August 2002 Gasification Archive

From tmiles at trmiles.com Thu Aug 1 09:52:24 2002
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Finland/Russia Ekogastec
Message-ID: <018401c23984$104a8260$6501a8c0@tommain>

Does anyone have contact or product information
for a Russian gasifier being sold through a Finnish company called
Ekogastec?

I understand that they have two Russian
designed gasifiers operating in Finland. One is a cyclonic gasifier. The
other is a top fed fluidized bed.

Thanks

Tom Miles

From andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Fri Aug 2 17:38:48 2002
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (AJH)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: feeding biomass into pressurised systems
Message-ID: <h3llkus9jagmrg162j5pklvsu9o70ngp3m@4ax.com>

Some time back Tom Reed criticised an expensive US government
sponsored gasification system in Hawaii, Tom Miles refuted the money
was wasted as valuable lessons were learned( and by inference many
researchers wages paid), though appeared to acknowledge few of the
lessons won at such large expense had yet been applied.

I was intrigued by the feed method and hoped Tom Miles would be able
to explain more. My quest is not at an industrial gasification scale
but in the micro scale of cook stoves. Whilst there is a lot of
current expertise in direct combustion of biomass for cooking most of
the work is on natural draught with (in some cases) draught assisted
by chimney effect. At least Tom Reed and myself, and presumably some
others are tinkering with "blown" stoves achieving near complete
combustion without chimneys. This to my mind has several advantages in
cost, stability and ability to burn "poor" or "green/fresh" fuels.

I think that if I slightly pressurise the primary combustion I can use
the power in the off gases to entrain and turbulently combine with
secondary air.

This is OK when batch loaded but leads to problems of cleanly burning
the residual char at the end of a run. So there is a need for a cheap
simple method of metering fuel into the combustion chamber. At the
moment I have to rely on a low powered fan for combustion air, so I
can accept a similar electrical method of fuel metering.

In the previous discussion a plug screw system was mentioned, I take
it this is a variable pitch auger such as in a meat mincer, the
biomass becomes temporarily formed into a plug where the auger flights
become closer and hence form a seal. If I am correct does the friction
make this a power hogging device? If not how does it function.

The other methods seem to be rotary valves, which seem to need good
engineering tolerances and bell hoppers (which I currently favour) as
well as under stoking from sealed bins and "jacking" the fuel up as
demonstrated by Peter Verhaart on the stoves list.

Any other methods I have missed?

I believe I missed some discussion on "chunking" fuel for a gasifier,
the idea is that chunking requires less power, leaves sufficient
interstitial spaces for good airflow and drying as well as affecting
the superficial velocities in the gasifier. I had wondered some while
back at making a chunker from a redundant tracked undercarriage, in
essence mount one opposed to the others with the track shoes moving in
synchronisation. The grouser plates then forming shear surfaces that
met at the outfeed end, the tracks converging from a feed end to this
shear. The idea being that the woody biomass would be loaded onto the
lower track and drawn forward until it was also gripped by the upper
track converging on it, the grousers biting into the stems until they
were sheared of into chunks the length of the track pitch at the
outfeed, any comments?

AJH

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Gasification Events and Information:
http://www.bioenergy2002.org
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon

From tombreed at attbi.com Sat Aug 3 07:22:35 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: feeding biomass into pressurised systems
In-Reply-To: <h3llkus9jagmrg162j5pklvsu9o70ngp3m@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <001501c23aff$fcb9ed30$0782fd0c@TOMBREED>

Dear Andrew:

(INTERCOMMENTS IN CAPS)
Some time back Tom Reed criticised an expensive US government
sponsored gasification system in Hawaii, Tom Miles refuted the money
was wasted as valuable lessons were learned( and by inference many
researchers wages paid), though appeared to acknowledge few of the
lessons won at such large expense had yet been applied.

VALUABLE LESSONS WOULD HAVE BEEN LEARNED IF AN HONEST REPORT WAS EVER
PRODUCED, BUT BUREAUCRATS BURY THEIR DEAD AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE WHOLE
PROJECT WAS PLAGUED WITH DUMB POLITICAL DECISIONS OVERRIDING GOOD SCIENCE
AND ENGINEERING AND THE NEEDS OF MANKIND.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was intrigued by the feed method and hoped Tom Miles would be able
to explain more. My quest is not at an industrial gasification scale
but in the micro scale of cook stoves. Whilst there is a lot of
current expertise in direct combustion of biomass for cooking most of
the work is on natural draught with (in some cases) draught assisted
by chimney effect. At least Tom Reed and myself, and presumably some
others are tinkering with "blown" stoves achieving near complete
combustion without chimneys. This to my mind has several advantages in
cost, stability and ability to burn "poor" or "green/fresh" fuels.

GLAD TO KNOW THAT I'M NOT ALONE IN THINKING FORCED DRAFT IS WORTH IT WITH
INVERTED DOWNDRAFT GASIFIERS. WE ARE ABOUT TO GO PUBLIC (IE COMMERCIAL FOR
SALE) WITH OUR WOODGAS CAMPSTOVE (WGCS)THIS MONTH. BETA TESTS IN PROGRESS.

I think that if I slightly pressurise the primary combustion I can use
the power in the off gases to entrain and turbulently combine with
secondary air.

This is OK when batch loaded but leads to problems of cleanly burning
the residual char at the end of a run.

WOOD AS NORMALLY BURNED IS REALLY TWO FUELS - THE ~ 80% VOLATILE FUEL GASES
COMING OFF AT 300-400 C AND THE REMAINING 20% CHARACOAL. THE VOLATILE GASES
HAVE AN AIR/FUEL RATIO OF ABOUT 4.5; THE CHARCOAL HAS AN A/F OF 12, SO THE
MIXTURE IS 6 - IF YOU CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO BURN ALL AT ONCE (AS IN PELLET
HEATING STOVES).

So there is a need for a cheap
simple method of metering fuel into the combustion chamber.

IN THE WGCS WE RECOMMEND ADDING ADDITIONAL FUEL 1 LAYER AT A TIME WHEN YOU
REACH THE CHARCOAL STAGE. THE PRODUCES PYROLYSIS GASES AT THE SAME RATE AS
THE INITIAL INVERTED DOWNDRAFT GASIFICATION.

At the moment I have to rely on a low powered fan for combustion air, so I
can accept a similar electrical method of fuel metering.

ONE SELDOM NEEDS TO COOK MORE THAN THE 45 MINUTES SUPPLIED BY WOOD PELLETS,
AND OFTEN THE 12 MINUTES FROM CHIPS IS ENOUGH FOR A CUPPA. HOWEVER,
CONTINUAL FEEDING WOULD BE DESIRABLE FOR SPACE HEATING STOVES, INDUSTRIAL
COOKING ETC. IN THIS CASE A SIMPLE AUGER INTO THE SIDE OF THE UNIT WILL DO
THE JOB. CAN BE MOTOR CONTROLLED OR HAND CRANK DEPENDING ON APPLICATION.
SINCE ONLY AIR IS RISING THROUGH THE MASS THIS WON'T INTERFERE WITH THE
GASIFICATION.

ONLY IF YOU NEED A TIGHT SEAL. THIS TAPERED SCREW METHOD USED FOR FEEDING
PAPER PULP BOILERS.

Any other methods I have missed?

I DIFFER TO TOM MILES IN ALL THESE INDUSTRIAL SIZE QUESTIONS...

AJH

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/200204/
http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/
>
Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
>
List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
>
Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.bioenergy2002.org
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon
>
For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
>http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/Chambers/Chambers.htm

From tmiles at trmiles.com Sat Aug 3 08:39:07 2002
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: feeding biomass into pressurised systems
In-Reply-To: <h3llkus9jagmrg162j5pklvsu9o70ngp3m@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <025901c23b0c$2de5b3b0$6601a8c0@tomslaptop>

Andrew,

You seem to have touched a nerve. :-)

I presented the essential results of the Technology Verification Phase
demonstration, for the period 1996-1997, clearly and objectively, in a paper
presented to the Bioenergy 98 conference in Madison, Wisconsin. My
presention was based on the project report that was prepared by the project
team. With all due respect I think the reports were ignored rather than
buried because some people find politics a lot more fun than science and
engineering. I think Tom and I simply differ on whether the testing was
useful.

Just last week I encountered cases where individuals and companies involved
in that project have taken the results of their experience and carried them
further in the past five years to improve their systems. They have done that
with investment of their own funds and energies and their activities are not
for me to discuss here. You'll just have to take that on faith.

In my experience it is not unsual for publicly funded projects to have their
detractors. A frequent and negative consequence is that sometimes gossip and
hearsay from people who have no relationship to the project is
misinterpreted and damages similar projects.

It's far more productive to move on and explore or revisit the variety of
technical solutions that we have available, as you are attempting to do.
You've listed a number of feeding options and concepts. Each have been
tested in various forms at both the small and large scales. Some are
still under development and testing by various entities and all merit
further discussion.

Tom Miles

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From arnt at c2i.net Sat Aug 3 08:57:23 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: feeding biomass into pressurised systems
In-Reply-To: <h3llkus9jagmrg162j5pklvsu9o70ngp3m@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <20020803174415.3f764f2f.arnt@c2i.net>

On Fri, 02 Aug 2002 20:26:00 +0100,
AJH <andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com> wrote in message
<h3llkus9jagmrg162j5pklvsu9o70ngp3m@4ax.com>:

> Some time back Tom Reed criticised an expensive US government
> sponsored gasification system in Hawaii, Tom Miles refuted the money
> was wasted as valuable lessons were learned( and by inference many
> researchers wages paid), though appeared to acknowledge few of the
> lessons won at such large expense had yet been applied.
>
>
> I was intrigued by the feed method and hoped Tom Miles would be able
> to explain more.

..link?

> My quest is not at an industrial gasification scale
> but in the micro scale of cook stoves.

..hah! ;-) But there _is_ wisdom in your statement; 400 years of
tinkering has effectively thaught "mankind" and investors gasification
is messy and expensive and "does not work".

..so doing it in cook stove scale, can be done out of your own pocket.
Doing it profitably at that scale, means it'll pay for itself on
scale-up.

> Whilst there is a lot of
> current expertise in direct combustion of biomass for cooking most of
> the work is on natural draught with (in some cases) draught assisted
> by chimney effect. At least Tom Reed and myself, and presumably some
> others are tinkering with "blown" stoves achieving near complete
> combustion without chimneys. This to my mind has several advantages in
> cost, stability and ability to burn "poor" or "green/fresh" fuels.
>
> I think that if I slightly pressurise the primary combustion I can use
> the power in the off gases to entrain and turbulently combine with
> secondary air.

..pressurization costs you some in the reduction of combustion
gases, typically you like to do this at 1050 - 1100C° and _low_
pressure, for a downdrafter. Many ways to skin this cat, though.

> This is OK when batch loaded but leads to problems of cleanly burning
> the residual char at the end of a run. So there is a need for a cheap
> simple method of metering fuel into the combustion chamber. At the
> moment I have to rely on a low powered fan for combustion air, so I
> can accept a similar electrical method of fuel metering.
>
> In the previous discussion a plug screw system was mentioned, I take
> it this is a variable pitch auger such as in a meat mincer, the
> biomass becomes temporarily formed into a plug where the auger flights
> become closer and hence form a seal. If I am correct does the friction
> make this a power hogging device? If not how does it function.

..this one is viable, extrudes fuel out into the gasifier, against a
wedge in there, so extruded fuel breaks off in properly sized chunks.
This also buys you a sealed fuel feed.

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From tombreed at attbi.com Sat Aug 3 14:24:35 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:03 2004
Subject: Government gasifier projects...
In-Reply-To: <h3llkus9jagmrg162j5pklvsu9o70ngp3m@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <003801c23b3a$f019cd80$0782fd0c@TOMBREED>

Dear Tom, Andrew et al:

I'm glad Tom Miles could counter my overgeneralized blackwash of Government
projects. I have been involved in a few and learned a lot and hope I am
passing it on as much as possible.

The Hawaii project in particular grated on me because it went through
several phases before any money was spent. In its initial phase (about
1986) it was meant to be a "Methanol from Biomass" project which I applauded
and still applaud. Congress set aside $5 M in matching funds. It was
rumoured to be "prewired" for the Institute of Gas Technology (IGT) gasifier
in Chicago. Our (SynGas Inc.) 40 page proposal from SynGas for a
pressurized fixed bed oxygen gasifier was rejected immediately, even though
we had been operating a one ton unit for 4-5 years at the Solar Energy
Research Institute.

This first phase faded when IGT's matching funds proved vaporous. The money
must have been underground because it resurfaced about 1992 (?) in similar
form, a METHANOL FROM BIOMASS project. I remember sending an objecting
letter to the DOE that the IGT gasifier was not very suitable because it
made a gas high in hydrocarbons which would have to be reformed to a syngas,
while other gasifiers (oxygen in particular) make a gas that is primarily CO
and H2 and would require much less conditioning.

