
is simply not cost effective.

To pay for this kind of technology one has to be planning to produce 50
megawatts or more of Electrical power. And in fact -- most modern coal
fired power plants along these lines -- are in the Gigawatt classes. Where
no expense is spared in gaining over all efficiency points - even to super
conducting generator sets.

Why this horrendous scale of economics when using steam?

The problem lies in the thermodynamic principles involved when using steam
as a working fluid.

A steam engine (or turbine) depends on a liquid/vapor phase change. That is
liquid water is injected into a boiler -- turned to steam. The steam is
then directed into a device that converts the steam expansion (from intake
down to exhaust pressure) mechanically to produce power. The steam is
voided in vapor phase. In normal practice it is condensed after the exhaust
at a low pressure (vacuum) to allow full expansion inside of the engine and
recover the working fluid.

Thermodynamically we have a problem with this. To make water pass through
the liquid to vapor stage requires a lot of heat energy.

********* to be continued**********
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From tmiles at teleport.com Fri Jan 12 16:17:07 2001
From: tmiles at teleport.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fifth Biomass Conference of The Americas, Orlando, Sep 17-21, 2001
Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010112125817.00da4920@mail.teleport.com>

Fifth Biomass Conference of the Americas
Orlando, Florida
September 17-21, 2001
Papers and posters, September 18-20.
Optional technical tours, September 21.

Sponsoring Organizations:
U.S. Department of Energy (Offices of Power, Fuels, and Industrial
Technologies), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Canada, and
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

http://www.nrel.gov/bioam/

Reminder -- deadline for submitting papers is February 28, 2001

Preliminary Topics
Papers are invited on the following topics:
Biomass resources - advances in biomass production, residues availability,
soil sustainability, and related environmental topics
Bioenergy products - advances in conversion for a wide range of bioenergy
products
Integrating emerging technologies with conventional energy systems -
exploring synergisms
Biobased products - advances in production of commodities, intermediate
products, fine and specialty chemicals, and natural fibers and derivatives
Biomass refineries: the link between biobased and bioenergy products -
food/forest products refineries; emerging refineries based on sugars, syn
gas, and new fractionation technologies
Environmental and ecological impacts of bioenergy and biobased products -
includes life cycle analysis and impact assessment methodologies
Public/private partnerships - examples of success stories
Social acceptability of bioenergy and biobased products - international,
regional, national, and local approaches and methodologies
Policies for market development - federal, state, and local programs; policy
framework development to accelerate penetration; and incorporation of
externalities

For additional information:
Fifth Biomass Conference of the Americas
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Attention: Dee Scheaffer
1617 Cole Boulevard, MS-1613
Golden, Colorado USA 80401-3393
FAX: 303-275-2905

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Fri Jan 12 16:56:49 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Binary Cycle Biomass Gassification Power Plants #2
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010112153906.0090dcd0@wgs1.btl.net>

Ok Folks --

Continuing this saga ---

Peter Singfield in Belize

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

Thermodynamically we have a problem with this. To make water pass through
the liquid to vapor stage requires a lot of heat energy.

As example:

At sea level atmospheric pressure (14.696 psi) water at 212 deg. F. will
boil producing saturated steam. Let us look at the exact thermodynamic nature.

To boil one pound of water under these conditions requires 1077.5 BTU total.

That is broke up in this manner.

180 BTU to heat the water from 32 F (yes -- that is always the theoretical
starting point) to 212 F (Energy invested in the saturated liquid state)
and 897.5 to change the state from liquid to vapor.

Now this "steam" is of no quality to produce mechanical energy in an
expansion engine -- being at atmospheric pressure only.

So in effect -- one invests a total of 1077.5 btu per pound of heat energy
and cannot extract any mechanical energy by expansion.

So lets move up the line a little.

An old style boiler/engine unit -- still relatively expensive compared to
an equivalent I.C. engine of the same capacity -- but feasible -- can
operate at say 150 PSI (358.42 Deg. F.) and with a super heat of maybe 150 F.

OK -- looking this over thermodynamically -- starting with saturation
conditions -- superheat later.

To get one pound of water to reach saturated steam under these conditions
requires:

In older steam apllications, such is this present example, there is no
condensor. So for simplicity, we can say the feed water will be 212 F

150 btu to get the water from 212 F to 358.42 F

780.5 btu is required to change from liquid to steam.

One now has a total of 930.5 btu of heat invested per pound of water.

How much of this heat is available for conversion to mechanical energy??

Not very much at all!! Here is why.

As soon as this "saturated" (meaning steam just at the point of
vaporization with no extra heat energy) is "expanded" (be it a piston
engine or turbine) its stability is destroyed. Rather than have an
expanding gas -- you have a gas condensing into a liquid -- and there goes
the "push".