The Hawaii project was crippled by working with one of the world's most
difficult feeding fuels - raw bagasse from sugar cane. Tom could tell you
the details, but it chewed up a million dollars worth of feeders. And
probably $50 M worth of development time and much talent over 12 years.

~~~~~~
In several ways bagasse is a very attractive energy source. Every sugar
plant is a potential source of biomass or power and Winrock is busy helping
to convert low pressure sugar mills to high pressure "power plants/sugar
mills" around the world.

If you densify bagasse (piece of cake) it makes one of the nicest biomass
fuels, well washed and very dense. Pellets were selling in Brazil for <
$10/ton last year and I have been working with a group heading toward
methanol. They are ready to start testing on their phase II gasifier in a
month or two. The pellets would be suitable for a coal type lock hoppers -
proven technology.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On the other hand I have been involved in a lot of Small Business Innovation
Grant projects and they seem to do very well. Industry is not usually in a
position to test new ideas, so SBIRs provide a Phase I II III stage to
bringing them to fruition.

Yours truly, TOM REED
BEF GASWORKS

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles@trmiles.com>
To: "Tom Reed" <tombreed@attbi.com>; "AJH" <andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com>;
<gasification@crest.org>; "Stoves" <Stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: feeding biomass into pressurised systems

> Andrew,
>
> You seem to have touched a nerve. :-)
>
> I presented the essential results of the Technology Verification Phase
> demonstration, for the period 1996-1997, clearly and objectively, in a
paper
> presented to the Bioenergy 98 conference in Madison, Wisconsin. My
> presention was based on the project report that was prepared by the
project
> team. With all due respect I think the reports were ignored rather than
> buried because some people find politics a lot more fun than science and
> engineering. I think Tom and I simply differ on whether the testing was
> useful.
>
> Just last week I encountered cases where individuals and companies
involved
> in that project have taken the results of their experience and carried
them
> further in the past five years to improve their systems. They have done
that
> with investment of their own funds and energies and their activities are
not
> for me to discuss here. You'll just have to take that on faith.
>
> In my experience it is not unsual for publicly funded projects to have
their
> detractors. A frequent and negative consequence is that sometimes gossip
and
> hearsay from people who have no relationship to the project is
> misinterpreted and damages similar projects.
>
> It's far more productive to move on and explore or revisit the variety of
> technical solutions that we have available, as you are attempting to do.
> You've listed a number of feeding options and concepts. Each have been
> tested in various forms at both the small and large scales. Some are
> still under development and testing by various entities and all merit
> further discussion.
>
> Tom Miles
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> Stoves List Archives and Website:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/200204/
> http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/
> >
> Stoves List Moderators:
> Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
> >
> List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
> >
> Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> http://www.bioenergy2002.org
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon
> >
> For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
>
>http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/Chambers/Chambers.htm
>
>

From d.rl at virgin.net Sat Aug 3 15:25:51 2002
From: d.rl at virgin.net (David Reynolds-Lacey)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:03 2004
Subject: [Fwd: GAS-L: Government gasifier projects...]
Message-ID: <3D4C669E.C9CA1185@virgin.net>

David Reynolds-Lacey wrote:

> Dear Tom, Tom and Andrew et. al.
>
> Tom Reed wrote:
>
> > On the other hand I have been involved in a lot of Small Business Innovation
> > Grant projects and they seem to do very well. Industry is not usually in a
> > position to test new ideas, so SBIRs provide a Phase I II III stage to
> > bringing them to fruition.
> >
> >
>
> Tom Miles wrote:
>
> > > Just last week I encountered cases where individuals and companies
> > involved
> > > in that project have taken the results of their experience and carried
> > them
> > > further in the past five years to improve their systems. They have done
> > that
> > > with investment of their own funds and energies and their activities are
> > not
> > > for me to discuss here. You'll just have to take that on faith.
>
> The great problem with grant funding large scale, long term projects in the
> "public/ educational" sector is often the lack of continuity, because people
> move on once they have obtained their degree or whatever. There is also often a
> complete lack of "real world" commercial awareness, one thing I learnt in 30
> years of business is that it is easy to spend other people's money whether it be
> from grants or shareholders, I used neither. Small Business Innovation Grants
> are certainly the best way forward but on a matched funds basis and by this I
> mean that the people doing the work use their OWN fund, not matching funds
> raised from shareholders or from any other source (other than a perhaps a bank
> loan) otherwise you are effectively back to a 100 percent funding basis. There
> should also be strict controls on how the funds are spent, salaries can gobble
> up vast sums and should not be paid out of grant money which should only be
> spent on actual hardware. It's a tough world out there and only the fit survive
> but you only want "fit" people working on funded projects and matched SBI
> grants provide an ideal method of natural selection.
>
> Regards,
>
> David Reynolds-Lacey

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From LINVENT at aol.com Sun Aug 4 08:10:45 2002
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:03 2004
Subject: [Fwd: GAS-L: Government gasifier projects...]
Message-ID: <c8.2ad9ea61.2a7eabe2@aol.com>

Dear gov't funders:
SBIR grant/contracts have an interesting aspect to them, the gov't has
the right to use the technology for it's own purposes. The language " a fully
paid up royalty license to the government" is used in the contract. I find
this particularly dangerous for high valued technology leveraged with small
amounts of government funds.

Sincerely,
Leland T. Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
7100-2nd St. NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107
phone 505-761-5633 fax 505-341-0424
Attached files are zipped and can be decompressed with <A
HREF="http://www.aladdinsys.com/expander/">www.aladdinsys.com/expander/ </A>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Mon Aug 5 14:36:42 2002
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (AJH)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: feeding biomass into pressurised systems
In-Reply-To: <h3llkus9jagmrg162j5pklvsu9o70ngp3m@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <9ettku03khoojrutnl9s3t4e610gk99360@4ax.com>

On Sat, 3 Aug 2002 09:11:04 -0600, "Tom Reed" <tombreed@attbi.com>
wrote:

>
>WOOD AS NORMALLY BURNED IS REALLY TWO FUELS - THE ~ 80% VOLATILE FUEL GASES
>COMING OFF AT 300-400 C AND THE REMAINING 20% CHARACOAL. THE VOLATILE GASES
>HAVE AN AIR/FUEL RATIO OF ABOUT 4.5; THE CHARCOAL HAS AN A/F OF 12, SO THE
>MIXTURE IS 6 - IF YOU CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO BURN ALL AT ONCE (AS IN PELLET
>HEATING STOVES).

This is the path I have taken, however the pellet stove and pellet
fuel is a special case which will not pertain with lesser fuels. This
is one reason why I wish to move to a stoker, the dramatic change in
combustion volume leads to a need to vary air supply with batch loads.
This may not be too significant with an energy dense fuel but it is
with a fuel with poor mass and energy densities. Wood pellets are
about 600KG/m3 and dry, my fuels are <250kg/m3 and 50% water.
>
> So there is a need for a cheap
>simple method of metering fuel into the combustion chamber.
>
>IN THE WGCS WE RECOMMEND ADDING ADDITIONAL FUEL 1 LAYER AT A TIME WHEN YOU
>REACH THE CHARCOAL STAGE. THE PRODUCES PYROLYSIS GASES AT THE SAME RATE AS
>THE INITIAL INVERTED DOWNDRAFT GASIFICATION.

I have no scope for this as the pot is in the way, also fuel need to
be added in the primary combustion zone which sits at a small pressure
above atmospheric.
>
>At the moment I have to rely on a low powered fan for combustion air, so I
>can accept a similar electrical method of fuel metering.
>
>ONE SELDOM NEEDS TO COOK MORE THAN THE 45 MINUTES SUPPLIED BY WOOD PELLETS,
>AND OFTEN THE 12 MINUTES FROM CHIPS IS ENOUGH FOR A CUPPA.

I had gathered the impression that many foods needed much longer
processing than this? As I said pellets are not an option, I am
looking at utilising agriwastes.

> HOWEVER,
>CONTINUAL FEEDING WOULD BE DESIRABLE FOR SPACE HEATING STOVES, INDUSTRIAL
>COOKING ETC. IN THIS CASE A SIMPLE AUGER INTO THE SIDE OF THE UNIT WILL DO
>THE JOB. CAN BE MOTOR CONTROLLED OR HAND CRANK DEPENDING ON APPLICATION.
>SINCE ONLY AIR IS RISING THROUGH THE MASS THIS WON'T INTERFERE WITH THE
>GASIFICATION.

This is not so in my device, on the larger scale I can afford the
luxury of an ID fan, on the cookstove I cannot. An auger will not
contain the offgas and combustion products unless it deforms the
biomass sufficiently to remove air paths, this is what I took the
screw plug feeder to do. I also feel that augers will be too power
hungry in this application.

>
>I DIFFER TO TOM MILES IN ALL THESE INDUSTRIAL SIZE QUESTIONS...

I have not yet seen Tom M offer any comment on any options so How can
we differ?

AJH

From andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Mon Aug 5 14:39:02 2002
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (AJH)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: feeding biomass into pressurised systems
In-Reply-To: <h3llkus9jagmrg162j5pklvsu9o70ngp3m@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <75utkukbvoh38irt9b6e32jbaufvn3fipa@4ax.com>

On Sat, 3 Aug 2002 09:31:10 -0700, "Tom Miles" <tmiles@trmiles.com>
wrote:

>Andrew,
>
>You seem to have touched a nerve. :-)

Didn't mean to :-(

Let's stay out of internecine disputes and see what I can learn from
all this.

>
>Just last week I encountered cases where individuals and companies involved
>in that project have taken the results of their experience and carried them
>further in the past five years to improve their systems. They have done that
>with investment of their own funds and energies and their activities are not
>for me to discuss here. You'll just have to take that on faith.

I am happy to do this, I have an ongoing bad experience with research
based on an original idea of mine, it may yet get to fruition.
>
>It's far more productive to move on and explore or revisit the variety of
>technical solutions that we have available, as you are attempting to do.
>You've listed a number of feeding options and concepts. Each have been
>tested in various forms at both the small and large scales. Some are
>still under development and testing by various entities and all merit
>further discussion.

OK but what is your opinion?

The screw and extrusion type options seem power hungry to me, as they
induce a lot of friction, augering from a sealed hopper has flash back
worries, a double bell hopper has shutting problems but a hybrid seize
and bell hopper looks cheap and promising to me, also allows gravity
to do the work. I also like the idea of a bolt and chamber device as
the leakage path is only open instantaneously.

AJH

From andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Mon Aug 5 14:40:23 2002
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (AJH)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Government gasifier projects...
In-Reply-To: <h3llkus9jagmrg162j5pklvsu9o70ngp3m@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <5nutku4h9qtcstiknu37easahg62tohcjb@4ax.com>

On Sat, 3 Aug 2002 16:13:03 -0600, "Tom Reed" <tombreed@attbi.com>
wrote:

>month or two. The pellets would be suitable for a coal type lock hoppers -
>proven technology.

Can you describe the mode of action to me? I guess I know the basics
but am interested in the sealing.

AJH

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Mon Aug 5 23:59:24 2002
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (AJH)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: feeding biomass into pressurised systems
In-Reply-To: <h3llkus9jagmrg162j5pklvsu9o70ngp3m@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <uvvuku0cgsu3mvgab3jq4ln4tqdcdfq2rc@4ax.com>

On Mon, 05 Aug 2002 23:35:06 +0100, AJH <andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com>
wrote:

>>
>>I DIFFER TO TOM MILES IN ALL THESE INDUSTRIAL SIZE QUESTIONS...
>
>I have not yet seen Tom M offer any comment on any options so How can
>we differ?

It has been pointed out to me that there is a typo in the comment I
was referring to, Tom Reed must have meant he deferred to Tom Miles
knowledge on industrial sized kit. My apologies for compounding the
mistake.

AJH

From Lasse.Tobiasen at csiro.au Tue Aug 6 18:07:36 2002
From: Lasse.Tobiasen at csiro.au (Tobiasen, Lasse (DET, Lucas Heights))
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Commercial gasification
Message-ID: <1477BCDAAEAD124DBC95A550A19DB379746FDB@boa-ri.riverside.csiro.au>

Hi all,

I am working for an Australian governmental research organisation and we are
currently reviewing available technology for usage of biomass residues for
energy production - a relatively new market in Australia.

In particular, I am interested in biomass gasification for the small scale
end of the market, say 1-5MW thermal. This could, for example, be usage of a
relatively unproblematic fuel, woodchips, in a gasifier coupled with an IC
engine for electricity generation (waste heat usually has lower priority
here).

I was interested to know if someone could forward me details on suppliers of
gasifiers which have reached commercial (or near commercial) status. I
realise there are many gasifiers out there, I am really only interested in
proven technology that has had substantial operating hours to back it up (or
other substantial evidence). I want to basically discard the ones that still
have tar-related, fouling, materials handling (or other) problems. I suppose
the best thing would be a supplier who was willing to give a guarantee on
the technology.

If such a gasifier exists and is proven, the next question then is: has
anyone successfully handled more 'difficult' fuels such as straw or cotton
waste?

Thankyou for your help,

Regards,
Lasse

Lasse Tobiasen
Engineer
---------------------------------------------------
CSIRO Energy Technology
Lucas Heights Laboratory
PMB 7, Bangor, NSW 2234
New Illawarra Road, Lucas Heights, Sydney
Tel: (02) 9710 6877 (direct)
Tel: (02) 9710 6777 (switchboard)
Fax: (02) 9710 6800
e-mail: Lasse.Tobiasen@csiro.au
www.det.csiro.au
---------------------------------------------------

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From tombreed at attbi.com Wed Aug 7 04:39:40 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: More Re: GAS-L: feeding biomass into pressurised systems
In-Reply-To: <h3llkus9jagmrg162j5pklvsu9o70ngp3m@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <009a01c23e0d$e0ec1360$0782fd0c@TOMBREED>

Dear All:

I spent 5 years of my valuable life and 5 million of your valuable tax
dollars developing a high pressure oxygen gasifier at the Solar Energy
Research Institute (1980-1985) now NREL. We focused primarily on the
chemistry and kinetics of the gasifier.

In retrospect, if we had spent half the money on high pressure feeder
research we would have been much farther ahead.

T'aint easy and there is no single solution, but it CAN be done. Check with
the veterans Tom Miles and others...

TOM REED

----- Original Message -----
From: "AJH" <andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com>
To: <gasification@crest.org>; "Stoves" <Stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: feeding biomass into pressurised systems

On Sat, 3 Aug 2002 09:31:10 -0700, "Tom Miles" <tmiles@trmiles.com>
wrote:

>Andrew,
>
>You seem to have touched a nerve. :-)

Didn't mean to :-(

Let's stay out of internecine disputes and see what I can learn from
all this.

>
>Just last week I encountered cases where individuals and companies
involved
>in that project have taken the results of their experience and carried them
>further in the past five years to improve their systems. They have done
that
>with investment of their own funds and energies and their activities are
not
>for me to discuss here. You'll just have to take that on faith.

OK but what is your opinion?

AJH

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From Tk at tke.dk Wed Aug 7 04:55:52 2002
From: Tk at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: More Re: GAS-L: feeding biomass into pressurised systems
In-Reply-To: <h3llkus9jagmrg162j5pklvsu9o70ngp3m@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <005e01c23e12$3c20a120$6801a8c0@image.dk>

Dear All

If anybody needs a highpressure biomass feeder TK Energy in Denmark have developed one that can feed against 40 bar.
It is a single stage piston feeder. We have tested solutions up 4 tons pr hour. (the Værnamo plant size) and expect to be able to feed up 10 pr hour in one line.

We have a feeder where all biomasses can be tested against 40 bar and everybody are velcome to come and see and touch and test it.

More information is available at

Thomas Koch
TK Energi AS
Stationsvej 4
4621 Gadstrup
Denmark
Phone +45 46191554
Mail tk@tke.dk

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Reed" <tombreed@attbi.com>
To: <andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com>; "gasification" <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 2:28 PM
Subject: GAS-L: More Re: GAS-L: feeding biomass into pressurised systems

> Dear All:
>
> I spent 5 years of my valuable life and 5 million of your valuable tax
> dollars developing a high pressure oxygen gasifier at the Solar Energy
> Research Institute (1980-1985) now NREL. We focused primarily on the
> chemistry and kinetics of the gasifier.
>
> In retrospect, if we had spent half the money on high pressure feeder
> research we would have been much farther ahead.
>
> T'aint easy and there is no single solution, but it CAN be done. Check with
> the veterans Tom Miles and others...
>
> TOM REED
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "AJH" <andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com>
> To: <gasification@crest.org>; "Stoves" <Stoves@crest.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 4:35 PM
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: feeding biomass into pressurised systems
>
>
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2002 09:31:10 -0700, "Tom Miles" <tmiles@trmiles.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Andrew,
> >
> >You seem to have touched a nerve. :-)
>
> Didn't mean to :-(
>
> Let's stay out of internecine disputes and see what I can learn from
> all this.
>
> >
> >Just last week I encountered cases where individuals and companies
> involved
> >in that project have taken the results of their experience and carried them
> >further in the past five years to improve their systems. They have done
> that
> >with investment of their own funds and energies and their activities are
> not
> >for me to discuss here. You'll just have to take that on faith.
>
> I am happy to do this, I have an ongoing bad experience with research
> based on an original idea of mine, it may yet get to fruition.
> >
> >It's far more productive to move on and explore or revisit the variety of
> >technical solutions that we have available, as you are attempting to do.
> >You've listed a number of feeding options and concepts. Each have been
> >tested in various forms at both the small and large scales. Some are
> >still under development and testing by various entities and all merit
> >further discussion.
>
> OK but what is your opinion?
>
> The screw and extrusion type options seem power hungry to me, as they
> induce a lot of friction, augering from a sealed hopper has flash back
> worries, a double bell hopper has shutting problems but a hybrid seize
> and bell hopper looks cheap and promising to me, also allows gravity
> to do the work. I also like the idea of a bolt and chamber device as
> the leakage path is only open instantaneously.
>
> AJH
>
> -
> Stoves List Archives and Website:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/200204/
> http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/
> >
> Stoves List Moderators:
> Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
> >
> List-Post: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
> >
> Sponsor the Stoves List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> http://www.bioenergy2002.org
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon
> >
> For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
> >http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/Chambers/Chambers.htm
>
>
>
>
> -
> Gasification List Archives:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
> www.webpan.com/BEF
> List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>
>
> Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Gasification Events and Information:
> http://www.bioenergy2002.org
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon
>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Wed Aug 7 11:06:23 2002
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (AJH)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: More Re: GAS-L: feeding biomass into pressurised systems
In-Reply-To: <h3llkus9jagmrg162j5pklvsu9o70ngp3m@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <4fr2luoi437lb2dv24gqccq28rbpmlcac8@4ax.com>

On Wed, 7 Aug 2002 06:28:03 -0600, "Tom Reed" <tombreed@attbi.com>
wrote:

I wasn't asking for a high pressure feeder, I just wanted a secure
seal against about 5mm of water gauge, still it is strange that only
one person on the list seems to be able to comment on feeding into a
back pressure, apart from Tom R and I.

Anything to do with biomass -> energy worth seeing near Boston Mass. I
shall be visiting next week, a bit far from Colorado but may be next
time?

AJH

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From tmiles at trmiles.com Wed Aug 7 11:44:32 2002
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: More Re: GAS-L: feeding biomass into pressurised systems
In-Reply-To: <h3llkus9jagmrg162j5pklvsu9o70ngp3m@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <017301c23e4a$b47d7ca0$6501a8c0@tommain>

Andrew,

There are different feeding options, as Thomas Koch and Tom Reed point out. In recent
years Thomas has made good progress on low density feedstocks for high pressure
systems. Our latest feeder is suppying a mixture of recycleable and renewable
feedstocks, including cell phones, into a gasifier with gas cleanup and power
recovery. Every gasifier developer that I know is and has been considering different
options including combinations of devices. But the feeder design or selection depends
on the feedstock, the degree of feedstock preparation and the capacity and operating
pressure of the gasifier. There is not necessarily one size that fits all. If you are
looking at low capacity, low pressure systems there are many options. Choices narrow
as as you increase pressure, capacity and system cost.

What is your specific target in terms of feedstock, type of gasifier, location of
feed, type of feedstock distribution in the reactor, size and dimensions of the
reactor, pressure, purge gas (if used) capacity, gas quality and cost? We will all
have slightly different answers to the same question.

RD&D in recent years would seem to indicate that 20MWe might be a minimum size for
IGCC power generation. Is that the scale that you are considering?

Tom Miles

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From tombreed at attbi.com Wed Aug 7 15:40:24 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: feeding biomass into pressurised systems
In-Reply-To: <h3llkus9jagmrg162j5pklvsu9o70ngp3m@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <005701c23e6a$30cbe700$0782fd0c@TOMBREED>

All:

Yes, a typo, "Deffer, not differ".

Ouch.. TOM REED

----- Original Message -----
From: "AJH" <andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com>
To: <gasification@crest.org>; "Stoves" <Stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 1:58 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: feeding biomass into pressurised systems

On Mon, 05 Aug 2002 23:35:06 +0100, AJH <andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com>
wrote:

>>
>>I DIFFER TO TOM MILES IN ALL THESE INDUSTRIAL SIZE QUESTIONS...
>
>I have not yet seen Tom M offer any comment on any options so How can
>we differ?

AJH

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From tombreed at attbi.com Thu Aug 8 05:00:28 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:03 2004
Subject: Capital Punishment for Virus makers
In-Reply-To: <20020808084549828.AAA255@netbook_server.cdcom.com.cn@Qfewhc>
Message-ID: <008301c23ed9$f1d552f0$0782fd0c@TOMBREED>

Dear All:

Computer viruses are a terrible, but low level
nuisance to all of us computer users. At least one needs virus protection
costing maybe $50/yr, so a tax of $5 billion/year on the 100 million computer
users in the US (and a great boon to the virus protectors who have no incentive
to stop collecting this tax). At worst they cause a loss of 10 to 100
hours of time to the 100 million users, a "tax" of 1 to 10 billion hours on
computer users.

A lifetime (80 years, 8 disposable hours/day) has
15,000 disposable hours. So this mischief "murders" (10^9/15,000)
67,000 people a year, far greater than 9/11.

I cana't imagine what joy the vius makers get out
of their mischief, but the 67,000 murders and $5 billion should make it a
CAPITAL OFFENSE to spread a virus. Instead, those who are caught are
slapped on the wrist.

I hope you will join a national campaign to
institute more proportionate penalties for virus bandits. Lifetime
imprisonment WITHOUT COMPUTER ACCESS would be a living hell for them, so lets
start with that!

~~~~~~
Please forward this to anyone (legislators,
pundits, editorial writers etc.) who you think may help with this
campaign.

Yours truly,

Thomas B.
Reed
COLORADO

From hseaver at cybershamanix.com Thu Aug 8 05:23:20 2002
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:03 2004
Subject: Capital Punishment for Virus makers
In-Reply-To: <008301c23ed9$f1d552f0$0782fd0c@TOMBREED>
Message-ID: <20020808122358.GA29043@cybershamanix.com>

I don't think we need anymore penalties for virus makers -- I don't think we
need the government's involvment at all -- left alone, the free market will take
care of the problem. I don't have even the slightest problem with viruses,
except for seeing all the warning messages about them, and I certainly don't
want one penny of my taxes wasted on the government doing anything about them.
It's quite simple Tom -- you are using a virus magnet for a mail reader, and
an extremely defective operating system. It's an very simple matter for you
to change to a decent mail reader, and wouldn't be all that difficult for you to
change to a real operating system that doesn't get viruses.
We don't need anymore corporate welfare or draconian laws propping up
defective products. The computer world is a lot like the auto industry -- most
people are driving Fords and Chevys, some people drive Audis and Mercedes --
except that in the computer world it costs much less to drive a Mercedes. Go
figure!
Surely anyone with the technical mindset to design and build gasifiers can
figure out how to install and run an better operating system, eh?

On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 06:48:47AM -0600, Tom Reed wrote:
> Dear All:
>
> Computer viruses are a terrible, but low level nuisance to all of us computer users. At least one needs virus protection costing maybe $50/yr, so a tax of $5 billion/year on the 100 million computer users in the US (and a great boon to the virus protectors who have no incentive to stop collecting this tax). At worst they cause a loss of 10 to 100 hours of time to the 100 million users, a "tax" of 1 to 10 billion hours on computer users.
>
> A lifetime (80 years, 8 disposable hours/day) has 15,000 disposable hours. So this mischief "murders" (10^9/15,000) 67,000 people a year, far greater than 9/11.
>
> I cana't imagine what joy the vius makers get out of their mischief, but the 67,000 murders and $5 billion should make it a CAPITAL OFFENSE to spread a virus. Instead, those who are caught are slapped on the wrist.
>
> I hope you will join a national campaign to institute more proportionate penalties for virus bandits. Lifetime imprisonment WITHOUT COMPUTER ACCESS would be a living hell for them, so lets start with that!
>
> ~~~~~~
> Please forward this to anyone (legislators, pundits, editorial writers etc.) who you think may help with this campaign.
>
> Yours truly, Thomas B. Reed COLORADO

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

From LINVENT at aol.com Thu Aug 8 06:37:17 2002
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Capital Punishment for Virus makers
Message-ID: <122.1528a3fc.2a83dbee@aol.com>

I agree with not having the gov't worry about another of our minor problems.
What if they were to require all programs and e-mail transmittals go through
a gov't clearinghouse to inspect for viruses? How's that for the bottom of a
slippery slope? They are probably reading and listening to enough of our
conversations already.
I use Apple and have had no problem with viruses in the 15 years or so
that I have used them. The system is stable and inpenetrable, the codes are
fairly well protected and I get viruses intended for PC/Microsoft programs
all the time and they end up in the trash. The last time I saw a virus alert
was on a resume from an engineer sent to me and it was detected on a disc
which I used at Kinko's when one of my systems were down. It had no effect
upon my system at all.

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From DMARKS at perini.com Thu Aug 8 06:43:05 2002
From: DMARKS at perini.com (Dan Marks)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Capital Punishment for Virus makers
Message-ID: <sd524c47.072@perini.com>

Just a note:
Make sure that if you are not using a firewall that your email preview pane is off. This will prevent the more sophisticated virus's from getting on through to your hard drives

>>> <LINVENT@aol.com> 08/08/02 10:36AM >>>
I agree with not having the gov't worry about another of our minor problems.
What if they were to require all programs and e-mail transmittals go through
a gov't clearinghouse to inspect for viruses? How's that for the bottom of a
slippery slope? They are probably reading and listening to enough of our
conversations already.
I use Apple and have had no problem with viruses in the 15 years or so
that I have used them. The system is stable and inpenetrable, the codes are
fairly well protected and I get viruses intended for PC/Microsoft programs
all the time and they end up in the trash. The last time I saw a virus alert
was on a resume from an engineer sent to me and it was detected on a disc
which I used at Kinko's when one of my systems were down. It had no effect
upon my system at all.

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From joflo at yifan.net Thu Aug 8 10:30:07 2002
From: joflo at yifan.net (Joel Florian)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Hackers are like gasifier tinkerers.
In-Reply-To: <009d01c23ef5$a80b07c0$0782fd0c@TOMBREED>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20020808093655.00a09100@yifan.net>

Hear Hear!,

Hackers and virus makers are like the tinkerers who build low-budget
gasifiers in their backyards. Some of the tinkerers have an intuitive
understanding of gasification that surpasses researchers and CEO's with
huge credentials. I'd be willing to bet that there are 20 or so people on
this list (I don't claim to be one of them) who could build a gasifier out
of scrap and mass-produced parts and then run an engine off the gas -- and
you could do in less time, space, and budget than any of the high-profile
projects we've discussed in the last years. Our society depends on
"modern" technology but the average American has much less common sense
than his grandfather. Most of us think we are smart if we seek the
opinions of some overpaid ,nationally recognized, "expert". Unless our
society quits worshiping "modern experts" and gets back to the common sense
approach of doing what works, every innovator will become a "threat to our
nation." That means those of us who are interested in
gasification. Anyone who thinks something can be done better is a threat
to those who profit from the way it is being done now. Anyone who thinks
that their "good" idea is going to bring the world to their feet is very
naive. Ideas are rarely judged on their own merit, don't forget about
money, politics, personal ambition. For every innovation, there are
dozens of people who oppose it merely because their livehood or reputation
is based on the status quo.

I believe we as Americans face a bigger danger than terrorism -- our own
stupidity. To give you an example: without statistics to verify this, I
bet more people have died in the last year from drunk driving than from
terrorist attacks. The government can't legislate stupidity. I don't
believe that anything can be totally foolproof -- fools are the best
innovators around.

I suspect most hackers write viruses in Linux and then maybe have a windows
box only for testing purposes....

Length of use does not justify a bad habit. Credentials -- whether
education, experience, or government support -- do not change stupidity
into something better. You can shave a dog, paint it a different color,
dress it in a three-piece suit and stuff a cell phone and PDA into it's
pockets, but it's still a dog.

Let's quit barking up the wrong trees and get on with gasification.

Joel Florian
Alaska

PS I've got to bring a couple of walking floor trailers up to Alaska to
haul chips for our boiler. Shipping seems to be pretty expensive. Anyone
have any suggestions?

At 10:49 AM 8/8/02 -0500, you wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 10:07:11AM -0600, Tom Reed wrote:
> > Dear Harmon:
> >
> > Thanks for the flame.
> >
> > Your same logic should make it unnecessary to spend one dollar of tax money
> > to catch and punish murderers, robbers and CEOs. The problem will take
> care
> > of itself!
>
>
> No, it's not the same at all. Viruses (and hacking) are a technological
>problem, and we have (and have had for a long time now) the technological
>solutions for it. I seriously think all laws against hacking and viruses
>should
>be abolished. I cheer wholeheartedly every single virus that comes out, and
>would never lift a finger to stop their spread -- and I'm a professional
>systems
>admin, remember.
> I think viruses are just great. They don't bother me. Prosecuting virues
>writers is like prosecuting Ralph Nader for pointing out the serious safety
>defects in cars.
> As I recall, it's been pointed out to you a number of times by myself and
>others that you are using a defective product. Wake up, Tom! There are many
>quite usable mail readers even for windows that don't have much of a virus
>problem. You are using the worst one on the market and then crying for the
>government to make it all better.
> That's like all the idiot farmers crying for subsidies and crop price
>supports, when the problem is they've been suckered by the ag industry.
>Just as
>there are much better, safer, and vastly more efficient and cost effective
>methods of farming, so are there much better ways of computing. Have you seen
>the latest blurbs from Intel -- they now are coming out with a 3GHZ
>processor --
>isn't that wonderful? For what? I'm still running a 266mhz processor --
>entirely
>fast enough, but then I run efficient software, eh? And my machine is not just
>my desktop box, but also a firewall, webserver, and email server.
> No Tom, we don't need more fascist government and more repressive
> laws. We
>need for people to wake up and stop buying defective crap made by a
>company that
>spends far more on advertising hype than they do on R&D.
>
>
>
> >
> > I still think the punishment should fit the crime and this crime is much
> > larger than any other, but because it is distributed we tolerate it. If we
> > added up the total costs we would switch from our anti terror war to an
> anti
> > virus war.
>
> Well, it's just a "War on Some Terror" just like their disgusting "War on
>Some Drugs". We don't need any more "Wars" on anything, give Peace a
>chance. The
>solutions for all those problems are well-known and quite easy to
>implement. The
>problem is that they are all just excuses for power grabs and destroying the
>Constituition, not to mention all the money they make for big
>corporations, the
>prison/industrial complex and other evil people.
>
> >
> > Tom Reed
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@cybershamanix.com>
> > To: "Tom Reed" <tombreed@attbi.com>
> > Cc: <editor@RockyMountainNews.com>; <noem@RockyMountainNews.com>; "zhangmi"
> > <zhangmi@biogas.com.cn>; "gasification" <gasification@crest.org>; "Stoves"
> > <Stoves@crest.org>; <Philreed@aol.com>; "Peter Reed" <preed@linboston.com>;
> > "Kevin Reed" <kevin.reed@chhn.com>; "Katherine Cochrane"
> > <kcochrane@earthlink.net>; "Emily Jane Reed" <meyer618@hotmail.com>;
> > "Shivayam Ellis" <shivayam55@hotmail.com>; "Bob Weldon"
> > <bobkarlaweldon@cs.com>; "Pete Salinger" <petes@ma.ultranet.com>; "John
> > Reed" <reed112@juno.com>; "Emily Jane Reed" <618meyer@hotmail.com>; "Pat
> > Duesenberg" <PatDuesenberg@cs.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 6:23 AM
> > Subject: Re: Capital Punishment for Virus makers
> >
> >
> > > I don't think we need anymore penalties for virus makers -- I don't
> > think we
> > > need the government's involvment at all -- left alone, the free market
> > will take
> > > care of the problem. I don't have even the slightest problem with
> viruses,
> > > except for seeing all the warning messages about them, and I certainly
> > don't
> > > want one penny of my taxes wasted on the government doing anything about
> > them.
> > > It's quite simple Tom -- you are using a virus magnet for a mail
> reader,
> > and
> > > an extremely defective operating system. It's an very simple matter for
> > you
> > > to change to a decent mail reader, and wouldn't be all that difficult for
> > you to
> > > change to a real operating system that doesn't get viruses.
> > > We don't need anymore corporate welfare or draconian laws propping up
> > > defective products. The computer world is a lot like the auto industry --
> > most
> > > people are driving Fords and Chevys, some people drive Audis and
> > Mercedes --
> > > except that in the computer world it costs much less to drive a Mercedes.
> > Go
> > > figure!
> > > Surely anyone with the technical mindset to design and build gasifiers
> > can
> > > figure out how to install and run an better operating system, eh?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 06:48:47AM -0600, Tom Reed wrote:
> > > > Dear All:
> > > >
> > > > Computer viruses are a terrible, but low level nuisance to all of us
> > computer users. At least one needs virus protection costing maybe $50/yr,
> > so a tax of $5 billion/year on the 100 million computer users in the US
> (and
> > a great boon to the virus protectors who have no incentive to stop
> > collecting this tax). At worst they cause a loss of 10 to 100 hours of
> time
> > to the 100 million users, a "tax" of 1 to 10 billion hours on computer
> > users.
> > > >
> > > > A lifetime (80 years, 8 disposable hours/day) has 15,000 disposable
> > hours. So this mischief "murders" (10^9/15,000) 67,000 people a year, far
> > greater than 9/11.
> > > >
> > > > I cana't imagine what joy the vius makers get out of their
> mischief, but
> > the 67,000 murders and $5 billion should make it a CAPITAL OFFENSE to
> spread
> > a virus. Instead, those who are caught are slapped on the wrist.
> > > >
> > > > I hope you will join a national campaign to institute more
> proportionate
> > penalties for virus bandits. Lifetime imprisonment WITHOUT COMPUTER ACCESS
> > would be a living hell for them, so lets start with that!
> > > >
> > > >
> > ~~~~~~
> > > > Please forward this to anyone (legislators, pundits, editorial writers
> > etc.) who you think may help with this campaign.
> > > >
> > > > Yours truly, Thomas B. Reed
> > COLORADO
> > >
> > > --
> > > Harmon Seaver
> > > CyberShamanix
> > > http://www.cybershamanix.com
> > >
> >
>
>--
>Harmon Seaver
>CyberShamanix
>http://www.cybershamanix.com
>
>-
>Gasification List Archives:
>http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
>
>Gasification List Moderator:
>Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
>www.webpan.com/BEF
>List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
>List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>
>
>Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
>-
>Other Gasification Events and Information:
>http://www.bioenergy2002.org
>http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
>http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
>http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From hseaver at cybershamanix.com Thu Aug 8 11:52:00 2002
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Hackers are like gasifier tinkerers.
In-Reply-To: <009d01c23ef5$a80b07c0$0782fd0c@TOMBREED>
Message-ID: <20020808185259.GA30025@cybershamanix.com>

On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 10:27:15AM -0800, Joel Florian wrote:
> Hear Hear!,
>
> Hackers and virus makers are like the tinkerers who build low-budget
> gasifiers in their backyards. Some of the tinkerers have an intuitive
> understanding of gasification that surpasses researchers and CEO's with
> huge credentials. I'd be willing to bet that there are 20 or so people on
> this list (I don't claim to be one of them) who could build a gasifier out
> of scrap and mass-produced parts and then run an engine off the gas -- and
> you could do in less time, space, and budget than any of the high-profile
> projects we've discussed in the last years. Our society depends on
> "modern" technology but the average American has much less common sense
> than his grandfather. Most of us think we are smart if we seek the
> opinions of some overpaid ,nationally recognized, "expert". Unless our
> society quits worshiping "modern experts" and gets back to the common sense
> approach of doing what works, every innovator will become a "threat to our
> nation." That means those of us who are interested in
> gasification. Anyone who thinks something can be done better is a threat
> to those who profit from the way it is being done now. Anyone who thinks
> that their "good" idea is going to bring the world to their feet is very
> naive. Ideas are rarely judged on their own merit, don't forget about
> money, politics, personal ambition. For every innovation, there are
> dozens of people who oppose it merely because their livehood or reputation
> is based on the status quo.

Yes -- I just finished reading a biography ("Wizard") of Nikolai Tesla --
absolutely astounding, and a really sad commentary on how corporations and
governments work to destroy and discredit people whose inventions and genius
threaten the status quo.

>
>
> I believe we as Americans face a bigger danger than terrorism -- our own
> stupidity. To give you an example: without statistics to verify this, I
> bet more people have died in the last year from drunk driving than from
> terrorist attacks. The government can't legislate stupidity. I don't
> believe that anything can be totally foolproof -- fools are the best
> innovators around.
>

Exactly -- and the "terrorism" we're seeing now is just the fruits of gov't
policy over many decades. If indeed it isn't all planned by the CIA and the evil
little retard in the whitehouse. It's almost funny -- I'm not a bit afraid of
terrorists, but I'm scared stiff of the government, and get more so every
day. And more disgusted and sickened. But it's not just the US, it seems to have
infected the whole english speaking world. Almost like a sci-fi novel or
something.

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From j.joyce at sri.org.au Thu Aug 8 12:29:24 2002
From: j.joyce at sri.org.au (James Joyce)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:03 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Commercial gasification - Pressurised feeder
Message-ID: <OF47CAF509.A6F2662B-ON4A256C0F.00452B56-4A256C0F.00469460@sri.org.au>

Lasse, the Sugar Research Institute in Mackay have been involved in R&D on
pressurised gasification of bagasse for combined cycle power generation (>
20 MWe), for roughly the past 5 years.

We have developed a pressurised feeder for bagasse that does not use
lock-hopper or screw principles. It has been operated at a bit more than 20
Bar into a pressure vessel and is currently being patented (I am not sure
of the exact status of the patent). We have tested it with a few different
wood chip fuels and wood chip/bagasse blends. The technique does rely on
there being some moisture in the fuel for the gas seal to function
efficiently. The development unit would work fine at 1-5 MWt. If you would
like to discuss this more I suggest you contact our engineering group
leader Dr. Terry Dixon at t.dixon@sri.org.au

If you would like to discuss economics and aspects of gasification kinetics
I can talk to these topics, as SRI have examined the economics in the
Australian context and I built a laboratory scale pressurised gasifier for
my PhD thesis ... which is still to be completed (the thesis that is). I am
however no-where near as experienced as many of the people on this list.

Your organisation, CSIRO, have, in recent times, built and operated at
least one atmospheric wood gasifier that I know of. Are you aware of this ?

As of Monday I will be out of the country for a few weeks, so there could
be a delay in my response to you.

Regards,

James Joyce

gasification-digest-help
@crest.org To: gasification@crest.org
cc:
08/08/02 09:39 AM Subject: gasification Digest 7 Aug 2002 23:39:56 -0000 Issue 201

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

Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:02:13 +1000
To: gasification@crest.org
From: "Tobiasen, Lasse (DET, Lucas Heights)" <Lasse.Tobiasen@csiro.au>
Subject: Commercial gasification
Message-ID:
<1477BCDAAEAD124DBC95A550A19DB379746FDB@boa-ri.riverside.csiro.au>

Hi all,

I am working for an Australian governmental research organisation and we
are
currently reviewing available technology for usage of biomass residues for
energy production - a relatively new market in Australia.

In particular, I am interested in biomass gasification for the small scale
end of the market, say 1-5MW thermal. This could, for example, be usage of
a
relatively unproblematic fuel, woodchips, in a gasifier coupled with an IC
engine for electricity generation (waste heat usually has lower priority
here).

I was interested to know if someone could forward me details on suppliers
of
gasifiers which have reached commercial (or near commercial) status. I
realise there are many gasifiers out there, I am really only interested in
proven technology that has had substantial operating hours to back it up
(or
other substantial evidence). I want to basically discard the ones that
still
have tar-related, fouling, materials handling (or other) problems. I
suppose
the best thing would be a supplier who was willing to give a guarantee on
the technology.

If such a gasifier exists and is proven, the next question then is: has
anyone successfully handled more 'difficult' fuels such as straw or cotton
waste?

Thankyou for your help,

Regards,
Lasse

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Thu Aug 8 14:20:14 2002
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (AJH)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: More Re: GAS-L: feeding biomass into pressurised systems
In-Reply-To: <h3llkus9jagmrg162j5pklvsu9o70ngp3m@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <f8r5luch78ms7t08kj0f6jseo5491s38jf@4ax.com>

On Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:19:18 -0700, "Tom Miles" <tmiles@trmiles.com>
wrote:

>What is your specific target in terms of feedstock, type of gasifier, location of
>feed, type of feedstock distribution in the reactor, size and dimensions of the
>reactor, pressure, purge gas (if used) capacity, gas quality and cost? We will all
>have slightly different answers to the same question.

I guess rice hulls would be a feedstock that would cause me problems
with batch loading, low bulk density, high ash, so continuously
feeding them would be a good case. I have no access to any but I know
my burner will not hold as much sawdust as it does with chunks of
wood.

Mine is not a gasifier it is a simple, blown, burner. What I have
found is that using a feed tube as a magazine allows offgas and
combustion products to rise in the tube. Thomas K has suggested a
screw feed as being most appropriate, I think that in order to seal a
screw or piston plug device must deform the raw material, this means
putting work into it. The bell hopper and bolt action seem not to need
to deform the feedstock and I thought would be less power hungry,
though they then need better mechanical seals.
>
>RD&D in recent years would seem to indicate that 20MWe might be a minimum size for
>IGCC power generation. Is that the scale that you are considering?

There'll not be much market for bits of an 11MW(e) IGCC plant going
spare then? :-(

20MW(e) suggests about 100MW(t), I am looking at 3kW(t) :-), though a
friend has built one to my design of ~100kW(t).

I really was looking to pointers to how different feeders worked in
layman's terms.

AJH

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From d.rl at virgin.net Fri Aug 9 07:05:46 2002
From: d.rl at virgin.net (David Reynolds-Lacey)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Capital Punishment for Virus makers
In-Reply-To: <008301c23ed9$f1d552f0$0782fd0c@TOMBREED>
Message-ID: <3D53DA65.2B2D07C8@virgin.net>

Harmon,

Well said! - I agree with just about everything you say, even if you did avoid
mentioning the "M" word and "greed" when talking about producers of defective
operating systems and email programs. Although the comparison with Ralph Nader's
work is not 100 percent the same - but close. However there is just one thing that
does concern me :-

Harmon Seaver wrote:

> . I cheer wholeheartedly every single virus that comes out, and
> would never lift a finger to stop their spread -- and I'm a professional systems
> admin, remember.

Are you saying that you would knowingly send a virus on to someone else?

David R-L

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From hseaver at cybershamanix.com Fri Aug 9 09:02:24 2002
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Capital Punishment for Virus makers
In-Reply-To: <008301c23ed9$f1d552f0$0782fd0c@TOMBREED>
Message-ID: <20020809160320.GA31389@cybershamanix.com>

On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 04:06:14PM +0100, David Reynolds-Lacey wrote:
> Harmon,
>
> Well said! - I agree with just about everything you say, even if you did avoid
> mentioning the "M" word and "greed" when talking about producers of defective
> operating systems and email programs. Although the comparison with Ralph Nader's
> work is not 100 percent the same - but close. However there is just one thing that
> does concern me :-
>
> Harmon Seaver wrote:
>
> > . I cheer wholeheartedly every single virus that comes out, and
> > would never lift a finger to stop their spread -- and I'm a professional systems
> > admin, remember.
>
> Are you saying that you would knowingly send a virus on to someone else?
>

That's not what I said, is it? I said I wouldn't do anything to stop the
spread. But in actuality, that's incorrect, because what I do is simply forbid
the use of M$ Outlook, or, if I can't forbid it, I just tell those that want to
use it that they are on their own, no support from systems staff will be
available if they get a virus. And I've found that when you demonstrate to
people how easy it is for them to get a virus using Outlook, where the same
virus doesn't affect Netscape, Eudora, or Pegasus; or how easy it is for a
malicious website to infect or even completely take over their computer if they
use Internet Explorer, most people are sensible enough to change. And for those
who won't, or who take the attitude of "you're not telling me what to do", oh
well! I just love Darwinian justice.
Since my software isn't affected by viruses in any way, to send them on I would
have to deliberately save a copy of it and then deliberately add it to an
email. Why would I do that?

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From venusengineers at eth.net Fri Aug 9 19:56:49 2002
From: venusengineers at eth.net (krishnaswamy)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Commercial gasification
In-Reply-To: <1477BCDAAEAD124DBC95A550A19DB379746FDB@boa-ri.riverside.csiro.au>
Message-ID: <003d01c24022$4f66d440$8296fea9@trk>

Dear
All,

We have been
working on open-top down draft, re-burn gasification of bioresidues for the
past three years and have successfully implemented 7 projects ranging in size
from 20 kWe to 2 MWe, in India and abroad, using a wide range of biomass
feedstock such as Casuarina, Eucalyptus, coconut shell. The gasifiers can use
practically any woody biomass fuel containing upto 15% moisture and are used by
our clients for both thermal applications and for power
generation.