Pressure, volume and temperature are of fixed relationship. Increase volume
(as in "expanding") and temperature and pressure go down. In the case of
saturated steam -- that means steam starts turning to water.

So running a steam engine at saturation conditions is not practical.

Now enters the "superheat". Superheat is heat invested in the vapor above
its boiling point for that particular operating pressure.

Putting a 150 Deg F superheat on steam produced at 150 PSI pressure means
heating the saturated steam of 150 PSI/358.42F to 508F.

This increases the btu content of our "charge" from 930.5 to 1376 btu per
pound.

An "extra" 445.5 BTU with nothing to do but "push" out mechanical energy --

Now -- if we say the boiler is 100% efficient --

And the engine is 100% efficient --

What can be our over all efficiency in converting biomass into mechanical
power?

Still not so hot -- even with allowing 100% efficiencies for the conversion
process.

We have invested a total of 1376 btu to have 445.5 available for mechanical
energy production.

445.5/1376 = 32%

Now jump right to the other end of the scale.

Let us heat that same 150 PSI of steam to a super heat of 1400F -- that is
a final steam temperature of 1400F.

Now we have 1743 btu invested in our pound of steam at 150 PSI.

1743 - 930.5 = 812.5 BTU for "push"

548/1743 = 46.6%

One quickly understands that super heat is everything in the energy
efficiency equation for steam power plants.

At 5000 psi; 700F -- it requires but 746.4 btu per pound to change state
from a base temperature of 32 F. Postulating feedwater at 212 F = 566.4

If we super heat that to 1600 F we have an investment of 1794.5 btu per pound.

Of which 1794.5 - 566.4 or 1228.1 btu can come out to "play".

1228.1/1794 = 68.4%

And that is where the big boys play! Take out turbine mechanical
efficiencies (very high) and boiler efficiencies (again very high). Plus
the energy cost of running the system (feed water pumps, circulation pumps,
cooling towers, condensers etc) and they can manage that 40% plus over all
power plant efficiencies -- that is btu's in over net electrical power out
-- using "steam".

But now stop and think what is required to contain 5000 psi at 1600 F???
The device gets more than to complicated!!

OK readers -- all this as introduction to why one should be using another
working fluid, one that operates in a much lower temperature range.

So in reality -- the only energy available to extract in a steam power
cycle is that energy invested above the vaporization point. That is in the
super-heating.

So what if we used a fluid with a much lower vaporization point temperature
-- at atmospheric pressure -- than water??

We call these low temperature fluids refrigerants, as they are normally
found working in refrigeration cycles. For the purposes of this discussion
-- we call them refrigerant working fluids.

Refrigerant Working Fluids:

******************* To be continued**********
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Fri Jan 12 19:32:43 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Binary Cycle Biomass Gasification Power Plants #3
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010112181505.008c5810@wgs1.btl.net>

Ok -- part 3 -- now it gets interesting. One note -- this is all copied in
from a Doc file -- sorry -- the graphics can't make it through. However --
you can browse over to the Urls referenced to see the pretty pictures.

Peter Singfield / Belize

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

Refrigerant Working Fluids

The following is mostly for the benefit of people that keep telling me:

"You can't use butane for a boiler working fluid!!!"

Just how is a refrigerant working fluid used in converting heat to
mechanical energy?

Well, nothing like showing a few examples.

I often refer to an old Mark's -- Mechanical Engineer's Handbook. This
version published in 1924 by McGraw Hill.

>From page 1015 of the same Mark's Handbook --

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

We will now jump to modern power plants that are using refrigerant working
fluids.

Here is a Url that will lead the reader to a field of power production
highly dependent on refrigerant working fluids. I have excerpted just one
small part of the article at this site.

http://id.inel.gov/geothermal/articles/reed/index.html

Geothermal Binary-Plant Electrical Power Generation

Most water-dominated reservoirs below 175 C are pumped to prevent the
water from boiling as it is circulated through heat exchangers to
heat a secondary liquid. In these binary power systems, heat is
transferred to an organic compound with a low boiling temperature
(commonly propane or isobutane), and the resulting organic vapor then
drives a turbine to produce electricity. Binary geothermal plants
have no emissions because the organic fluid is continuously
recalculated in a closed loop, and the entire amount of produced
geothermal water is injected back into the underground reservoir. A
higher conversion efficiency is required to economically use
lower-temperature water for electrical production, and the binary
equipment has a higher capital cost to achieve this greater
efficiency. The identified reserves of lower-temperature geothermal
fluids are many times greater than the reserves of high-temperature
fluids, providing an economic incentive to develop more efficient
binary power plants.

(Graphic titled)

Flow diagram of Butane Binary Cycle

One can find examples of operating plants at:

http://ogdencorp.net/energy/oei/geo.htm

I have included an example from that site

(Graphic)

SIGC Geothermal Plant
Imperial Valley, CA, USA 48 MW

Following those two Urls will give a good starting point for those
interested in further investigating binary cycle systems as applied to
geothermal power generation.

A huge field of endeavor -

In the above section we find this line:

"A higher conversion efficiency is required to economically use
lower-temperature water for electrical production, and the binary
equipment has a higher capital cost to achieve this greater
efficiency."

Later we work out a mathematical model to see just what they are inferring.
But for now I hope to have put at least some "doubting-Tom's" to rest. Yes
- butane indeed can be boiled and used as a working fluid such as steam is
- to convert heat energy to mechanical energy.

We come back to the subject of efficiency later.

First - define that working fluid!

There are two forms of butane commonly used: N-Butane and I-Butane
(Isobutane).

My plans are to work with N-butane - which is commonly available here in
Belize, Central America, in tanks for cooking and water heating purposes,
at a very reasonable cost.

So now we will study the thermodynamic properties of N-Butane.

When using a refrigerant as working fluid in a vapor cycle along the lines
of a steam power plant - you do not condense at atmospheric pressure or
less - but rather above atmospheric pressure. This means your "flow" is
from a high pressure to a lower pressure - but you always have a backpressure.

For instance -

For my purposes here in Belize, I must calculate a worse case example of 90
F for condensation.

Question - what will be my "backpressure"?

To answer this we need the help of some charts. And sure enough - this Url
solves that problem.

http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/fluid/

Here is a "snipped" version centering around the 90 F point of interest.

Temperature (F) Pressure (psia) Enthalpy (BTU/lbm)
86.00 41.191 117.09
88.00 42.581 118.28
90.00 44.005 119.48
92.00 45.465 120.67
94.00 46.962 121.87
96.00 48.495 123.08

>From this we know that 90 F = 44.005 PSI A (call it 44 psia)

As we are close to sea level here in Belize - I can expect a
"back-pressure" of

44 - 14.7 = 29.3 psi

Also - enthalpy of 117.09 btu per pound

So I am "condensing at the back door of my process at 14.7 psi. We will
come back to the importance of this later.

The next example is butane at the extremely high temperature (for butane!)
of 400 F

Temperature (F) Pressure (psia) Enthalpy (BTU/lbm)
400.00 300.00 419.29

The above is for superheated butane vapor.

The saturation temperature for butane at 300 psi (well - 302.4 psi) is:

Temperature (F) Pressure (psia) Enthalpy (BTU/lbm)
242.00 302.40 222.49

So we have a superheat of 400 - 242 or 158 F

To do this we operate a butane boiler at 400 F but only 300 PSI.

Now - look at how enthalpy increased!! Superheating is the one sure way to
invest in push energy.

So lets run the same calculations for this thermodynamic reaction as we did
for Steam above.

Butane of 90 F is injected into a "boiler" with an Enthalpy of 119.48 btu/lb

It becomes a super heated vapor of 400 F, 300 PSI and enthalpy of 419.29

The "cost" to condense it back to liquid to re-enter the cycle or fed back
into the boiler is 119.48 btu.

This leaves us with a "net" 299.81 of pure "push" energy!

299.81/419.29 = 71.5%

We have just reached slightly better thermal fluid efficiency working
levels as steam - only at 400 F and 300 PSI rather than 1600 F and 5000 PSI!

Ergo - butane makes an excellent working fluid for people that wish to
convert heat to mechanical energy at great efficiency and do not have a
spare billion or more dollars in their back pocket to spend doing it.

There is one minor catch to all this.

Notice how in the 400 F example, a "net" 299.81 btu can be used for "push"
energy!

That means one pound of butane under these conditions absorbs 299.81 btu
per pound.

In the steam example, we found that superheated steam of 1600 F equals
1794.5 btu per pound enthalpy. Net "push" though is 1228.1

So it requires 1228.1/299.81 = 4.1 times as much butane circulating through
a boiler as water to deliver the same amount usuable of heat energy.

Well friends - I can live with that!

The butane boiler

A butane boiler that is directly fired on by a high temperature flame would
be a very complicated device to construct. So we do not!

Water does such a fine job at this, so safe and so absorbing of heat
energy, we use it!

The butane boiler a simple liquid to liquid heat exchanger. Check out the
graphic flow diagram at the beginning of this section to see how this is
represented.

In this present example, rather than heat exchange between geothermal
water, the product of the biomass gasifier is burned in to fire a water
heater. Yes, a water heater, not a water boiler, rather, a "pressurized"
water heater.