The typical
thermal applications are for high grade heat (upto 1100 Degree C) such as for
heat treatment furnaces, thermic fluid heaters, hot air generators, where,
depending on budget constraints, producer gas has either partially or totally
replaced fossil fuels. The typical power applications are as captive island
units and for grid connection. Power can be generated both in the dual fuel mode
and in the 100% gas mode. With conventional Diesel/HFO generators without any
modifications, we have achieved liquid fuel replacement of upto 90% in the dual
fuel mode. Power can also be generated with Diesel/HFO generators retrofitted
with spark ignition systems enabling power generation on 100% producer gas. The
cost of unit generation ranges from 3.65 cents in the 100% gas mode to 5.70
cents in dual mode using commercially available biomass (without considering any
govt. handouts and subsidies, which always distort the cost structure).
With some specific fuels like coconut shell, rice husk and cashew nut
shell, we have also obtained by-products such as Activated Carbon,
Precipitated Silica and CNSL resp.,thus reducing the effective cost of
generation to 1.55 cents on 100% gas mode and 3.60 cents in the dual mode. Our
systems are work horses with PLC controls and are built to last . Some
of them have clocked more than 7500 hours in the industrial mode.

The technology is
already proven and more than 24 installations in India and abroad are living
proof of this. The technology package is provided by Professor Mukunda's team at
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India, and we undertake turn-key project
implementation involving detail engineering of civil,mechanical, electrical,
instrumentation and data acquisition through site identification, obtaining
letting and permissions, system manufacture, installation and commissioning to
on-site training of operating plant personnel and system performance
monitoring. We also undertake O & M contracts and annual AMCs and are in the
process of finalising some more projects on BOO & BOOT basis in India. We
have recently moved our office to the following address :

Energreen Power
Ltd.,
First Floor,
'Ashroff',
# 1, Second
Street,
Nandanam
Extension,
Chennai, TN, India
- 600 035.
Tel : 91(44)
4321339, 4322499
e-mail
: <A
href="mailto:energreenpower@lycos.com">energreenpower@lycos.com

Our website <A
href="http://www.energreenpowerindia,com">www.energreenpowerindia,com is
presently under construction and should be up in a week's
time.

T R
Krishnaswamy

----- Original
Message -----
From: Tobiasen,
Lasse (DET, Lucas Heights) <<A
href="mailto:Lasse.Tobiasen@csiro.au">Lasse.Tobiasen@csiro.au>
To: <<A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Wednesday,
August 07, 2002 7:32 AM
Subject: GAS-L:
Commercial gasification
> Hi
all,> > I am working for an Australian governmental research
organisation and we are> currently reviewing available technology for
usage of biomass residues for> energy production - a relatively new
market in Australia. > > In particular, I am interested in biomass
gasification for the small scale> end of the market, say 1-5MW thermal.
This could, for example, be usage of a> relatively unproblematic fuel,
woodchips, in a gasifier coupled with an IC> engine for electricity
generation (waste heat usually has lower priority> here).>
> I was interested to know if someone could forward me details on
suppliers of> gasifiers which have reached commercial (or near
commercial) status. I> realise there are many gasifiers out there, I am
really only interested in> proven technology that has had substantial
operating hours to back it up (or> other substantial evidence). I want to
basically discard the ones that still> have tar-related, fouling,
materials handling (or other) problems. I suppose> the best thing would
be a supplier who was willing to give a guarantee on> the
technology.> > If such a gasifier exists and is proven, the next
question then is: has> anyone successfully handled more 'difficult' fuels
such as straw or cotton> waste?> > Thankyou for your
help,> > Regards,> Lasse > > >
> > > Lasse Tobiasen> Engineer>
---------------------------------------------------> CSIRO Energy
Technology> Lucas Heights Laboratory> PMB 7, Bangor, NSW
2234> New Illawarra Road, Lucas Heights, Sydney> Tel: (02) 9710
6877 (direct) > Tel: (02) 9710 6777 (switchboard)> Fax: (02) 9710
6800> e-mail: <A
href="mailto:Lasse.Tobiasen@csiro.au">Lasse.Tobiasen@csiro.au> <A
href="http://www.det.csiro.au">www.det.csiro.au>
---------------------------------------------------> > >
-> Gasification List Archives:> <A
href="http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/">http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/>
> Gasification List Moderator:> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy
Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com> <A
href="http://www.webpan.com/BEF">www.webpan.com/BEF> List-Post:
<<A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">mailto:gasification@crest.org>>
List-Help: <<A
href="mailto:gasification-help@crest.org">mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>>
List-Unsubscribe: <<A
href="mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org">mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>>
List-Subscribe: <<A
href="mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org">mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>>
> Sponsor the Gasification List: <A
href="http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html">http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html>
-> Other Gasification Events and Information:> <A
href="http://www.bioenergy2002.org">http://www.bioenergy2002.org> <A
href="http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html">http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html
Bioenergy> <A
href="http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html">http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
Gasification> <A
href="http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html">http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html
Carbon>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From brunom1 at yucom.be Sat Aug 10 01:50:24 2002
From: brunom1 at yucom.be (Bruno M.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Commercial gasification
In-Reply-To: <1477BCDAAEAD124DBC95A550A19DB379746FDB@boa-ri.riverside.csiro.au>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020810113519.00a5bc00@pop3.yucom.be>

At 09:28 10/08/2002 +0530, T R Krishnaswamy wrote:
>Dear All,
>We have been working on open-top down draft, re-burn gasification
>of bioresidues for the past three years and have successfully
>implemented 7 projects ranging in size from 20 kWe to 2 MWe,
>in India and abroad,
...cut...
>
>Energreen Power Ltd.,
>First Floor, 'Ashroff',
># 1, Second Street,
>Nandanam Extension,
>Chennai, TN, India - 600 035.
>Tel : 91(44) 4321339, 4322499
>e-mail : energreenpower@lycos.com
>
>Our website www.energreenpowerindia,com is presently under construction
>and should be up in a week's time.
>
>T R Krishnaswamy
> ...cut...
==================
The link will not work,
the website adres should be : http://www.energreenpowerindia.com/
A dot is a dot ;-)
Bruno M.

-----------------------------------------------------
Reply's to BrunoM1@yucom.be

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From BronzeoakC at aol.com Mon Aug 12 01:37:03 2002
From: BronzeoakC at aol.com (BronzeoakC@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Government gasifier projects...
Message-ID: <2A1FB5E0.34A58D81.0AFC087A@aol.com>

Dear Tom,
I read your e-mail with interest.
Do you have any more specific information about the pelletizing of bagasse in Brazil? Or can you suggest where I can find it? We are working on a bagasse cogen in the Philippines and need a way to provide biomass fuel during the out-of-season period.
Best regards
David Walden
Bronzeoak Corp.

In a message dated Sat, 3 Aug 2002 5:13:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, tombreed@attbi.com writes:

>
> Subj: GAS-L: Government gasifier projects...
> Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 5:13:03 PM Eastern Standard Time
> From: "Tom Reed" <tombreed@attbi.com>
> To: "Tom Miles" <tmiles@trmiles.com>, "AJH" <andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com>, <gasification@crest.org>, "Stoves" <Stoves@crest.org>
> Reply-To: "Tom Reed" <tombreed@attbi.com>
> Sent from the Internet (Details)
>
>
>
>
> Dear Tom, Andrew et al:
>
> I'm glad Tom Miles could counter my overgeneralized blackwash of Government
> projects. I have been involved in a few and learned a lot and hope I am
> passing it on as much as possible.
>
> The Hawaii project in particular grated on me because it went through
> several phases before any money was spent. In its initial phase (about
> 1986) it was meant to be a "Methanol from Biomass" project which I applauded
> and still applaud. Congress set aside $5 M in matching funds. It was
> rumoured to be "prewired" for the Institute of Gas Technology (IGT) gasifier
> in Chicago. Our (SynGas Inc.) 40 page proposal from SynGas for a
> pressurized fixed bed oxygen gasifier was rejected immediately, even though
> we had been operating a one ton unit for 4-5 years at the Solar Energy
> Research Institute.
>
> This first phase faded when IGT's matching funds proved vaporous. The money
> must have been underground because it resurfaced about 1992 (?) in similar
> form, a METHANOL FROM BIOMASS project. I remember sending an objecting
> letter to the DOE that the IGT gasifier was not very suitable because it
> made a gas high in hydrocarbons which would have to be reformed to a syngas,
> while other gasifiers (oxygen in particular) make a gas that is primarily CO
> and H2 and would require much less conditioning.
>
> The Hawaii project was crippled by working with one of the world's most
> difficult feeding fuels - raw bagasse from sugar cane. Tom could tell you
> the details, but it chewed up a million dollars worth of feeders. And
> probably $50 M worth of development time and much talent over 12 years.
>
> ~~~~~~
> In several ways bagasse is a very attractive energy source. Every sugar
> plant is a potential source of biomass or power and Winrock is busy helping
> to convert low pressure sugar mills to high pressure "power plants/sugar
> mills" around the world.
>
> If you densify bagasse (piece of cake) it makes one of the nicest biomass
> fuels, well washed and very dense. Pellets were selling in Brazil for <
> $10/ton last year and I have been working with a group heading toward
> methanol. They are ready to start testing on their phase II gasifier in a
> month or two. The pellets would be suitable for a coal type lock hoppers -
> proven technology.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On the other hand I have been involved in a lot of Small Business Innovation
> Grant projects and they seem to do very well. Industry is not usually in a
> position to test new ideas, so SBIRs provide a Phase I II
> III stage to
> bringing them to fruition.
>
> Yours truly, TOM REED
> BEF GASWORKS

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From jamespdunham at hotmail.com Mon Aug 12 06:29:58 2002
From: jamespdunham at hotmail.com (jim dunham)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Government gasifier projects...
Message-ID: <F23HKfYfNZ39L9Qpx410000ec20@hotmail.com>

Also consider 'briquettes' instead of pellets. Same principle...same
advantages...much less cost.

Jim Dunham

>From: BronzeoakC@aol.com
>To: tombreed@attbi.com|, tombreed@attbi.com ("Tom Reed")
>CC: gasification@crest.org
>Subject: Re: GAS-L: Government gasifier projects...
>Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 05:35:21 -0400
>
>Dear Tom,
>I read your e-mail with interest.
>Do you have any more specific information about the pelletizing of bagasse
>in Brazil? Or can you suggest where I can find it? We are working on a
>bagasse cogen in the Philippines and need a way to provide biomass fuel
>during the out-of-season period.
>Best regards
>David Walden
>Bronzeoak Corp.
>
>
>In a message dated Sat, 3 Aug 2002 5:13:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>tombreed@attbi.com writes:
>
> >
> > Subj: GAS-L: Government gasifier projects...
> > Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 5:13:03 PM Eastern Standard Time
> > From: "Tom Reed" <tombreed@attbi.com>
> > To: "Tom Miles" <tmiles@trmiles.com>, "AJH"
><andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com>, <gasification@crest.org>, "Stoves"
><Stoves@crest.org>
> > Reply-To: "Tom Reed" <tombreed@attbi.com>
> > Sent from the Internet (Details)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Tom, Andrew et al:
> >
> > I'm glad Tom Miles could counter my overgeneralized blackwash of
>Government
> > projects. I have been involved in a few and learned a lot and hope I am
> > passing it on as much as possible.
> >
> > The Hawaii project in particular grated on me because it went through
> > several phases before any money was spent. In its initial phase (about
> > 1986) it was meant to be a "Methanol from Biomass" project which I
>applauded
> > and still applaud. Congress set aside $5 M in matching funds. It was
> > rumoured to be "prewired" for the Institute of Gas Technology (IGT)
>gasifier
> > in Chicago. Our (SynGas Inc.) 40 page proposal from SynGas for a
> > pressurized fixed bed oxygen gasifier was rejected immediately, even
>though
> > we had been operating a one ton unit for 4-5 years at the Solar Energy
> > Research Institute.
> >
> > This first phase faded when IGT's matching funds proved vaporous. The
>money
> > must have been underground because it resurfaced about 1992 (?) in
>similar
> > form, a METHANOL FROM BIOMASS project. I remember sending an objecting
> > letter to the DOE that the IGT gasifier was not very suitable because it
> > made a gas high in hydrocarbons which would have to be reformed to a
>syngas,
> > while other gasifiers (oxygen in particular) make a gas that is
>primarily CO
> > and H2 and would require much less conditioning.
> >
> > The Hawaii project was crippled by working with one of the world's most
> > difficult feeding fuels - raw bagasse from sugar cane. Tom could tell
>you
> > the details, but it chewed up a million dollars worth of feeders. And
> > probably $50 M worth of development time and much talent over 12 years.
> >
> > ~~~~~~
> > In several ways bagasse is a very attractive energy source. Every sugar
> > plant is a potential source of biomass or power and Winrock is busy
>helping
> > to convert low pressure sugar mills to high pressure "power plants/sugar
> > mills" around the world.
> >
> > If you densify bagasse (piece of cake) it makes one of the nicest
>biomass
> > fuels, well washed and very dense. Pellets were selling in Brazil for <
> > $10/ton last year and I have been working with a group heading toward
> > methanol. They are ready to start testing on their phase II gasifier in
>a
> > month or two. The pellets would be suitable for a coal type lock
>hoppers -
> > proven technology.
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > On the other hand I have been involved in a lot of Small Business
>Innovation
> > Grant projects and they seem to do very well. Industry is not usually
>in a
> > position to test new ideas, so SBIRs provide a Phase I II
> > III stage to
> > bringing them to fruition.
> >
> > Yours truly, TOM REED
> > BEF GASWORKS
>
>
>
>-
>Gasification List Archives:
>http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
>
>Gasification List Moderator:
>Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
>www.webpan.com/BEF
>List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
>List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>
>
>Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
>-
>Other Gasification Events and Information:
>http://www.bioenergy2002.org
>http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
>http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
>http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Wed Aug 14 16:53:46 2002
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Commercial Gasification.
Message-ID: <002201c243b4$55336100$19ff58db@newpc>

Dear Lasse,

Here is a summary and comments of our activity relating to high performance
engine gasifiers for power generation. This is only to show you what is in
the pipeline, as our development programme is for our own business to enter
the market place as a power producer. We take all the responsibility of
running the installations and nobody has to buy anything except the power.

I personally don't know of any gasified engine power generation with a
commercial record of continuous operation in the size you seek, but quite a
few are known to have failed.

Any manufacturer who may have survived the cost of developing small
gasifiers (30-100kWe) has done so because engines were available, albeit not
really built for producer gas. When you try to take the next step of
scaling up, then you need substantial financing and there just hasn't been a
market to justify the expense.

Even if we build our larger gasifier, the real test can only be done with an
engine, and if we say gasify 1 tonne/hour, then the engine for that 1 MWe
output costs around A$2 million and is quite large are 10.5 tonne. When you
get to this size of activity, everything has to be designed, built and
tested, for cooling, cleaning, fuel feeding, waste cleanouts etc. as nothing
comes ready made specifically for gasifiers. Things don't just have to
work, but prove reliable thousands of kilometres away from the supplier, in
every type of environment.

Then there is the need for testing the gas and emissions, mainly for
authorities and their control over permits. By the end of this month
(August 2002) our costs for testing will be just on US$100,000 and even
though conducted by certified technicians from registered laboratories,
these tests have to be duplicated at the whim of petty officials.

Currently we have three separate development programmes associated with our
gasification technology in Canada, Northern Ireland, and Germany. Each of
our associated companies are contributing a diverse range of expertise to
eventually create a power generation package plant, appropriate for our
needs. In addition to this we are adding other technologies that can be
used in variations to clean up effluent and other waste water including
desalination, and waste treatment to make waste disposal an environmentally
friendly activity.

The ability to produce large quantities of clean tar free gas, also enables
engine and gas turbine development to move forward, and I am pleased to say
we are working with two manufacturers to develop these systems specifically
for producer gas. Other gasifier manufacturers will benefit from the
availability of these engines if their systems make clean gas.

For gasified power generation to work in any country, the implementation
programme must be a co-ordinated activity. Fuel supply and preparation,
operator training, gasifier servicing and stand-by plant, must all be in
place if we seriously mean to set up a new sustainable energy supply using
gasification. I doubt if any manufacturer can have this type of
infrastructure by selling gasifiers one at a time, and just one badly
operated gasifier would destroy that manufacturer's reputation.

As far as Australia is concerned, it is on my doorstep and in due course
when we are ready, we will see if it is worth while to set up a business
division. If and when that happens you can pay us to do your fuel trials on
cotton trash and various straw type biomass. We have had success with
similar waste trials and you can see some of this work in the Fluidyne
Archive under Eco Puck Briquetter.

Good luck with your survey.

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification
Fluidyne Archive www.fluidynenz.250x.com

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au Wed Aug 14 17:27:35 2002
From: p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au (Peter M Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Commercial gasification
In-Reply-To: <1477BCDAAEAD124DBC95A550A19DB379746FDB@boa-ri.riverside.csiro.au>
Message-ID: <000801c2427a$924c1c20$e09c8a90@computer>

Dear All,

You may have noticed my posting on new pelletizing
technology.

We are currently working on a number of
applications for this including a large scale (+25,000 tonnes/year) industrial
charcoal facility using reclaimed green waste from landfill. Off gasses
from this will be captured and used within the plant.

We are looking for potential technology suppliers
(partners?) who can add value through gasification or similar equipment for
onsite electricity generation and process heat in the 250kW to 5 MW range.
Fuel would be high density biomass pellets.

I would be pleased to hear from anyone who might be
interested.

Kind regards,

Peter Davies

Australia

From p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au Wed Aug 14 17:28:58 2002
From: p.m.davies at bigpond.com.au (Peter M Davies)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Government gasifier projects...pelletizing
In-Reply-To: <2A1FB5E0.34A58D81.0AFC087A@aol.com>
Message-ID: <000701c2427a$90c26ee0$e09c8a90@computer>

Dear David,

There is a new innovative super pelletizing technology available from Italy.
These units can handle biomass up to 40% moisture content without auxillary
drying equipment (there is also a "densifier" version for sewerage sludges
and other wet wastes). Pellets are denser than standard, size range of
8mm-16mm diameters. Typical bulk densities are in the order of 750kg/m3 and
final moisture content is 8%. Ideal for gasifier fuel or other projects
which can benefit from uniform characteristic feedstocks.

Currently some development work is being done on pelletizing bagasse in Cuba
using this technology with excellent results.

I have a PDF brochure I can send to anyone interested along with contact
details for your region (I am currently handling Australasia).

Cheers,
Peter Davies
Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: <BronzeoakC@aol.com>
To: <tombreed@attbi.com|>; ""Tom Reed"" <tombreed@attbi.com>
Cc: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Government gasifier projects...