Is that possible?? Well your automobile radiator is a pressurized (normally
15 PSI) water heat exchanger. And there certainly is millions if those in
operation at any given moment. So yes, more than possible, rather common.

Now, going to the saturated steam charts for water.

Water stays water at 400 F if the pressure is greater than 247.31 psi.

But as we will be passing this temperature along to the butane working
fluid via a heat exchanger, we need a greater temperature for heat to
"travel" towards the butane for a resulting butane temperature of 400 F

We would be happy with 450 F pressurized water.

To keep water as water at 450 F one needs greater than 422.6 psi.

Let us be safe - say 450 psi.

450 F water pressurized to 450 psi is pump circulated through a heat
exchanger to boil butane to 400 F and 300 psi.

I have complete plans on how to accomplish this very economically using
commercial fined tube copper heat exchangers. These gems are now old
technology. The copper is 99.999% pure and one foot of this tubing is
equivalent to 300 ft of steel water boiler tubing as found in regular
water heaters.

Thicker tubing means less heat transfer rate. Stainless steel, as example,
has a much poorer heat transfer rate than carbon steel. High-pressure steam
boilers must be made with much thicker tubing, and from materials that are
poorer conductors of heat than the conventional steel tube water heaters.
So the heat transfer rate per foot of tubing decreases substancialy in the
1600 F and 5000 psi steam boilers described earlier. Conventional high
pressure boilers have require enormous amounts of boiler tubing to get the
surface area needed for heat transfer. This greatly increases cost, size
and complexity. Using a finned tubed copper hot water boiler leads to an
incredible size reduction as well as costs.

Ok. We have solved the thermal efficiency problem of using low temperature
working fluids and have come out ahead.

We can demonstrate (by concept) how easy and economic a boiler for this
heat transfer process is to construct.

Now - how do we convert to mechanical energy?

On to heat to mechanical energy conversion devices -- the "Engine"

***********To be continued***********
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.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 english at adan.kingston.net Fri Jan 12 21:15:54 2001
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: science fair project
In-Reply-To: <003f01c07cc7$ba068720$2c9570d1@joel-s>
Message-ID: <200101130204.VAA07259@adan.kingston.net>

Dear Joel,
If you really want to dream the big dream (like Peter eh!) then check
out the folks at Los Alamos and there no-moving- parts Thermal
Acoustic Stirling Engine. 40% Carnot efficiency with simple
materials.
http://www.lanl.gov/mst/engine/
Then boggle your mind with the science by downloading the 265 page
book on the subject.
http://www.lanl.gov/projects/thermoacoustics/Book/index.html

Couple that to the no-moving- parts thermal top-down gasifier, sit
down in your no-moving-parts lazy-boy and turn on your
no-moving-parts light bulb and ........

I hope I have at least partly moved you.

Alex
PS. With a blower you could shoot the gasifier flame out at the
audience instead of up a chimney. Do it in the parking lot.
With the chimney you can make beautiful smoke rings that float away
over their heads. Just snuff the flame and then lite it again, POOF.
If its not too windy the ring will hold till its out of sight. If you
could make a glass chimney then you can create a spinning flat blue
flame that you can move up and down the chimney just by turning a
valve.

And that isn't all, and that isn't all! Oh the things you can do if
you just don't think small.

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From english at adan.kingston.net Fri Jan 12 22:04:43 2001
From: english at adan.kingston.net (*.English)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: science fair project
In-Reply-To: <c8.f4ceed6.27906b48@cs.com>
Message-ID: <200101130253.VAA15241@adan.kingston.net>

Hi Tom,
I think we should stick with the word constriction and drop the word
venturi. The constriction just allows for more thorough mixing while
depending on low velocity air from weak bouancy forces. As for size of
constriction, the ratio of 6:1 (fuel pot :constriction) seems
to work. However the smaller the fuel pot the less necessary it is.

No headache eh! Any pulse? :)
Alex

> I would welcome Alex's comments on this. I believe he has used venturi
> constrictions in natural draft chimneys. Any advice on venturi size etc?
>
> Keep in touch...
>
> Yours truly TOM REED BEF
>
> In a message dated 1/11/01 1:17:09 PM Mountain Standard Time, joflo@yifan.net
> writes:
>
>
> > Dear gassifiers,
> >
> > A high-school student friend has asked me to help her design a science fair
> > experiment. I suggested gasification and she's willing to try it. Now to
> > me, this project has far-reaching implications. This school is located very
> > near a sawmill -- in fact, the owners and workers send their children to
> > this school. I've been trying to sell the owners on the idea of a
> > cogeneration plant using gassified sawdust and sawmill waste. I don't think
> > money is the problem -- it is unproven high technology in their minds. I
> > think if a quiet, skinny high-schooler can do a simple simple presentation
> > of gassification and explain that people have been making wood into charcoal
> > for thousands of years....
> >
> > At the very least I'd like to build a copy of Tom Reed's inverted downdraft
> > cookstove. (With your permission Tom) If I could borrow the gold-insulated
> > quartz tube described in some of Tom's gasification books, that would be
> > even better -- because everyone could see what was going on inside. Some of
> > Alex Engish's contraptions might be pretty impressive, too. I may be a
> > rash dreamer, but what I really envision:
> >
> > My dream: student walks onto stage carrying a metal 5 gallon bucket, a lid
> > for the bucket (with integrated combustion chamber, Tesla Turbine, and
> > alternator),
> > some copper tubing, a small blower, newspaper, matches, and a feed sack of
> > sawdust. She first secures the bucket to the floor with bolts, then
> > removes the lid, fills the bucket to 4" from the top with sawdust. Then she
> > balls up 2 or 3 pages of newspaper, tosses them into the top of the bucket
> > and lights them with a match. While they are catching, she secures the
> > blower to the side of the bucket (near the floor, obviously there would need
> > to be a hole in the bucket and an extra port in the outlet of the blower --
> > to be used later.) By now the paper should be glowing embers and some of
> > the sawdust glowing too so it's time to turn on the blower. As the flames
> > get hotter and brighter, the lights can be dimmed. She simply puts the lid
> > on the bucket and connects the copper tubing from the aux blower port to the
> > air intake of the combustion chamber... Dim the lights further. First a
> > low growl begins to issue from the machine. Increasing to a nasal whine. A
> > few sparks fly out of the exhaust. The whine increases in pitch and volume
> > until it is a scream. Student casually reaches over and flips a switch --
> > LIGHT! A large bank of light bulbs (or a huge arc lamp) illuminate the
> > room. While everyone is catching their breath and adjusting to the light,
> > she sets a trivet and a kettle over the exhaust of the turbine. Within 30
> > seconds, the kettle is boiling and she pours herself a cup of tea, sits down
> > within 2 feet of her contraption, crosses her legs and begins her
> > explanation of cogeneration. After the sawdust has burned itself out and
> > the room lights are back on, she pours the remainder of her tea into the
> > bucket, removes the fan at the bottom, and holds her cup under the hole to
> > collect clear water.
> >
> > I welcome your comments, criticism, (applause too :) ), and certainly any
> > concerns you have for safety and viability. Safety; ease of construction;
> > ease of use; simple, uncluttered appearance; small expense; and a "high
> > impressiveness coefficient" are high priorities for this project
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Joel Florian
> >
>
>
>
>

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From joflo at yifan.net Fri Jan 12 23:34:14 2001
From: joflo at yifan.net (Joel Florian)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: science fair project
Message-ID: <004401c07d18$85010ea0$159570d1@joel-s>

Alex

I like to dream but I like to build too. Usually I dream about how I can
get the most results for the least work. I think the thermoacoustic engine
might be a little out of my reach, but I can handle smoke rings. Do you
have a website with your inventions? Do you mind if we "borrow" from your
ideas?

Joel Florian
Alaska
-----Original Message-----
From: *.English <english@adan.kingston.net>
To: gasification@crest.org <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Friday, January 12, 2001 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: science fair project

Couple that to the no-moving- parts thermal top-down gasifier, sit
down in your no-moving-parts lazy-boy and turn on your
no-moving-parts light bulb and ........

I hope I have at least partly moved you.

And that isn't all, and that isn't all! Oh the things you can do if
you just don't think small.

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From joacim at ymex.net Sat Jan 13 03:24:52 2001
From: joacim at ymex.net (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Binary Cycle Biomass Gassification Power Plants
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010112131521.008e0a90@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10101130753270.18691-100000@localhost>

On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Peter Singfield wrote:

>
> Folks --
>
> Here is the "Intro" to a paper I am preparing regarding binary cycle power
> plants using biomass gasification.

> Further - the simplest producer gas to IC engine designs use diesel
> supplementation. That is they supplement diesel fuel by up to 65%
> (ideally). So one is still dependent on fossil fuels - 35% worth.

Now isn't that a tautology ;) : `If one chooses to burn gas by burning
diesel, one burns diesel along with gas.' ...even if we assume pilot
injection is `the simplest' way, it still doesn't mean we are obliged to
used it. `Dependent on fossile fuel' is a statement about IC motors running
on both diesel and producer gas simultaneously, not a principal statement
about IC engines powered by producer gas in general.