> Dear Tom,
> I read your e-mail with interest.
> Do you have any more specific information about the pelletizing of bagasse
in Brazil? Or can you suggest where I can find it? We are working on a
bagasse cogen in the Philippines and need a way to provide biomass fuel
during the out-of-season period.
> Best regards
> David Walden
> Bronzeoak Corp.
>
>
> In a message dated Sat, 3 Aug 2002 5:13:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,
tombreed@attbi.com writes:
>
> >
> > Subj: GAS-L: Government gasifier projects...
> > Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 5:13:03 PM Eastern Standard Time
> > From: "Tom Reed" <tombreed@attbi.com>
> > To: "Tom Miles" <tmiles@trmiles.com>, "AJH"
<andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com>, <gasification@crest.org>, "Stoves"
<Stoves@crest.org>
> > Reply-To: "Tom Reed" <tombreed@attbi.com>
> > Sent from the Internet (Details)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Tom, Andrew et al:
> >
> > I'm glad Tom Miles could counter my overgeneralized blackwash of
Government
> > projects. I have been involved in a few and learned a lot and hope I am
> > passing it on as much as possible.
> >
> > The Hawaii project in particular grated on me because it went through
> > several phases before any money was spent. In its initial phase (about
> > 1986) it was meant to be a "Methanol from Biomass" project which I
applauded
> > and still applaud. Congress set aside $5 M in matching funds. It was
> > rumoured to be "prewired" for the Institute of Gas Technology (IGT)
gasifier
> > in Chicago. Our (SynGas Inc.) 40 page proposal from SynGas for a
> > pressurized fixed bed oxygen gasifier was rejected immediately, even
though
> > we had been operating a one ton unit for 4-5 years at the Solar Energy
> > Research Institute.
> >
> > This first phase faded when IGT's matching funds proved vaporous. The
money
> > must have been underground because it resurfaced about 1992 (?) in
similar
> > form, a METHANOL FROM BIOMASS project. I remember sending an objecting
> > letter to the DOE that the IGT gasifier was not very suitable because it
> > made a gas high in hydrocarbons which would have to be reformed to a
syngas,
> > while other gasifiers (oxygen in particular) make a gas that is
primarily CO
> > and H2 and would require much less conditioning.
> >
> > The Hawaii project was crippled by working with one of the world's most
> > difficult feeding fuels - raw bagasse from sugar cane. Tom could tell
you
> > the details, but it chewed up a million dollars worth of feeders. And
> > probably $50 M worth of development time and much talent over 12 years.
> >
> > ~~~~~~
> > In several ways bagasse is a very attractive energy source. Every sugar
> > plant is a potential source of biomass or power and Winrock is busy
helping
> > to convert low pressure sugar mills to high pressure "power plants/sugar
> > mills" around the world.
> >
> > If you densify bagasse (piece of cake) it makes one of the nicest
biomass
> > fuels, well washed and very dense. Pellets were selling in Brazil for <
> > $10/ton last year and I have been working with a group heading toward
> > methanol. They are ready to start testing on their phase II gasifier in
a
> > month or two. The pellets would be suitable for a coal type lock
hoppers -
> > proven technology.
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > On the other hand I have been involved in a lot of Small Business
Innovation
> > Grant projects and they seem to do very well. Industry is not usually
in a
> > position to test new ideas, so SBIRs provide a Phase I II
> > III stage to
> > bringing them to fruition.
> >
> > Yours truly, TOM REED
> > BEF GASWORKS
>
>
>
> -
> Gasification List Archives:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
> www.webpan.com/BEF
> List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>
>
> Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Gasification Events and Information:
> http://www.bioenergy2002.org
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon
>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From tombreed at attbi.com Wed Aug 14 18:47:23 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:04 2004
Subject: Fw: Methanol from biomass
Message-ID: <006a01c24406$3d6bc240$0782fd0c@TOMBREED>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Reed" <tombreed@attbi.com>
To: "Keith Addison" <keith@journeytoforever.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 8:35 PM
Subject: Re: Methanol from biomass

> Dear Keith:
>
> Making methanol is like making steel - hard to do at back yard level.
> Minimum size plant that could break even is about 5 t/day because of the
> instrumentation requirements, compressors, gas cleanup etc. (See our
books
> on methanol and synthesis gas production at www.woodgas.com).
>
> Sorry, TOM REED BEF GASWORKS
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Keith Addison" <keith@journeytoforever.org>
> To: <bioenergy@crest.org>
> Cc: <gasification@crest.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 12:31 PM
> Subject: Methanol from biomass
>
>
> > Hello all
> >
> > I quite often get requests like this, and it's also of great interest
> > to people making biodiesel, but none of us knows of a good way of
> > doing it.
> >
> > >I'm looking for info on producing wood alcohol from Juniper, Pinion
> > >Pine or Sagebrush. I live in the mountains of southern Utah and
> > >have an abundance of these.
> > >Thanks
> >
> > Does anyone know of a good method of producing methanol from biomass,
> > on a scale that a farmer or a backyard mechanic could use, rather
> > than a corporation?
> >
> > Many thanks
> >
> > Keith Addison
> > Journey to Forever
> > Handmade Projects
> > Osaka, Japan
> > http://journeytoforever.org/
> >
> >
> > -
> > Bioenergy List Archives:
> > http://www.crest.org/discussion/bioenergy/200207/
> >
> > Bioenergy List Moderator:
> > Tom Miles, tmiles@trmiles.com
> > List-Post: <mailto:bioenergy@crest.org>
> > List-Help: <mailto:bioenergy-help@crest.org>
> > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> > List-Subscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-subscribe@crest.org>
> >
> > Sponsor the Bioenergy List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> > -
> > Other Bioenergy Events and Information:
> > http://www.bioenergy2002.org
> > http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
> > http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
> > http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon
> >
> >
>

-
Bioenergy List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/bioenergy/200207/

Bioenergy List Moderator:
Tom Miles, tmiles@trmiles.com
List-Post: <mailto:bioenergy@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bioenergy-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Bioenergy List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Bioenergy Events and Information:
http://www.bioenergy2002.org
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon

From keith at journeytoforever.org Thu Aug 15 03:40:19 2002
From: keith at journeytoforever.org (Keith Addison)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:04 2004
Subject: Fw: Methanol from biomass
In-Reply-To: <006a01c24406$3d6bc240$0782fd0c@TOMBREED>
Message-ID: <v0421010ab9813e4dcd98@[192.168.0.2]>

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tom Reed" <tombreed@attbi.com>
>To: "Keith Addison" <keith@journeytoforever.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 8:35 PM
>Subject: Re: Methanol from biomass
>
>
> > Dear Keith:
> >
> > Making methanol is like making steel - hard to do at back yard level.
> > Minimum size plant that could break even is about 5 t/day because of the
> > instrumentation requirements, compressors, gas cleanup etc. (See our
>books
> > on methanol and synthesis gas production at www.woodgas.com).
> >
> > Sorry, TOM REED BEF GASWORKS

Thankyou Tom. As feared. :-(

On the other hand, the Zulus, and most African tribes, used to make
very high-quality steel on a less than industrial scale. I have
somewhere a tale written by an English traveller in Mozambique a
hundred years ago or more who much admired the quality of the steel
in the hand-hoes the people were using in their fields. They told him
it was poor-quality steel, they kept the good steel for spears.
Nonetheless he bought a couple of their hoes and took them back to
England, where he had them forged into a pair of fine hunting rifles.
This was in one of Basil Davidson's African history books. I've been
told the traditional African steel techniques have been lost. Indian
steel? Japanese swords? Damask swords? Toledo? This was all
small-scale stuff I think, certainly very high quality.

No such lost Eldorado with methanol though, I fear.

Many thanks once again.

Best wishes

Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
Handmade Projects
Osaka, Japan
http://journeytoforever.org/

> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Keith Addison" <keith@journeytoforever.org>
> > To: <bioenergy@crest.org>
> > Cc: <gasification@crest.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 12:31 PM
> > Subject: Methanol from biomass
> >
> >
> > > Hello all
> > >
> > > I quite often get requests like this, and it's also of great interest
> > > to people making biodiesel, but none of us knows of a good way of
> > > doing it.
> > >
> > > >I'm looking for info on producing wood alcohol from Juniper, Pinion
> > > >Pine or Sagebrush. I live in the mountains of southern Utah and
> > > >have an abundance of these.
> > > >Thanks
> > >
> > > Does anyone know of a good method of producing methanol from biomass,
> > > on a scale that a farmer or a backyard mechanic could use, rather
> > > than a corporation?
> > >
> > > Many thanks
> > >
> > > Keith Addison
> > > Journey to Forever
> > > Handmade Projects
> > > Osaka, Japan
> > > http://journeytoforever.org/
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > Bioenergy List Archives:
> > > http://www.crest.org/discussion/bioenergy/200207/
> > >
> > > Bioenergy List Moderator:
> > > Tom Miles, tmiles@trmiles.com
> > > List-Post: <mailto:bioenergy@crest.org>
> > > List-Help: <mailto:bioenergy-help@crest.org>
> > > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> > > List-Subscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-subscribe@crest.org>
> > >
> > > Sponsor the Bioenergy List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> > > -
> > > Other Bioenergy Events and Information:
> > > http://www.bioenergy2002.org
> > > http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
> > > http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
> > > http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>-
>Bioenergy List Archives:
>http://www.crest.org/discussion/bioenergy/200207/
>
>Bioenergy List Moderator:
>Tom Miles, tmiles@trmiles.com
>List-Post: <mailto:bioenergy@crest.org>
>List-Help: <mailto:bioenergy-help@crest.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-unsubscribe@crest.org>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-subscribe@crest.org>
>
>Sponsor the Bioenergy List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
>-
>Other Bioenergy Events and Information:
>http://www.bioenergy2002.org
>http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
>http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
>http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon

-
Bioenergy List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/bioenergy/200207/

From Wattsengr at adelphia.net Thu Aug 15 04:44:42 2002
From: Wattsengr at adelphia.net (Robert A. Watts, P.E.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Coal Gasifier
Message-ID: <NGBBLLNNALMFIPJIFLLGMEMGCBAA.Wattsengr@adelphia.net>

Gentlemen:

I am working on a research project for the USEPA and am interested in
gasification of coal fines and low grade coal (waste). I need a minimum gas
flow rate of about 0.16 cubic meters per second. The gas will be used as
supplemental fuel in an oxidizer for oxidizing methane in ventilation air
from coal mines.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this.

Bob Watts

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From tmiles at trmiles.com Mon Aug 19 15:29:29 2002
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Gasification and Feeding
Message-ID: <01de01c247d7$eb364ba0$6501a8c0@tommain>

Subject: Biomass Gasification and Feeding
>
>
>
>
> I've been following with interest the recent exchanges between Tom Reed,
> Tom Miles, Thomas Koch and others over biomass feeding, in particular the
> feeding of bagasse. This topic has also surfaced several times in the
> past. SRI's James Joyce has recently posted a brief commentary on our
> development work. My purpose with this brief commentary is to bring the
> gasification community up to speed with where the QBIG gasification
> development and SRI's feeder development is at right now.
>
> I'm encouraged by Tom Reed's comment on 4 August ".... the world's most
> difficult feeding fuel - raw bagasse from sugar cane". Chopped straw is
> not too far behind !!! Our considerable experience with the handling of
> raw bagasse at high rates in Australian sugar mills has told us that over
> many years. But to the point. Put simply, SRI and University of
> Queensland, Chemical Engineering (as part of the QBIG gasification
> syndicate) embarked on the development of bagasse gasification technology
> integrated with a sugar mill (that combination provides unique hot fuel gas
> process advantages not found anywhere else) because of a host of technical
> and economic reasons. Whether those reasons remain strong into the future
> remains to be seen !!!! But for now these still exist.
>
> But in setting out on this journey, based on our own extensive experience
> and judgement and with the benefit of the work done elsewhere around the
> world on biomass gasification, we settled on two basic principles to
> underpin our gasifier development (1) the process has to be pressurised
> (although this has yet to be confirmed with detailed engineering, process
> design and costing for Australian circumstances) and (2) we needed a whole
> new feeder for bagasse and cane trash. Based on the Maui experiences
> directly, on our own long experiences with the screwing of bagasse and the
> commercial operating experiences of a sugar mill feeding bagasse using lock
> hoppers for furfural production, any screw device was not acceptable, and
> other devices including lock hoppers did not fit the goals. But as Tom has
> said, bagasse being bagasse, you need a damned good feeder to feed bagasse
> whether the pressure is 25 bar or 2 bar (so called atmospheric - although
> rotary valves would be okay here). Remember that our primary goal in all
> of our development work has been to focus on technology that would deliver
> commercially sustainable plant. The feeder that we have now developed,
> even though it is quite small, has all of the engineering and process
> features that can be readily scaled-up to the rates that we need for our
> proposed BIG/CC projects in our large Australian sugar mills. Raw bagasse
> feeding rates of between 20 and 70 t/h per feeder will be required.
> Notwithstanding Thomas Koch's admirable developments with his piston
> feeder, the intermittent piston approach was judged not to be acceptable
> for our goals - we needed continuous feeding at high very rates.
>
> We have now successfully developed a continuous bagasse feeder that has
> been tested at rates up to about 5 t/h (not sure of the exact figure) for
> test periods of up to two minutes. That is as long a test time as out
> developmental rig will allow us. Our experimental data tells us that this
> has been more than sufficient time to establish stable and consistent
> operating conditions in the feeder. The feeder operations over that time
> also tell us that the real world engineering issues that have to be
> addressed are being addressed, and the feeder can be scaled-up to much
> larger sizes. The current feeder size was selected to be a direct
> application for our proposed 15 MWt (~ 5 MWe) demonstration gasifier, now
> in the planning stages. The particular technology for our feeder comes out
> of our extensive experience with the milling of bagasse to extract sugar
> juice.
>
> I would be happy to provide more information and comment on bagasse feeding
> and gasification in general to those interested as you make contact with me
> directly or through the gasification network.
>
> Dr Terry Dixon
> Manager Engineering Group
> Sugar Research Institute
> Box 5611
> Mackay MC 4741
> AUSTRALIA
> Ph: +61 7 49527600
> Fx: +61 7 49527699
> Mb: 0418 185 309
> email: t.dixon@sri.org.au
>
>
> -------------------------------
>
> This email message (including any file attachments transmitted with it) is
> for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
> and privileged information. Any unauthorised alteration, disclosure or
> distribution is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please
> notify the sender by return email and destroy all copies of the original
> message.
>
> Any confidentiality or legal professional privilege is not waived or lost
> by any mistaken delivery of the email.
>
> -------------------------------

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From gregandapril at earthlink.net Mon Aug 19 18:55:35 2002
From: gregandapril at earthlink.net (Greg and April)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Chipper
In-Reply-To: <005101c2177c$2fd69210$0680fd0c@TOMBREED>
Message-ID: <004901c247f3$73fa3e40$0100a8c0@maincomputer>

This chipper looks like it might be useful, you can change the size of the
chips.

http://www.laimet.com/eng/chippers.html

Greg H.

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From Tk at tke.dk Tue Aug 20 02:20:28 2002
From: Tk at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Gasification and Feeding
In-Reply-To: <01de01c247d7$eb364ba0$6501a8c0@tommain>
Message-ID: <005501c24833$dbb37b60$6801a8c0@image.dk>

At TK Energi we have been testing bagasse feeding in plug feeders over the last 2 years.

We see no or very litle difference on the physical properties on bagasse and other types of soft biomass eg straw, corn stocks, miscantus etc. Bagasse can succesfully be fed by our biomass feeders developed for straw.
I am not sure where the roumors that "bagasse is the most difficult biomass to feed" had come from.

At TK Energi we say that wet biomass is easy to feed and dry biomass is more difficult to feed.
At TKE we have developed a piston feeder that can feed bagasse into pressurised vessels with up to 40 bar.
Our testrig allows us to feed for half an hour.
In this period of time we have not seen any problems.
Our screew feeders (for pressures up to 2 bar) have been operating on full scale CFB gasifiers since 1998.

Concerning the comments from Terry about his judgments of our approach judged not to be acceptable for continiuos feeding.
If Terry expects that he can send a guy (an intelligent and nice guy by the way) from Australia to visit me, explaining that he is developing bagasse feeders, and expecting me to release sufficient information for him to evaluate what I am dooing in details, without beeing prepared to sign some sort of agreement ---- He is too naive.
And Terry have operated 2 minutes with a feeder for 5 tons pr hour and based on that he conludes "that it can readily scaled up to 70 tons pr hour". To me there is a few thousand operation hours missing.

Terry, at a mínimum we Must exchange information.
So Terry --- what are the technical principle you base your feeder on?
And how continious do you want you feeding?

We at TKE are offering feeders for atmospheric and pressurised plant at commercial conditions.

A more detailed technical description of a TK Energi AS fuel feeding system for a pressurised 30 MW system is shown below.

The plug feeder 1-2-3 is a 3 stage piston feeder.
The maximum feeding frequency is 1200 times per hour.

Power consumption and gas leaks.

The average power consumption is 80-100 kW at a leak rate of 5-10 Nm3 gas pr. hour feeding 6000 kg soft wood chips with 20 % moist pr hour against 25 bar.
The average power consumption is 100-130 kW at a leak rate of 10-15 Nm3 gas pr. hour feeding 6000 kg hard wood chips pr hour against 25 bar.

Operation, safety and wear

The operation seal is established by forming a plug of the biomass that is fed into the reactor. To obtain a mechanical stable plug with a suitable low gas permeability, this plug must have a density in the range from 1000-1700 kg/m3 depending on the texture of the biomass and the requirements of the operation parameters of the plug.
The safety seal is established by ensuring that one of the pistons is always in the out position.
The biomass falls down in front of the first piston. The biomass is pressed into the free space in front of the second piston. In this operation the biomass reaches a density of 4-900 kg/m3

From joflo at yifan.net Tue Aug 20 08:48:03 2002
From: joflo at yifan.net (Joel Florian)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: A plague of viruses..
In-Reply-To: <20020816065936578.AAA498@netbook_server.cdcom.com.cn@Cpcpifups>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20020819172238.00a32180@yifan.net>

Dear Tom Reed and Gasification list members,

Tom, some of the recent mutations of viruses have been able to cull email
addresses off the internet and then put them in the from field of the
email. Thus an innocent person such as yourself could be identified as the
sender of a poorly written email containing a virus. Several of my
friends have received emails supposedly from me -- but from accounts that I
haven't used for two years and are not viable email addresses.

Everyone that does email should take measures to prevent viruses from
infecting their computers -- either use a virus checker for Windows or
switch to Linux or a Mac. Now we can't even trust emails from our friends.

Joel Florian
Alaska

06:27 AM 8/19/02 -0600, you wrote:
>Dear Pete and all:
>
>I probably get 100 Emails a week from the STOVES and GASIFICATION list. I
>am running about 15% infected with KLEZ virus. My Norton Antivirus
>advises me to quarantine them, so I do and mostly don't see them among the
>messages.
>
>Whenever I SEND to the list the message is always checked by NAV before it
>leaves.
>
>So I hope I am not any source of virus here. I hope all of you can say
>the same, but some are getting through, always KLEZ.
>
>Yours truly, TOM REED GASIFICATION MODERATOR

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Aug 20 15:23:28 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: A plague of viruses..
In-Reply-To: <20020816065936578.AAA498@netbook_server.cdcom.com.cn@Cpcpifups>
Message-ID: <20020820215636.45295312.arnt@c2i.net>

On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 06:27:07 -0600,
"Tom Reed" <tombreed@attbi.com> wrote in message
<005101c2477b$bc211770$0782fd0c@TOMBREED>:

> Dear Pete and all:
>
> I probably get 100 Emails a week from the STOVES and GASIFICATION
> list. I am running about 15% infected with KLEZ virus. My Norton
> Antivirus advises me to quarantine them, so I do and mostly don't see
> them among the messages.
>
> Whenever I SEND to the list the message is always checked by NAV
> before it leaves.
>
> So I hope I am not any source of virus here. I hope all of you can
> say the same, but some are getting through, always KLEZ.
>
> Yours truly, TOM REED GASIFICATION MODERATOR
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Peter Verhaart
> To: Tom Reed
> Cc: stoves@crest.org
> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 7:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Have a new Assumption
>
>
> Dear Tom,
>
> I have just installed a new mainboard in my computer, as
> well as an anti-virus program. Since a few days I get at
> least 3 messages a day containing the KLEZ worm, and they
> are all, ostensibly, from the Stoves list. Some even from
> tombreec@attbi.com, others from stoves-help and from
> stoves-unsubscribe. All of them containing short messages in
> what we used to call "peccable English''.
>
> I will again check my computer for viruses but I think it is clean.
> A clever idea of the inventor, bye the way, to set list members up
> against one another.
>

..there is really _one_ cure for your virus problems: allow _only_
plain text formatted messages, thru the lists. Strip off _all_
executable code such as pictures, binary document formats like
"Winword .doc" etc.

..this can be done by denying all such posts, or by reformatting them
to plain text only, before sending them from the list server. Trivial,
on the server side. _Should_ be trivial, on the client side too...

..on the client side, the primary and easiest target for virus makers,
are Microsoft's own Outlook, Outlook Express, Internet Explorer, the
Office suite, and Microsoft's operating systems.

..if you cannot move to another platform such as Mac X, Unix or
GNU/Linux, because of some special software you depend on for, say,
thermochemical analysis, consider moving to Opera, Mozilla or Netscape
for web browsing, mail and usenet usage, and to StarOffice or
OpenOffice for "office needs" plus the above. These are free,
as in free speech too, thru their licensing.

..the above tip should stop most Microsoft spesific virus, leaving
only Microsoft's operating systems open for attacks. The most recent
one exploits a flaw in Microsoft's implementation of SSL encryption,
allowing any cracker to hijack, say, your internet banking sessions.

..this SSL exploit was first reported for the Konqeror web browser
some 2 or 3 weeks ago, and the fix was made available in I believe 96
minutes after the first report. I hear Microsoft is still working on
fixes for all their operating systems, it is possible they were misled
by the 96 minute fix of a competing web browser. If you use _any_
Microsoft operating system, you may want to monitor their progress.

..before you consider installing the upcoming Microsoft SSL-patches
for their operating systems, you will want to _read_ Microsofts new
(as of June 2002) (Supplementary?) End User License Agreement before
committing into a legal agreement, where you surrender the right to
decide on the choise of "third party software", to Microsoft, so
Microsoft may remove any and all "third party software" from "your"
computer, at Microsofts discretion, and regardless of your "third
party software"'s purpose, it be mail or thermochemical analysis.

..if you did like most people do, "clicked-without-reading" the
EULA that came with Microsoft's Windows Media Player security patch
2 months ago to install it, take the time to read it. If you didn't
read it, as an employee, chances are you may have violated the
authority given to you, by your employer. I'd sue and fire people
for such stunts, YMMV.

..of course, you can do what I did in 1997, zap all wintendo code
off my gear and install GNU/Linux, (I now run Red Hat Linux 7.3,
'http://redhat.com/', I can also recommend Mandrake 8.2 for you
newbies, and Debian for those of you who know unix) and run games
and thermochemical analysis code thru emulators like WINE, VMWare,
dosemu or bochs, or convert it to native linux code, and, firewall
Microsoft _away_ from your gear.

..doing what I did in 1997, of course assumes you have _not_ (been)
committed into a legal agreement under terms like Microsofts new
(Supplementary?) End User License Agreement since June 2002.

..if you _have_ been made a part in such a legal agreement with
Microsoft, firewalling them away from their software, on "your"
hardware, will be in violation with _your_ legal agreement with
Microsoft, and such violations may be criminal felonies
under your local jurisdiction, here too, YMMV.

..in case you want to terminate said legal agreement with Microsoft,
you may want to sell all your wintendo boxes with software licenses and
notify your legal authorities and Microsoft of the transferred licenses,
or, you may want to sue Microsoft to recover your proper legal ownership
of your hardware, and, you may want to organize a lobby to "lean on"
your parliament politicians, to have them pass new legislation to your
advantage and "for national security", just like Microsoft does. ;-)

..if you want GNU/Linux or gasifier or lobbying expertize,
I'm still open for _reasonable_ offers. ;-)

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From Tk at tke.dk Wed Aug 21 07:28:45 2002
From: Tk at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Gasification and Feeding
In-Reply-To: <20020821021252.HEJI25423.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@[10.137.100.61]>
Message-ID: <007301c24928$0fbf25e0$6801a8c0@image.dk>

Andrew, i first misunderstood your therminology concerning pressurised or not.

I think you should look at the gasifiers developed by Mukunda if your ambition is developng countries.

Send my a sketch of your gasifier, and I will suggest a feeding system.

Best regards

Thomas

----- Original Message -----
From: "andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com" <andrew.heggie@ntlworld.com>
To: "Thomas Koch" <Tk@tke.dk>; "gasification" <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 4:12 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Biomass Gasification and Feeding

>
> Thomas, thanks for a very informative reply on plug type stokers, you gave the general information I first asked for without giving away secrets. A bit like describing a 4cycle engine without ging into detailsn of bore, stroke, timing etc.
>
> Now who would like to decribe the pertinent details of other stokers and theirn sealing methods?
>
> AJH Boston Mass for a while
>

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From tmiles at trmiles.com Thu Aug 22 10:51:11 2002
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:04 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fw: Latest overview of gasification for biomass energy.
Message-ID: <00d201c24a0c$46cc1cc0$6501a8c0@tommain>

FWD to ALL
----- Original Message -----
From: <A
title=FMurrl@aol.com href="mailto:FMurrl@aol.com">FMurrl@aol.com
To: <A title=gasification-owner@crest.org
href="mailto:gasification-owner@crest.org">gasification-owner@crest.org

Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 9:19 AM
Subject: Latest overview of gasification for biomass energy.

I would greatly
appreciate advice on the latest publications reviewing available gasification
technologies directed toward biomass energy. We are trying to improve our
biomass energy library here, and would be grateful for any
help.Regards,Fred MurrellBiomass Development
CompanyBradenton Florida USA

From Lasse.Tobiasen at csiro.au Thu Aug 22 15:59:42 2002
From: Lasse.Tobiasen at csiro.au (Tobiasen, Lasse (DET, Lucas Heights))
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fw: Latest overview of gasification for biomass energy.
Message-ID: <1477BCDAAEAD124DBC95A550A19DB37974706B@boa-ri.riverside.csiro.au>

Fred,

Attached are a couple of IEA reports on the status of
biomass gasification (2001 and 2002 but only IEA countries).

For a list of
suppliers/manufacturers and biomass gasification installations please look at:
<A
href="http://www.btgworld.com/gi/">http://www.btgworld.com/gi/

Also
attached is a recent (July 2002) status report on a particular biomass gasifier
(updraft - Babcock&Wilcox Volund) which details some interesting aspects of
tar-water cleaning in biomass gasification.

Hope
this helps,

Lasse

Lasse Tobiasen Engineer --------------------------------------------------- CSIRO Energy Technology Lucas Heights Laboratory PMB 7,
Bangor, NSW 2234 New Illawarra Road, Lucas
Heights, Sydney Tel: (02) 9710 6877 (direct)
Tel: (02) 9710 6777 (switchboard)
Fax: (02) 9710 6800 e-mail: Lasse.Tobiasen@csiro.auwww.det.csiro.au ---------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----From: Tom Miles
[mailto:tmiles@trmiles.com]Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 4:47
AMTo: gasificationSubject: GAS-L: Fw: Latest overview of
gasification for biomass energy.
FWD to ALL
----- Original Message -----
From: <A
href="mailto:FMurrl@aol.com" title=FMurrl@aol.com>FMurrl@aol.com
To: <A href="mailto:gasification-owner@crest.org"
title=gasification-owner@crest.org>gasification-owner@crest.org
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 9:19 AM
Subject: Latest overview of gasification for biomass energy.

I would greatly
appreciate advice on the latest publications reviewing available gasification
technologies directed toward biomass energy. We are trying to improve our
biomass energy library here, and would be grateful for any
help.Regards,Fred MurrellBiomass Development
CompanyBradenton Florida USA 
IEA 2001 Status of Gasification.pdf
IEA June 2002 - gasification overview paper.pdf
07-02 Woodchips Gasifier CHP .pdf

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Gasification Events and Information:
http://www.bioenergy2002.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bin00104.bin
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 349979 bytes
Desc: "http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon"
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20020822/8502b2d8/bin00104.bin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bin00103.bin
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 295230 bytes
Desc: "http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification"
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20020822/8502b2d8/bin00103.bin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bin00102.bin
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 536518 bytes
Desc: "http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy"
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20020822/8502b2d8/bin00102.bin
From d.rl at virgin.net Fri Aug 23 00:18:56 2002
From: d.rl at virgin.net (David Reynolds-Lacey)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: What is a forum for?
Message-ID: <3D65EFBF.874B0457@virgin.net>

Dear Harmon,

This forum, like all others, is a platform where
like minded people can exchange information and
all learn a little (in my case, a lot) along the
way. I am pleased to learn from the postings from
the various individuals, some of whom are
Academics, some are "get down, get your hands
dirty and have a go" people and some are a mixture
of both. Oh! yes, there are also those that give
nothing and only post when a matter is raised that
they can answer or help with - but only for a fee!
- "the advertisers"! For my part, I don't post
a lot just now as I am still on a learning curve
although I have built a couple of "quasi"
gassifiers based on an original design by Andrew
Heggie and modified by me. My main interest is in
gas producing charcoal makers and use the the
offgas for energy generation.

Occasionally there will be a post that not
everyone agrees with, it may even be completely
wrong, in these cases there is always someone out
there that will politely correct and educate the
Poster in a normal and civil way, i.e. in a way
that is exercised by most intelligent individuals
- that is what this forum is for. This forum is
not a platform for character assassination,
promulgating insults or belittling an individual's
efforts, trade or occupation.

I refer to your recent somewhat, vitriolic and
insulting attack on Dan Dimiduk, which was posted
to this list, even though the thread is on the
Stoves list and has no place here, other than to
maximise and compound the insult.

I have never met Dan Dimiduk but I read his posts
with interest.. Dan seems a well intentioned hard
working man (real, physical work!) who dedicates
much of his time to this subject and is a prolific
poster, he clearly has a lot to offer.

It may appear that I have it in for you,
especially as I posted to you recently regarding
your comments about the virus attacks, I can
assure you that this is not the case. You do
however seem to court controversy by making
ill-advised, ridiculous, sweeping comments and you
must therefore expect and indeed accept some
"flack". I am not trying to fight Dan's battles
for him as I am sure that he can do that himself,
I am merely demonstrating, particularly Lurkers
and newcomers, that this is not a hostile place
and that anyone should to be able to post an
opinion or a question without fear of being called
a "Looney-tune" (I think that should be Loony
Toon) or be described in any other derogatory
terms.

We all have a right to be here, we all have a
right to an opinion, we will all accept polite
correction and criticism and we are all (I hope)
working towards a common aim.

Regards,

David Reynolds-Lacey

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From Tk at tke.dk Fri Aug 23 02:08:01 2002
From: Tk at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fw: Latest overview of gasification for biomass energy.
In-Reply-To: <00d201c24a0c$46cc1cc0$6501a8c0@tommain>
Message-ID: <006401c24a8d$a3f546c0$6801a8c0@image.dk>

Dear Fred

I spend my morning break reading the IEA summaries
attached to Lasses contribution to gasification network.

To me it looks (VERY) far away from the reality i
meet in Denmark.

2 examples:
The Hogild Project page 5 on the IEA
overwiev:
I called Jorgen Mouritsen from Herning Municipality
(the plant owner) 5 minutes ago to ask for an update.
He said (my translation from danish) " the gasifier
has been undergoing constant rebuilding and optimisation. Is now dismant led and
under reconstruction. It has had several operation hours i 2001"

The Blare Project:
The complete gasifier incl engine was sold for 5000
$canadian in the beginning of this summer.

I have no information to judge if the other country
reports are of the same quality.
If I shall judge based on the atmosphere and
roumours at the Amsterdam conference this summer they are.

Best regards

Thomas Koch

TK Energi as
Stationsvej 4
4621 Gadstrup
Denmark

<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
Tom Miles

To: <A title=gasification@crest.org
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 8:46
PM
Subject: GAS-L: Fw: Latest overview of
gasification for biomass energy.

FWD to ALL
----- Original Message -----
From: <A
title=FMurrl@aol.com href="mailto:FMurrl@aol.com">FMurrl@aol.com
To: <A title=gasification-owner@crest.org
href="mailto:gasification-owner@crest.org">gasification-owner@crest.org

Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 9:19 AM
Subject: Latest overview of gasification for biomass energy.

I would greatly
appreciate advice on the latest publications reviewing available gasification
technologies directed toward biomass energy. We are trying to improve our
biomass energy library here, and would be grateful for any
help.Regards,Fred MurrellBiomass Development
CompanyBradenton Florida USA

From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Aug 23 06:27:57 2002
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: What is a forum for?
Message-ID: <1a2.777f265.2a979fcd@aol.com>

Regarding the comments on Dan's business as a licensed pesticide applicator
and using toxic chemicals, even an organic grower has to be licensed to use
organic compounds for either pest control or other materials. The other
negative comments may not be worthy of response. The largest table grape
grower in the US has not one pound of toxic materials on his farms, but has a
pesticide applicator license as required by the States he works in.
There are many parties who are aspirants to doing something to help
mankind, help themselves and the like on this list, I being one of them.
Their aspirations may be shared by others and some by all that receive this
communique'. That is what it is for, besides the technical aspects of it
which is the common basis. It is difficult to have a purely technical
discussion without the human aspect of it and for this we should be tolerant
and welcoming to these aspects.
Now, for the technical part. Thermogenics has shipped it's first
commercial system, a 1000#/hour system to Italy for commercial application.
It's installation is being completed and some damage was incurred in transit,
and the client has taken it upon themselves to modify and enlarge the system
with additional components being added and delivered. This system will use
lignin from a livulenic acid plant at the site (cellulose hyrolysis) and msw
and biomass as fuel. It has operated engine/generator set here and will
operate one there. The systems' capability is 500 kw, but most of the gas
will be used for a boiler at the livulenic acid plant. More systems are
planned including a 350 ton/day msw to power facility at the site and more in
Italy.
Thermogenics has recently demonstrated a new reactor design which has
operated on 50% moisture content feed. The success of this was that the gas
from the reactor was continuously flared without support for many hours of
operation at this rate. It appears as though this system will accept higher
moisture materials than 50%. Wood was the feed as it is used as a basis for
standardizing the operation of the gasifiers here.
For more information, contact me or the Thermogenics' website listed
below.

Leland T. Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
7100-F 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107 Phone: 505-761-5633, fax:
341-0424, website: thermogenics.com.
In order to read the compressed files forwarded under AOL, it is necessary to
download Aladdin's freeware Unstuffit at aladdin.com.

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 23 10:05:32 2002
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fw: Latest overview of gasification for biomass energy .
In-Reply-To: <1477BCDAAEAD124DBC95A550A19DB37974706B@boa-ri.riverside.csiro.au>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20020823123228.00ae1430@pop3.demon.co.uk>

Dear All,

There's nothing better than contacting the people responsible for running
and operating the project,or companies, and sometimes what is not said is
more informative than what is said, as Thomas Koch has clearly illustrated.

I have offered in the past to summarise what is happening in the UK, if
other countries would do the same - no one, however, has taken me up on my
offer.

Unfortunately, the data on the BTG website is rather old in some cases and
not verified, which is a major difficulty and is not all inclusive.

Here in the UK, we have several gasification projects, at various stages
and some claims are made which are not simply verifiable, or even simply true.

Project ARBRE [8 MWe] is closed down, and we all wait to hear some more
positive news from the current plant owners, EPRL on it's future.

Briefly, there are approximately 10 small-scale gasifiers in the UK in
operation, with varying degrees of success operating from 75-250 kWe with
operational hours from 100- 9000, running on feedstocks from wood chips to
sewage sludge.

Cordner

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 23 13:34:21 2002
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: GAS L: UK situation - IEA report
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20020823220154.00aead40@pop3.demon.co.uk>

Dear All,

Having read the IEA report on biomass gasification, fact and fiction need
to be separated, as Thomas has done for Denmark.

Here is my understanding of the present situation:

CRE Group are now part of EMC.Environmental Engineering Ltd.

As I stated earlier, Project ARBRE is now shut down, but hopefully will
restart.

Shawton Engineering now have a separate company called Biomass Engineering
Ltd., who I do work for, and the unit in the Ballymena ECOS Millennium
Centre is 75-100kWe gross, with 55-65 going to the building as
required. Fuels have included willow, spruce, poplar, sawmill bark
strippings, pine, oak, beech and palletwood. Biomass Engineering Ltd. have
a 55 kWe unit at their works [couple to gas engines and a gas turbine
combustor]and a 250 kWe downdraft which is being commissioned shortly.

Ventec is known as Waste to Energy Ltd. and they have sold a gasifier to
Anglian Water, operating on sewage sludge for 250 kWe output and a similar
size one to BLC. Waste to Energy Ltd. co-operate with the University of
Newcastle.

Northumbrian Water project is a no go as far as I know.

Compact Power, Waste Gas Technology, Rural Generation Ltd., Enniskillen
College are operational.

The Blackwater Valley museum is a 200 kWe NFFO contract, however, the
gasifier does not generate at 200 kWe. Doug Williams made a posting [22nd
March 2000 - check the archives]on a visit to the gasifier in early 2000
and the gasifier is 80kWe, as confirmed during the visit by B9 Energy
Biomass. Work is ongoing to upgrade the facility to 200 kWe. Also at the
same conference, the total project cost was quoted as £400,000, not
£250,000. B9 have also installed a 136 kWe unit at Sutton in England,
which is being commissioned.

The Isle of Arran project is again Border Biofuels, taken over by
Dynamotive, who have been declared bankrupt, although it is believed they
will re-appear. This was to be a pyrolysis plant of 2MWe or so.

Border Biofuels Carlisle project is also on hold. This was to produce
liquids for an Orenda gas turbine at 1 MWe output.

There are other interesting things going on, but details are not public
knowledge at this time.

There's a big difference between planned and operational. I've cleared up
most of the UK, perhaps other list members will do the same for their home
territory? I would be interested to see the difference between the facts
and the fiction.

Do your own research, etc. on any which interest you- this is all the
''free'' information I can supply at this time.

Cordner Peacocke

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From joacim at ymex.net Fri Aug 23 15:09:12 2002
From: joacim at ymex.net (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: A plague of viruses..
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20020819172238.00a32180@yifan.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0208240221470.7361-100000@trix.ixum>

Completely off-topic:

I'm far more worried of the coming of the day when bioinformatics and
micro biology has advanced to a point where it will be possible for the
people who today spend time designing computer viruses, with their
specific psychological profile, to produce synthetic /biological/ viruses,
bacteria etc; organisms which evolution, i.e. the immune system of living
creatures, never has encountered before... Life on Earth has only seen a
tiny fraction of all proteins DNA is capable of coding for. Suppose the HIV
virus could be modified to be stable enough to spread via air as a normal
cold, and still have a long incubation time and high mortality.

Any strand of DNA can be produced at will today already: you enter the code
"ctaggtactaatgctag..." press the button and yield a tube with it. The
equipment exist already.

But so far, the understanding of what effect a certain protein does exactly,
and the epistasis, coupling, between various genes is not deep enough, but
it /will/ be. The lid of Pandora's box is only standing ajar.

Eliminating computer viruses is simple. You can change OS or applications.
But you cannot (safely) change your own DNA each and every day, whenever a
new lethal virus shows up.