> Biomass gasifiers not concerned with high tar levels can operate with fuel
> containing up to 50% humidity, compared to gasifiers for IC engine
> operation that require fuel with no more than 17% humidity.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There's nothing peculiar about feeding dripping wet wood -- if that is all
that is available -- to a gasifier which is properly designed for it, and
that regardless wether the gas is then used for a IC motor or for something
else.

There were gasifiers even back in ww2 that accepted wet wood plus a couple
of shovels of snow in the fuel tank as well, and that even without
recapturing any of the large amounts of exhaust heat or coolant heat
available from the IC motor. See the article about the `Monorator' at
http://www.hotel.ymex.net/~s-20222/gengas/
That was a very primitive design IMO, invented by pure coincidence by
someone who really only wanted a clear view in his rear view mirror.

Wood, when combusted, can vaporise water eight times its dry weight. How
much can it absorb? How much heat can we count on being available as `waste
heat' from any type of heat motor powered by producer gas and air?

If tar levels in the gas has any connection to moisture levels in the fuel,
it obviously is connected only to the portion of the water that actually
participates in the gasification reactions in the hearth.

(I'm going to test the car today, on soaking wet frozen fresh fir that has
been lying on the ground in the rain for a month, just for being
obstinate. Wish me luck! =)

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

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From LINVENT at aol.com Sat Jan 13 08:33:32 2001
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: science fair project
Message-ID: <cf.f0983e.2791afd9@aol.com>

In a message dated 1/12/01 6:03:24 AM, arnt@c2i.net writes:

<< Joel Florian wrote:

> My dream: student walks onto stage carrying a metal 5 gallon bucket, a lid
> for the bucket (with integrated combustion chamber, Tesla Turbine, and
> alternator),

..forget the Tesla, you want a mower engine driving that alternator.
McCullough, Brigg&Stratton whatever.

> some copper tubing, a small blower, newspaper, matches, and a feed sack of
> sawdust. She first secures the bucket to the floor with bolts, then
,,,wait a minute, where did the bolts and wrenches come from to tighten them?
they were not carried in by the student...

--
.
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Sat Jan 13 10:02:52 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: science fair project
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010113084454.008ec200@wgs1.btl.net>

Ok --

Build a simple gasifier -- forget about tars as you will simply be heating
a small flash tube boiler -- that can be made by coiling brake line tubing.

Convert a 2 stroke outboard engine to a unaflow steam engine.

http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Rapids/2068/Page3.html

Good example there. Just change the firebox to run on gasifier product.
Hook that up to your generator. Or -- put it on a small boat.

Peter Singfield -- in Belize

At 08:19 AM 1/13/2001 EST, you wrote:
>
>In a message dated 1/12/01 6:03:24 AM, arnt@c2i.net writes:
>
><< Joel Florian wrote:
>
>> My dream: student walks onto stage carrying a metal 5 gallon bucket, a lid
>> for the bucket (with integrated combustion chamber, Tesla Turbine, and
>> alternator),
>
>..forget the Tesla, you want a mower engine driving that alternator.
>McCullough, Brigg&Stratton whatever.
>
>> some copper tubing, a small blower, newspaper, matches, and a feed sack of
>> sawdust. She first secures the bucket to the floor with bolts, then
>,,,wait a minute, where did the bolts and wrenches come from to tighten
them?
>they were not carried in by the student...
>
>
>--
>.
>The Gasification List is sponsored by
>USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
>and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
>
>Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
>http://www.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
>
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Jan 13 13:16:15 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Binary Cycle Biomass Gassification Power Plants
Message-ID: <aa.faf110f.2791f20f@cs.com>

I've said this before, but again....

Producer gas is VERY high octane - >180 on my scale, so of course won't
pressure ignite in diesel engines. Therefore in an unmodified diesel it
requires a pilot flow of 20-30% conventional diesel - 5% if you know how.

Convert that diesel to spark and 12/1 CR and the PG will run just fine at
high efficiency. See past postings.

Glad to have Joacim aboard. What gasifier is he going to run today. No, we
don't want wet wood (>20%) in our gasifiers.

TOM REED

In a message dated 1/13/01 1:13:21 AM Mountain Standard Time, joacim@ymex.net
writes:

>
> Folks --
>
> Here is the "Intro" to a paper I am preparing regarding binary cycle power
> plants using biomass gasification.

(I'm going to test the car today, on soaking wet frozen fresh fir that has
been lying on the ground in the rain for a month, just for being
obstinate. Wish me luck! =)

Joacim
-

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Jan 13 13:16:21 2001
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: science fair project
Message-ID: <be.e9d3290.2791f21b@cs.com>

(Hope this doesn't get out of hand as non-gasification mind fodder.)

I have been intrigued with smoke rings ever since my daughter and I did them
for a science fair project about 1964.