Sorry if I frightened you. ;)

Joacim

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From d.rl at virgin.net Fri Aug 23 15:16:43 2002
From: d.rl at virgin.net (David Reynolds-Lacey)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Turbulent burner/quassi gassifier
In-Reply-To: <20020823145840.RUZT25423.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@[10.137.100.61]>
Message-ID: <3D66C231.7453B008@virgin.net>

"andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com" wrote:

> David, I would describe the device as a turbulent burner and your modification as a pyroliser using the turbulent burner to heat a retort and as a flare for the offgas. You have chosen a different route to the one I preferred in recycling the enthalpy of the offgas to provide heat for pyrolysis as well as heat for other purposes.
>
> I cannot post to stoves at present so feel free to forward it to the list.
>

Andrew,

I was referring to my retort itself as being the "quasi gassifier" rather than the whole device.

Since we last corresponded I have scrapped the idea of the internal retort, following my actual observations and further analysis of the data. I have now realised that the email I sent to Ken Boak setting out my reasons and proposals was not forwarded to you. However I will shortly post to this List to briefly explains, this will, I
hope, throw the subject open for discussion and solicit some worthwhile opinions.

I have un-subscribed from the Stoves list because of the virus problem so I cannot post their either.

David.

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From hseaver at cybershamanix.com Fri Aug 23 17:37:49 2002
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: A plague of viruses..
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20020819172238.00a32180@yifan.net>
Message-ID: <20020824003741.GA12955@cybershamanix.com>

On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 03:03:42AM +0200, Joacim Persson wrote:
>
> Completely off-topic:
>
> I'm far more worried of the coming of the day when bioinformatics and
> micro biology has advanced to a point where it will be possible for the
> people who today spend time designing computer viruses, with their
> specific psychological profile, to produce synthetic /biological/ viruses,
> bacteria etc; organisms which evolution, i.e. the immune system of living
> creatures, never has encountered before... Life on Earth has only seen a
> tiny fraction of all proteins DNA is capable of coding for. Suppose the HIV
> virus could be modified to be stable enough to spread via air as a normal
> cold, and still have a long incubation time and high mortality.
>

Hey, well, it's too late -- they've got a long, long headstart on you. Check
out the previous post on Monsanto and GMOs. And this is just the stuff on the
commercial market -- we can only imagine what fantastic things they're cooking
in the lab, eh?

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From snkm at btl.net Fri Aug 23 17:54:11 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:05 2004
Subject: Virus Stuff
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20020824074527.00902e20@wgs1.btl.net>

One can't help but notice the havoc reeked by people ill prepared to handle
virus attacks.

And the only solution presented being change the operating system -- change
you Email software.

There is another solution -- and extremely effective one.

It is called "Mail-Washer" and be had for free at:

http://www.mailwasher.net/

It allows one to handle incoming mail directly on the server -- before
downloading to your computer.

I greatly recommend this!!

It is extremely simple to use!! Easy to learn.

I have appended some of their description below.

When your living in 3rd world -- lean and mean -- you have to learn to
handle these problems in an expedient manner.

Modern industrialized nations are simply getting to fat -- lazy -- and
mentally compromised.

Time for a changing of the guard -- or so some guess.

OK -- let's see just how many people on these two lists are "sharp" enough
to understand this "solution" --

Arnt??

Peter Singfield
Belize/Central America

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

General Overview:

MailWasher: a program designed to keep out unsolicited commercial email
(otherwise known as spam) and email viruses from your computer.

It also allows you to preview and delete emails before you download them,
like emails with large attachments or viruses. So you never have to
download bad emails again.

Plus a really handy feature allows you to bounce emails back to people so
it looks like your address doesn't exist. So if you're getting a lot of
unsolicited email or you gave your email address to the wrong person you
can now bounce it back to them so they can take your name off their list.

It's free and easy to download and use, so do it now! Just click on the
link below:

http://www.mailwasher.net/download/

or go to

http://www.mailwasher.net/

to find out more information about it.

Part of their FAQ:

Q. How does MailWasher work?
A. MailWasher works directly with your email server, exactly like
your email program does. But there is one important difference: you can
tell MailWasher to delete a message at the server, without downloading it -
or you can bounce an email back to the sender so that it looks as though
your address is not valid.

MailWasher retrieves information about all the emails on the server. With
that information (some of which is also processed by MailWatcher) you can
decide what to do with each individual email - download, delete, or bounce
back.

If you check your accounts with MailWasher first, you can delete or bounce
emails the emails you do not want. Then, when you use your email program,
it downloads only the remaining emails, those that you want to read.

MailWasher can be thought of as a "first line of defence" which can weed
out junk, large wasteful attachments, and potentially harmful viruses.

Q. How do I start using MailWasher?
A. To begin using MailWasher, here's all you need to do.

To check email, don't open your email client first. Instead, just start
MailWasher by double clicking on the desktop icon, or going to Start menu,
Programs, then MailWasher.

The MailWasher program will then start and will tell you what messages you
have waiting for you on the email server. In the check boxes, select
whether to Delete or Bounce the messages (if nothing is checked, the emails
will simply be downloaded to your email client as normal), and then select
process mail. Processing mail will delete or bounce the emails you have
selected. Your email client will open and you can download the remaining
emails as you normally do.

Q. What is spam?
A. Spam is another word for unsolicited junk email.

Setup

Q. Which operating systems does MailWasher run on?
A. Windows 95, 98, Me, NT, 2000, XP and XP Pro.

Q. What are the minimum requirements to run MailWasher?
A. 4 Mb of RAM, 4Mb of disk space, and a modem.

Q. Which email programs does MailWasher work with?
A. MailWasher works independently of other email programs so it
doesn’t matter which one you use.

Q. Which mail protocols does MailWasher support?
A. At this stage only POP3 is supported. I may introduce support for
MAPI and certain web based accounts such as Hotmail, Yahoo and AOL if there
is enough demand.

Q. How can I download MailWasher?
A. On the home page, click on download. A box will POP up and ask if
you want to save to disk or run from location. Click on save to disk and
press ok. A new box will appear asking where you want to download it to.
Select your location and click save. MailWasher is 1.5 Megabytes in size
and takes approximately 4 minutes with a 56k modem to download or about 5
seconds with a DSL connection.

Q. How do I install MailWasher?

A. Double click on the downloaded file and the installation will
begin. It is a very easy installation and when finished will ask if you
want to start the program file. If you click ok, MailWasher will start and
ask if you want to import existing email accounts or add new ones. Once
this is done, MailWasher will check those accounts for email.

Q. Does MailWasher run in the background?
A. If you have a permanent connection to the internet, you can set
MailWasher to automatically check mail at a pre-determined interval via the
tools, options menu.

Q. Which email client will MailWasher start up?
A. MailWasher will use your default email client.

Q. How does MailWasher bounce messages?
A. MailWasher uses an algorithm to determine the best route to send
the bounced message back (from, reply to, return path) and actually sends
the bounce back via your isp's postmaster, so it looks exactly like it has
come from your isp and not from you at your address. If the spammer has
used a fake address, then your bounce message will itself be bounced back
to the postmaster and you won't receive the bounced bounce email.

Q. What does the bounced message look like?
A. Send yourself an email, then bounce it. The message will be
bounced back to the sender and they will receive an email similar to a
returned mail message you would receive if you sent an email to a wrong
address.

Q. Will the spammers know I am bouncing emails?
A. No, the bounced messages look exactly like a returned mail
message you would receive if you sent an email off to a wrong address.
There is no way

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

From tombreed at attbi.com Sat Aug 24 05:42:59 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: GAS L: UK situation - IEA report
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020823220154.00aead40@pop3.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <007201c24b73$14168e60$9888fd0c@TOMBREED>

Dear Cordner:

Thanks for the update and I hope that others will send equally good
comments.

My "Survey of Biomass Gasification - 2000" (BEF PRESS) was republished as a
second edition, " .... 2001" by modifying the data base and leaving the
technical and overview chapters alone. (Didn't do anything for 2002).

We sell many hundred a year of this book by rexeroxing 100 at a time, so it
isn't too difficult to make changes.

It is my intention now to bring the data base up to date and add the IEA
survey as an appendix with your comments and others. Let the reader sort it
out for himself. So I hope many of you who are knowledgable will send
comments for "Survey of BIomass Gasification - 2002" to appear early 2003.
(I'll also change the list that's on my website at www.woodgas.com.)

Yours truly, TOM REED Gasification Moderator
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cordner Peacocke" <cpeacocke@care.demon.co.uk>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 3:30 PM
Subject: GAS-L: GAS L: UK situation - IEA report

Dear All,

Having read the IEA report on biomass gasification, fact and fiction need
to be separated, as Thomas has done for Denmark.

Here is my understanding of the present situation:

CRE Group are now part of EMC.Environmental Engineering Ltd.

As I stated earlier, Project ARBRE is now shut down, but hopefully will
restart.

Northumbrian Water project is a no go as far as I know.

Compact Power, Waste Gas Technology, Rural Generation Ltd., Enniskillen
College are operational.

Border Biofuels Carlisle project is also on hold. This was to produce
liquids for an Orenda gas turbine at 1 MWe output.

There are other interesting things going on, but details are not public
knowledge at this time.

Do your own research, etc. on any which interest you- this is all the
''free'' information I can supply at this time.

Cordner Peacocke

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

> -
> Gasification List Archives:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
> www.webpan.com/BEF
> List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>
>
> Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Gasification Events and Information:
> http://www.bioenergy2002.org
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From Tk at tke.dk Mon Aug 26 00:29:13 2002
From: Tk at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:05 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifcation technology information.
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020823220154.00aead40@pop3.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <008d01c24cdb$5eef8720$6801a8c0@image.dk>

Dear All

At first I would like to thank Cordner for his (free) information.
I am looking forward to the restricted version!!
I hope we will get the facts version from all the other countries.
There is an urgent need for upgrading of the available information concerning gasification and pyrolysis.

It is a major problem for commercialisation of gasification technology, that potential investors can not get reliable information from the public sources.

This was also clearly seen at atmosphere at the Amsterdam conference.
It is hard for me to believe that it will be possible to get funds to continue the development og gasification and pyrolysis technology if we do not show some workning gasifiers/pyrolyseres very soon.

We are all tired of big promises ending up in 5-500 tons of scrap, presented as a major technological step forward for 10 years.

Looking forward to continue the discussion

Best regards

Thomas Koch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cordner Peacocke" <cpeacocke@care.demon.co.uk>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 11:30 PM
Subject: GAS-L: GAS L: UK situation - IEA report

Dear All,

Having read the IEA report on biomass gasification, fact and fiction need
to be separated, as Thomas has done for Denmark.

Here is my understanding of the present situation:

CRE Group are now part of EMC.Environmental Engineering Ltd.

As I stated earlier, Project ARBRE is now shut down, but hopefully will
restart.

Northumbrian Water project is a no go as far as I know.

Compact Power, Waste Gas Technology, Rural Generation Ltd., Enniskillen
College are operational.

Border Biofuels Carlisle project is also on hold. This was to produce
liquids for an Orenda gas turbine at 1 MWe output.

There are other interesting things going on, but details are not public
knowledge at this time.

Do your own research, etc. on any which interest you- this is all the
''free'' information I can supply at this time.

Cordner Peacocke

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

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From tmiles at trmiles.com Mon Aug 26 07:03:19 2002
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:06 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifcation technology information.
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020823220154.00aead40@pop3.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <00bd01c24d11$502af310$6501a8c0@tommain>

Thomas,

Facts and believable assessments of what is being accomplished are more useful that
hype. This forum seems to help build credibility.

I'm particulary interested in hearing a review from India, where small scale
gasifiers have been tested in greater numbers than elsewhere.

Thanks for your contributions.

Tom Miles

> It is hard for me to believe that it will be possible to get funds to continue the
development og gasification and pyrolysis technology if we do not show some workning
gasifiers/pyrolyseres very soon.
> Thomas Koch

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From agniesco at hd2.dot.net.in Mon Aug 26 21:23:08 2002
From: agniesco at hd2.dot.net.in (Agni-Energy)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:06 2004
Subject: GAS-L: A plague of criticism, any solutions?
In-Reply-To: <1a3.7a6f2db.2a9c2c75@aol.com>
Message-ID: <003701c24d88$baf059c0$019aa8c0@s.varma>

I have been a sunscriber to this discussion group
for almost two years nowand I am suprised at the way certain topics seem to
digress from the mainfocus of this discussion group. I would state
that Gasifiers to date areyet to take off in a big way.... the reason is
not shortage of fuel(bio-mass, wood etc) to worry about
gene manipulation.SincerelyG.S. VarmaPresidentAgni
Energy Services (P) Limited1-A/1, KAUTILYA,
6-3-652SomajigudaHyderabad - 500 082IndiaPhone: +91 40 661
2172e-mail: <A
href="mailto:agniesco@hd2.vsnl.net.in">agniesco@hd2.vsnl.net.in

From agniesco at hd2.dot.net.in Mon Aug 26 21:25:37 2002
From: agniesco at hd2.dot.net.in (Agni-Energy)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:06 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifcation technology information.
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020823220154.00aead40@pop3.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <003601c24d88$b5bc4220$019aa8c0@s.varma>

We are an eight year old Energy Services Company
based in Hyderabad , India and have been operating gasifier based plants for
meeting the thermal and power needs of our industrial customers on a shared
savings basis for over 4 years. We own and operate the gasifier
plants. Our revenues come from the net savings (75%) derived
from the operation of the plants. Our customers keep 25% of the net
savings.

Gasifier Installations in India have largely
driven by the government subsidies. There was never an incentive for most
manufacturers to involve themselves in the actual operations of gasifiers
(either for thermal or for power use). I am not sure of the exact status
of size and number of gasifier plants operating .... most of the plants are in
-operative. However, I present the following figures of the plants that
are owned and operated by us:

1. Modern Roofings
Limited 100 KW (Thermal mode)

Bio-mass gas from the gasifier is used to replace
Diesel (25 litres / hour) in a furnace. Fuel for the gasifier is rice
husk. The plant was commisioned in November 1998, and commercial
production began in April 1999. The plant has been operating since then
with average of 575 hours per month. In April of this year the ownership
of the plant was transferrred to the use and he is operating the plant since
then.

2. Sai Roofings
Limited 200 KW (Thermal mode)

Bio-mass gas from the gasifier is used to replace
Diesel (50 litres / hour) in a furnace. Fuel for the gasifier is rice
husk. The plant was commisioned in May 2000, and commercial production
began in August 2000. The plant has been operating since then with
average of 550 hours per month.

3. Paragon
Printers 200 KW (Power Mode)
Gasifier in this plant generates gas from rice
husk to replace 70% of diesel in a 250 KVA generator when producing 170 KW of
power. The plant was commissioned in Jan 2002 and has been operating since
then. The average operating hours are 300 as the plant operates only 12
hours in a day.

4. Model Steels
Lmited 400 KW (Power Mode)
Gasifier in this plant generates gas from rice
husk to replace 85 litres/hour of diesel in a 2500 KVA generator when
producing 1600 KW (consumes 485 litrs / hours when operating in 100% diesel) of
power. The plant was commissioned in May 2002.

We have recently aquired a 1 MW gasifer based
power plant to supply power to the State electricity board. The plant has
two slow speed generators. Two 500 KW gasifiers supply power to each of the DG
set. The fuel in this plant is wood (eucalyptus) cut into small pieces (6"
long and 1 to 2" in dia). We have been operating the plant 24 hours a day
since August 2002.

We hope to commission a 100 KW (power mode), a
200 KW (Power mode) and a 1 MW plant in the coming 2 months.

Sincerely

G.S. VarmaPresidentAgni Energy Services
(P) Limited1-A/1, KAUTILYA, 6-3-652SomajigudaHyderabad - 500
082IndiaPhone: +91 40 661 2172e-mail:
agniesco@hd2.vsnl.net.in

From cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk Mon Aug 26 23:45:58 2002
From: cpeacocke at care.demon.co.uk (Cordner Peacocke)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:06 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Apology - Dynamotive Energy Systems Corporation
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020823220154.00aead40@pop3.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20020827083953.00a8b1b8@pop3.demon.co.uk>

Dear All,

I have been contacted by lawyers acting on behalf of Dynamotive Energy
Systems Corporation asking me to retract my statement that Border Biofuels
are bankrupt. I apologise for the statement in that my words poorly
reflected the details of Dynamotive's press release of 28th May 2002 and
that neither Border Biofuels nor Dynamotive are bankrupt. It was not my
intent to cause any harm or embarrassment to Dynamotive Energy Systems
Corporation, as I am keen to see pyrolysis and gasification develop as
viable technologies in the UK. I apologise unreservedly for any offence or
distress that I may have caused. The press release from May 28th 2002
follows to clarify the situation:

The Company aims to further reduce costs of operations in Europe through
the relocation of its European Headquarters. As part of this process, the
Company also announced that all Border Biofuels Limited staff were made
redundant pending restructuring of operations and that selective
re-employment is expected. It was further announced that the Board of
Border Biofuels has resigned due to personal reasons, terminated employment
agreements and opposition to the aggressive financial restructuring the
Company demanded, paving the way for the restructuring process to begin.
DynaMotive, as the majority shareholder of Border Biofuels, will be
appointing new board members to Border Biofuels.

Cordner Peacocke

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From luizmagri at yahoo.com Tue Aug 27 03:43:35 2002
From: luizmagri at yahoo.com (Luiz Alberto Magri)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:06 2004
Subject: GAS-L: A plague of criticism, any solutions?
In-Reply-To: <30.2c01007a.2a9cb5bd@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20020827114133.24916.qmail@web11704.mail.yahoo.com>

Mr Leyland,

I think you have clearly stated some of the major
concerns regarding gasification and I would like to
point out:

1) Gasification success is very likely connected to
social related actions such like emissions trading
market. Due to the low cost of fossil fuels there are
no economic reasons for changing. What about having a
look on the progress of Johannesburg (Rio
+10)proposals?

2) Biomass gasification will be easier developed as
"integrated biomass transformation cycles", ie, where
it is needed to harvest and collect biomass as part of
the main (not thermal) process, then it is worthwhile
to include for the gasification cycle. Maybe sugar
factories will enter this era sooner or later.

I hope I will be alive to see that hapens...

Luiz Magri
Rio de Janeiro

--- LINVENT@aol.com wrote:
> Dear Daniel,
> Thanks for the early morning support. It is
> after 4am here.
> None of the biomass projects which I have seen
> in large scale are
> economically successful for two major reasons, cost
> of the fuel, (always
> positive) increasing with transportation distance,
> and power value. A recent
> presentation in Albuquerque by the McNeal Station
> manager showed that the
> value of electricity which they received from the
> grid was so low that the
> plant was only used for peaking. It was started and
> stopped several hundred
> times a month, whenever the power value exceeded the
> cost of operation. The
> cost of harvesting and transporting biomass was a
> the major factor in these
> economics.

(...)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From Carefreeland at aol.com Tue Aug 27 09:49:56 2002
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:06 2004
Subject: GAS-L: A plague of criticism, any solutions?
Message-ID: <8d.1d4d6790.2a9d153f@aol.com>

> Daniel Comments

Dear Daniel,
Thanks for the early morning support. It is after 4am here

> You can send me a check ;-) Actually, a long overdue, small sample of some of your products would be in order. I have a couple of small(1/8 acre or less)problem areas to try this on. I will forward you my address, request it if you don't still have it handy. Results of free field testing will be sent in a year or so. Possibly with orders.

None of the biomass projects which I have seen in large scale are economically successful for two major reasons, cost of the fuel, (always positive) increasing with transportation distance, and power value. A recent presentation in Albuquerque by the McNeal Station manager showed that the value of electricity which they received from the grid was so low that the plant was only used for peaking. It was started and stopped several hundred times a month, whenever the power value exceeded the cost of operation. The cost of harvesting and transporting biomass was a the major factor in these economics.
The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have massive problems with the harvested biomass from forest thinnings. There is an initiative to address the forest management by the Bush administration because of the recent uncontrollable fires which devastated massive areas of the Southwest and are now taking the toll on Oregon. The limited factor is the cost of disposal of millions of tons of biomass throughout widespread areas of the forested regions of the country. Gasifying it for power production does not work due to energy values and lack of remote connections for power transport. Other solutions are needed. It appears as though Thermogenics can play a major role in this program.