We "invented" water rings. Connect a 1 # coffee can with a 2# coffee can
using a rubber glove or equivalent. Cut a 4 cm hole in the plastic lid of
the smaller can and fill with weak permanganate solution.

Fill the bathtub with water and add a little hypo (bleach for permanganate
rings). Push the rear can to "blow" purple rings that travel easily the
lengthof the tub, then expand in diameter when they hit the wall. I have
some 8 mm movies of this.

On a recent Hawaii trip we saw the dive director lying on the bottom of the
ocean blowing "air in water" bubbles - absolutely gorgeous. The next month
Scientific American showed dolphins blowing same horizonatally!

My granson, Andrew, said "now all we need is water rings in air". (Gravity
problems here).

If there is more on rings, I suggest we do it away from gasification,
collecting names and tales in a separate file....

Your moderator, TOM REED

In a message dated 1/12/01 7:04:56 PM Mountain Standard Time,
english@adan.kingston.net writes:

Couple that to the no-moving- parts thermal top-down gasifier, sit
down in your no-moving-parts lazy-boy and turn on your
no-moving-parts light bulb and ........

I hope I have at least partly moved you.

And that isn't all, and that isn't all! Oh the things you can do if
you just don't think small.

From snkm at btl.net Sat Jan 13 15:45:50 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Binary Cycle Biomass Gasification Power Plants #4
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010113142743.008bf410@wgs1.btl.net>

Ok -- part 4 -- getting closer to steam engines.

Peter Singfield / in Belize

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

Vapor Cycle Engines

Let us review expansion engines.

Vapor phase power extraction devices are dependent on extracting the energy
from an expanding gas. To do this with any degree of efficiency - energy
must be extracted through the entire range of gas expansion.

For the purpose of this text - we will look at the two conventional methods
of mechanical energy extraction as applied to working fluid thermodynamics:
the turbine and the reciprocating piston/cylinder engine

Turbine

A turbine is basically a windmill stuck in a tunnel. The principle of power
extraction is based on "wind" pushing against "sails" attached to a central
shaft in such a manner that the sails deflect energy into a rotational
force. There are different turbine designs - but it is not the purpose of
this presentation to review all of these.

No matter what design of turbine - to have a good efficiency - one must use
multiple stages. That is the "wind" is "tunneled" past a series of
"sails". Each stage is optimized according to the conditions expected to be
presented.

The first stage sees the strongest "wind" - so is the smallest in wind flow
obstruction. Think of a sailboat taking down sails during a storm - leaving
only the least amount available to be pushed - as the push is so strong.

The last stage is the largest - as very little wind flow is left. So the
turbine uses many stages, back to back, to extract as much of the expansion
energy of the working fluid as possible. The Steam Turbine designer works
out a configuration to match the steam quality supplied. This steam quality
is based on pressure and super heat. Super heat allows an expanding working
fluid to exert the same push (pressure) at the same volume for a greater
period. Simply because the working fluid (vapor state) will maintain that
volume and pressure until it reached it's saturation point. That is where
temperature has dropped to the condensation point. Any gas cools when
expanded. So the trick is to have this "wind" move through the turbine
stages from one stage to the next without condensing. This is accomplished
by lowering pressures to below the saturation curve.

Condensing the working fluid from vapor state to liquid state is a disaster
in regards to thermodynamic efficiencies. The wind turns into rain. No more
push.

As an aside - strangely - turbines used in geothermal binary cycles using
isobutane can tolerate condensation. This is all explained at:

http://doegeothermal.inel.gov/fy95/energy/enrgy02.htm - I3
One more point in favor of isobutane over water/steam as a working fluid!

The turbine engine can be so well designed that it extracts nearly all the
energy available. It is also a very rugged design with few moving parts.
Turbines tend to live to very old age with the minimum of maintenance. They
are far superior to reciprocating engines in doing this job. So why use
anything else??

Turbine manufacturers are very specialized these days. They have ended up
extremely specialized in producing truly exotic mechanisms in very large
sizes for conventional steam powered power plants. These plants supply the
vast majority of electrical power.

Why "exotic". Well as demonstrated earlier in this paper - to achieve good
thermodynamics using steam one has to go to very high temperature and
pressure. Mechanical design becomes tricky when your working parts are
faced with 1500 F plus. And at pressure of 5000 PSI plus!

However, binary cycle plants using refrigerant working fluids operate at
much lower temperatures and pressures yet still can extract power at great
efficiencies. Again as demonstrated earlier.

So it certainly is easier to build very efficient turbines for isobutane,
as the temperatures and operating pressures are so reasonable.

Certainly geothermal energy installations are fueling the production of
just such devices.

Still, we probably will all be long dead from old age before any of the
major turbine manufacturers gets around to supplying refrigerant working
fluid turbines for small power plants. They are far to busy reaping
fortunes building the large turbines so back ordered by the conventional
power plants. Be those steam or isobutane.

So what can we do?? Well, let us look at reciprocating engines.

The Reciprocating Piston, vapor expansion, Engine

Though the piston engine is far more complicated and much more prone to
mechanical efficiency losses - as well as requiring much more maintenance -
one can build such a device easily at any normal machine shop.

Further, much of the complication can be eliminated by carefully choosing
the design.

I have a simple design based on the old steam engine - the Uniflow (or
Unaflow - same thing) that can be readily applied to the present
application. That being "small and micro" power plant installations.

First, let us look at how the wind blows in a piston engine.

The Piston Engine:

The piston engine design is a charge based, "batch" mode, energy extraction
device. It is not a continuous "wind" blowing in a tunnel - but rather a
"charge" of compressed working fluid vapor introduced into a blocked
tunnel. However, one end of this tunnel has a movable wall. The charge of
high-pressure vapor impinged against this wall and causes motion that can
be transferred into direct mechanical action. Once the charge has exhausted
its self to near saturation conditions, the tunnel must be evacuated of
this depleted charge and reloaded with a fresh one. Further - the movable
wall must be returned to its proper position.

So now the wall is reciprocating and means for introduction and exhausting
charges of working fluid incorporated.

One traditional manner of accomplishing this is through valves.

The moveable wall in the tunnel becomes a piston in the cylinder. A number
of methods can be applied to move the wall while extracting energy - the
most common being by using a crankshaft.

So, charge is introduced when piston is at top of cylinder to push piston
back to bottom. There exhausting mechanisms are put into play to allow the
"spent" charge to be voided as the piston returns to top dead center.

We thus have a power stroke and an exhaust stroke - to each 360-degree turn
of the crankshaft.

The expanding charge drives the piston away - and during this period
mechanical energy is absorbed into the crankshaft. When charge is expended,
piston is returned to its starting point using part of the invested energy
now in the crankshaft. This is enhanced by the use of a flywheel. A weight
attached to the crankshaft to store sufficient inertia to complete one
batch mode operation - or power cycle - or revolution.

The difference between the power invested in this flywheel from expanding
the charge and the power extracted to return to starting position is the
power exported as mechanical energy.

The thermodynamics of steam working fluid operating a reciprocating piston
engine.

There is much confusion to how a steam piston engine is actually working.
This confusion has led to designs of terrible efficiencies in the past. Yet
it was from these mistakes that present state of the art in steam engine
technology developed. And the best of those is the Unaflow steam engine.

I will try to explain all of this in a manner simple to grasp. The
important point is always regarding the conversion efficiency. That is how
much btu's of fuel it takes to produce how much mechanical energy out. In
this case we define energy out as electrical power generated.

We have already covered some or the power factors involved in using steam.
We now will start from the ground up.

The heat required to generate 1 lb of steam at 212 F from water at 32 F and
14.696 psia, is:

Total heat of saturated liquid = 180.07 btu
Internal latent heat of steam = 897.5 btu
External work = 72.8
btu
Total =
1150.4 btu

"External Work" is the cost of increasing the volume of one pound of water
with a volume of just .01672 ft cubed to 26.8 ft cubed.

The 72.8 btu is the amount of energy required to displace the air of our
atmosphere (which is at a pressure of 14.696 psi)

26.8 - .01672 = 26.78 cubic feet

So it requires 72.8 btu of "external" work to push 26.78 cubic feet of air
out of the way.

So - from a total of 1150.4 btu - 72.8 btu is invested in expanding against
the atmosphere.

That is 72.8/1150.4 = .063 % of the energy invested.

It is interesting to note that the very first steam engines used only this
part of steam Energy to generate power. A cylinder was filled with steam
and then condensed. The vacuum so created exerted force (suction) against
the piston - drawing it up. These pistons/cylinder engines were set up
vertically and the drawing up of the piston transferred force through a
long connecting rod to a linear pump at the bottom of a mineshaft - pumping
out water.

The first improvement they did was to recycle hot condensate rather than
simply exhaust it and introduce a new batch of steam made from ambient
temperature water. This allowed them to gain the btu's invested in heating
the water from ambient to boiling temperature. They then managed to get
better than 1% theoretical engine performance!!

The advent of a piston engine that worked through "expansion" rather than
"vacuum" was the first major breakthrough in steam engine technology.

To be continued:

The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com

From snkm at btl.net Sat Jan 13 15:55:44 2001
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:08:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Binary Cycle Biomass Gasification Power Plants #4
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010113143815.008bf6d0@wgs1.btl.net>

Sorry list -- some strange formatting -- just fixed it -- this version will
read better.