> What roles do you and your companies anticipate being the most involved in?
> What if we start with the assumption that clean combustion of these fuels, as opposed to allowing them to rot and contribute to greenhouse warming, is desirable > In some cases chipping to make local soil amendment (mulch) may help where soils are clearly degraded, and the cost of transport and combustion is prohibitive. Other wood can be densified or pyrolized to char with portable equipment, or sold locally as firewood lowering the local cost. The char could be stored indefinitely for after the initial surge of wood is cut. Then we have several avenues of attack on each of the other problems named.
> The electric rates paid for clean energy can receive a government subsidy, the additional connections to the grid can receive a subsidy, the work can be packaged in large units to lower development costs. The states that have a net loss of income from out of state power purchases can subsidize this to lower internal revenue losses. Any current subsidies for remote power delivery can be switched for the purpose of lowering delivery infrastructure costs.
>How do you characterize the development cost as a percentage of total operating costs? If a cluster of smaller generating stations were developed and built as a unit, the entire project would benefit from the economy of scale. This could be done even if separate interests financed each of the projects individually for their own use. For example, a remote town could build it's own power plant, but be part of a buying, developing and operating group as a package deal. The lower Biomass hauling costs would keep transportation distances down. Other urban wood wastes could add to the mix, lowering overall hauling costs.
> As far as harvesting costs, these costs would have to be looked at as an investment in fire prevention with a benefit for future land use. Some limited timber or pulpwood harvesting could be included as part of the deal, in order to break even on the cost of harvesting. I would appoint a person who's responsibility was for the good of the forest to make these tree selection decisions.

If the density of biomass production was increased per unit area, then the transportation cost would decline and economics would improve, but there would still be harvesting cost and the like which would not change much. If genetics or fertility could change this a great deal, it would still not make much change in the economics. These economics of harvest and transport is the limiting factor in biomass utilization.

> This is only true when the true cost of fossil fuel is not considered. As these costs are phased in, the economics will look more inviting.

If islands or areas where fuels are very expensive such as the outbacks and remote locations are used, that is a much better deal and possibly feasible for biomasses. European subsidies can assist there.
I cannot respond to the stoves and bioenergy lists as I am not subscribed to them.

> I will forward any subject matter of interest your way.

Leland T. Taylor

President
Thermogenics Inc.

Daniel Dimiduk

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Aug 29 20:55:37 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:06 2004
Subject: GAS-L: A plague of criticism, any solutions?
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020827210121.00a74e38@shawmail>
Message-ID: <20020829021312.1a2f1dc8.arnt@c2i.net>

On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 06:25:28 -0300,
Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm@ca.inter.net> wrote in message
<3D6C9708.17370F53@ca.inter.net>:

> Dear Dr. Paszner
>
> Thank you for your very interesting overview on
> bioenergy.
>
> Laszlo Paszner wrote:
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> ....del...>

> > Biomass is largely "undersold" as an alternate renewable energy
> > source by the world authorities and the media. It is lucky if it
> > gets honorable mention among the renewable energy sources of wind,
> > solar and tidal. The authorities are brainwashed by the
> > petrochemical companies. This is so because the technologies for
> > these energy forms are owned by the petrochemical companies, Shell,
> > BP, Texaco, SUNCOR etc. Promotion of wind, solar and tidal energy
> > forms is safe, they do not cut into the gasoline markets.

..no shit? Google for "Jack Bitterly" and "American Flywheels".

> > Wide-scale promotion of wind and solar installations for developing
> > countries channels much needed developmental funds again to the
> > petrochemical companies (you remember they own these technologies -
> > bought into them quietly 5-6 years ago) leaving the developing
> > countries further in debt and dependent without solving their
> > problem (lack of energy in rural areas). These are "passive" energy
> > forms because they will not generate wide-spread sustainable jobs
> > after their installation.

> I would suggest that there is not a conspiracy by
> multi-National Oil Companies to hold back the
> development of biomass. I would suggest that they can
> make more money from oil than they can make from
> biomass, and that is the reason why they process oil.
> It is very dificult to imagine the multi-National Oil
> Companies saying "We can make more money on biomass,
> but we are not going to do that, because we are oil
> processors."
>
> The cruel reality seems to be that it is somewhere
> between difficult and impossible to make money from
> biomass energy.

..depends.

> > For the biomass program, fast growing and high yielding crops become
> > important. Comparatively speaking, trees produce 4-8 T/ha . yr
> > biomass in the temperate regions, better yields (18-30 T/ha . yr)
> > can be obtained with both deciduous and coniferous wood species in
> > tropical and sub-tropical countries. Similar or better yields can
> > be obtained with sugarcane/sweet sorghum and mineral giant reed; up
> > to 45 T/ha .yr. Exceptionally, up to 60-75 T/ha .yr can be had with
> > Eucalyptus species. So by selective biomass cultivation the target
> > biomass supply will become available while simultaneously also
> > solving the world's poverty problems.

..for how long can these yields be hauled out of the soil without
depleting it?

> With a ratio of about 15:1 in terms of tropical
> eucalyptus to temperate forestry yields, if biomass
> energy even had a chance of being economic, one would
> see at least some biomass energy companies making money
> from eucalyptus energy processing. Are there any "stand
> alone biomass energy successes" anywhere in the world?
> There may be some businesses successes because of
> peculiar circumstances, such as waste product disposal,
> or special incentives. The cruel reality seems to be
> that, simply put, there is no money to be made in
> biomass energy.

..take MSW (municipal solid waste, not Microsoft Wintendo).
Dumping it in a landfill costs like a 100 US$ a ton.
Gasified or cofired with coal, it could carry say 10% of
the global grid baseload. Note that I here exclude the
eucalyptus jungle biomass. It too can be fired the same
way. Coal now carry about half of the electric grid
baseload, worldwide.

..my part of the way:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/199903/msg00055.html
Dead pellets link moved to:
http://www.ivar.rl.no/IDybden/avlop/analyse.biopellets.cfm
Norw. -> english -> http://www.tranexp.com/InterTran.cgi

..Jack Bitterly's way of making electric muscle cars:
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1049/flywheels.html

..would eat into the gasoline fired muscle car market shares.
Does not need biomass at all: drop props in between Florida
and Cuba, drag off say half a knot of the current and cool
off the EUropeans in the process. ;-)

..so, what impact would any and all of this have on global
energy pricing? How would _that_ impact affect the oil
companies profits? How does that again, motivate which actions?

..one example; the Norwegian natural gas export to the EU,
_can_ be matched by the EU's own MSW. THis export income
now amounts to 1/5 of the gross national product of Norway.
"You do the math."...

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From jpowell-turner at wiltshire.gov.uk Fri Aug 30 06:11:53 2002
From: jpowell-turner at wiltshire.gov.uk (Powell-Turner, Julieanna)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:06 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fw: Latest overview of gasification for biomass energy .
Message-ID: <35FD94391015D411B9A600D0B7445951011234EB@CORPSRV0003>

Cordner

I refer to your email 23/08 about overviews of gasification for biomass
energies.

I am very happy to hear about the UK situation. I am just starting to learn
about gasification - and golly what alot of information there is out there.
I have been tasked with looking at potential waste to energy plants for
household/clinical and commercial waste. Although I know of a few plants
exist in the UK or are in the planning process, Compact Power being one, I
really need to understand what else is out there. In particular it would be
interesting to see what operational reliability of such plants is like
whether pilot or not, and if they are running at full capacity. Please could
you help

Many thanks

Julieanna

Dr J Powell-Turner
Wiltshire County Council
Environmental Services
County Hall
Trowbridge
Wiltshire
BA14 8JD

Tel no: 01225 713240/713202
Fax no: 01225 713400

**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From d.rl at virgin.net Sat Aug 31 11:03:46 2002
From: d.rl at virgin.net (David Reynolds-Lacey)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:06 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Doom and gloom for gasification?
Message-ID: <3D7112A9.69E47CF2@virgin.net>

Dear All,

Another Earth summit and the media is again full
of “sustainable development” and “aid for
developing countries” stories, well will THIS
summit finally make a difference? - You can bet
that it certainly won’t

The posts of late seem to be casting a grim shadow
over biomass gasification/pyrolosis technology. We
hear folks saying that nobody making money out of
biomass, another project that becomes so many
tonnes of scrap. We hear of fears of difficulty in
raising grant funding for gasification/pyrolosis
work, low cost of fossil fuel, high cost of
transportation of biomass, biomass companies
making entire workforces redundant and the lack of
will of governments to upset polluting
manufacturing industry, etc. etc. Quite frankly,
there is not yet a real need for sustainable
energy solutions and it is NEED that drives the
market, so meanwhile, let's just shut this
discussion group down and all do something else! -
No, of course not but you can't really blame any
group observer for thinking along those lines.

I have been in "future product" orientated
businesses all of my business life. Here, in the
UK, then a telecommunications backwater (and still
is, in comparison to many countries), I fitted
mobile phones in 1968 and sold hand held (sort of)
electronic calculators in 1971. I tried to develop
and sell small business computers in the (pre PC)
early 70’s, I sold Fax machines in 1982 and
satellite TV in 1983, to mention but a few. I
think I have a good idea of what it is like to
survive in a market when there is no need,
perceived or (sometimes) at all. I had to search
hard to find and target individuals and
organisations that really had a need, or even a
problem that I could solve and I suggest that this
is what we have to do in the biomass energy
market.

Large grandiose gasification projects in the
developed industrialised world are clearly a no-go
at the moment, cheap fuel and power is too readily
available, why should a business invest vast sums
in the infrastructure to use such forms of energy?
It is true that some such projects do exist but I
think that many, if not all, are either installed
by local or national government departments or
subsidised by them, or some other fund provider.
It is small, well-targeted systems that will keep
the ball rolling, there is a need for them now and
with proper location and planning I am sure they
can be cost effective without continuous subsidy.

Ready availability of poorly supervised grants
from governments and some corporations, anxious to
appear to be doing something “green”, often purely
for political gain, simply creates a grant
dependent mentality amongst researchers and would
-be manufacturers. I question whether all of these
grants are spent wisely and effectively, in a
proper businesslike manner. Often, it seems that
more effort and planning is put into obtaining
grants than is put into system planning of the
project. It is only a few months ago that an
entire system with a build cost of, I think, 25M
tax dollars was up for sale for, I think, less
than 1M dollars, I believe the reason was a
failure to secure an agreement obtain a subsidy to
sell the energy. Therefore, not only was a large
amount of grant money required in order to build
the plant, but a large amount of what was
effectively more grant money was required to run
it - not good business sense in my book. Yet
another project failed because they could not feed
the fuel in, I wonder, did anybody think to carry
out extensive fuel feeding experiments, before
building the plant? 15 years work and 50M down
the pan, doesn't it just make your blood boil?
What real business would invest 25M of it's OWN
money in a project without first securing an
agreement with someone to buy the produce?
Furthermore, what real business would make the
same investment knowing that they could only ever
sell the produce at a loss? What real business
would invest 50M of it’s OWN money, developing
(say) a vehicle with an engine for which no
useable fuel existed? Spending other people's
money is the easiest thing in the world to do.
Until governments step in and impose massive taxes
on all fossil fuels and then allocate ALL of that
revenue to STRICTLY controlled and supervised
grants, large scale biomass energy projects are
dead in the water, that is, of course, until the
fossil fuel runs out!

Another thing that will delay rapid advancement is
the greed that fuels much of the current obsession
with patents and protection of Intellectual
Property Rights in this area, this serves only to
stifle healthy competition and create monopolies.
Existence of these patents can also cause other,
probably more idealistic and less profit
orientated, researchers and would-be manufacturers
to spend valuable time looking for alternative
ways of doing the job without infringing someone
else’s patent and having to pay large license
fees. I certainly believe that any and all
Intellectual Property Rights arising from any
grant aided work, paid from Taxpayers money,
belong to those Taxpayers should be in the public
domain. The environment is too important a
commodity to be left in the hands of the few that
aspire to become the global “clean hands”, purely
license selling, corporations of the future,
probably with pockets bulging to bursting point
with politicians. Just look at what some of the
"Globals" have done to the environment to date.
Some of the very same corporations, that have made
fortunes over the years whilst destroying the
environment, are now putting on their fashionable
“environmental hats”, hoping to make more fortunes
out of "helping" us to rescue and protect the
environment. Of course there is nothing wrong
with making profit, I would be a hypocrite to
suggest otherwise but there has got to be a limit
when it comes to essential services and the
environment. We have seen what happens when
essential supplies and services are in the hands
of a few large, profit driven corporations -
haven't we learnt anything?

As a slightly cynical aside but perfectly
demonstrating what I have been saying about the
folly of unsupervised and ill-researched grant
aid, there have been a couple of news stories in
my local business newspaper that are quite
topical. Our somewhat superficial government,
that has been trumpeting it’s success in reducing
CO2 emissions by closing down UK coal fired power
stations, has recently been found to have awarded
export guarantee grants to UK companies to build
coal fired power stations abroad that produce 3
times more CO2 than ours did! Last week it was
reported that the Swaziland government is to spend
GBP 150M on an aircraft for their King, their
reason, was to allow the King to travel the world
in order to raise – you’ve guessed it - grant aid!
Yet I think it was Crispin that only a few weeks
ago mentioned the grave difficulties faced by the
impoverished people of Swaziland in even affording
cheap, 1-dollar fans for their stoves. On a more
tongue- in-cheek note, it is also reported today
that a ceremony in which thousands of women
present bundles of reeds to the King is just about
to take place in that same country – could he be
building a reed gasifier, I wonder?

Now that I have got that out of my system, you may
ask, if I have a better idea - yes, I think I
have, which will, if nothing else, demonstrate
that this post is effectively (and eventually)
on-topic. My idea, which is based on small-scale
renewable biomass gasification, may not be new but
I believe the proposed method of assisted
implementation may well be. However this post is
already a trifle too long and I will put forward
my ideas, aspirations and proposals in further
post in the near future.

Herein, I may have made what some may consider as
being somewhat idealistic and maybe controversial,
although I hope not offensive, comments. I may
also have touched nerves but there comes a time
when one simply just has to say, as politely as
possible, just what one feels. I therefore invite
and will accept constructive, polite criticism and
correction, but most of all, having nailed my
colours to the mast, I wish to identify any (if
any) like-minded people amongst you, with whom I
can have further discussions about my plans and a
freer exchange of information.

After much pondering, I now, on the advice of the
“Iron Duke”, take this opportunity to “publish and
be damned!”

Kindest regards,

David Reynolds-Lacey

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk Sat Aug 31 13:40:02 2002
From: Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:06 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Doom and gloom for gasification?
In-Reply-To: <3D7112A9.69E47CF2@virgin.net>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGMEDACGAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>

David,

I think you have hit the nail right on the head-My experience in the UK
certainly concurs with your own observations.

I am certainly interested in your ideas for development of a market for
smaller biomass burners -for heating I assume- in the UK I assume?
Feel free to contact me off-list

Kind regards,
gavin

Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
3G Energi,

Tel +44 (0)1835 824201
Fax +44 (0)870 8314098
Mob +44 (0)7773 781498
E mail Gavin@3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>

The contents of this email and any attachments are the property of 3G Energi
and are intended for the confidential use of the named recipient(s) only.
They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to or relied
upon by any person without our express written consent. If you are not an
addressee please notify us immediately at the address above or by email at
Gavin@3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>. Any files attached to
this email will have been checked with virus detection software before
transmission. However, you should carry out your own virus check before
opening any attachment. 3G Energi accepts no liability for any loss or
damage that may be caused by software viruses.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Reynolds-Lacey [mailto:d.rl@virgin.net]
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 20:02
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: Doom and gloom for gasification?

Dear All,

Another Earth summit and the media is again full
of "sustainable development" and "aid for
developing countries" stories, well will THIS
summit finally make a difference? - You can bet
that it certainly won't

I have been in "future product" orientated
businesses all of my business life. Here, in the
UK, then a telecommunications backwater (and still
is, in comparison to many countries), I fitted
mobile phones in 1968 and sold hand held (sort of)
electronic calculators in 1971. I tried to develop
and sell small business computers in the (pre PC)
early 70's, I sold Fax machines in 1982 and
satellite TV in 1983, to mention but a few. I
think I have a good idea of what it is like to
survive in a market when there is no need,
perceived or (sometimes) at all. I had to search
hard to find and target individuals and
organisations that really had a need, or even a
problem that I could solve and I suggest that this
is what we have to do in the biomass energy
market.

Ready availability of poorly supervised grants
from governments and some corporations, anxious to
appear to be doing something "green", often purely
for political gain, simply creates a grant
dependent mentality amongst researchers and would
-be manufacturers. I question whether all of these
grants are spent wisely and effectively, in a
proper businesslike manner. Often, it seems that
more effort and planning is put into obtaining
grants than is put into system planning of the
project. It is only a few months ago that an
entire system with a build cost of, I think, 25M
tax dollars was up for sale for, I think, less
than 1M dollars, I believe the reason was a
failure to secure an agreement obtain a subsidy to
sell the energy. Therefore, not only was a large
amount of grant money required in order to build
the plant, but a large amount of what was
effectively more grant money was required to run
it - not good business sense in my book. Yet
another project failed because they could not feed
the fuel in, I wonder, did anybody think to carry
out extensive fuel feeding experiments, before
building the plant? 15 years work and 50M down
the pan, doesn't it just make your blood boil?
What real business would invest 25M of it's OWN
money in a project without first securing an
agreement with someone to buy the produce?
Furthermore, what real business would make the
same investment knowing that they could only ever
sell the produce at a loss? What real business
would invest 50M of it's OWN money, developing
(say) a vehicle with an engine for which no
useable fuel existed? Spending other people's
money is the easiest thing in the world to do.
Until governments step in and impose massive taxes
on all fossil fuels and then allocate ALL of that
revenue to STRICTLY controlled and supervised
grants, large scale biomass energy projects are
dead in the water, that is, of course, until the
fossil fuel runs out!

Another thing that will delay rapid advancement is
the greed that fuels much of the current obsession
with patents and protection of Intellectual
Property Rights in this area, this serves only to
stifle healthy competition and create monopolies.
Existence of these patents can also cause other,
probably more idealistic and less profit
orientated, researchers and would-be manufacturers
to spend valuable time looking for alternative
ways of doing the job without infringing someone
else's patent and having to pay large license
fees. I certainly believe that any and all
Intellectual Property Rights arising from any
grant aided work, paid from Taxpayers money,
belong to those Taxpayers should be in the public
domain. The environment is too important a
commodity to be left in the hands of the few that
aspire to become the global "clean hands", purely
license selling, corporations of the future,
probably with pockets bulging to bursting point
with politicians. Just look at what some of the
"Globals" have done to the environment to date.
Some of the very same corporations, that have made
fortunes over the years whilst destroying the
environment, are now putting on their fashionable
"environmental hats", hoping to make more fortunes
out of "helping" us to rescue and protect the
environment. Of course there is nothing wrong
with making profit, I would be a hypocrite to
suggest otherwise but there has got to be a limit
when it comes to essential services and the
environment. We have seen what happens when
essential supplies and services are in the hands
of a few large, profit driven corporations -
haven't we learnt anything?

As a slightly cynical aside but perfectly
demonstrating what I have been saying about the
folly of unsupervised and ill-researched grant
aid, there have been a couple of news stories in
my local business newspaper that are quite
topical. Our somewhat superficial government,
that has been trumpeting it's success in reducing
CO2 emissions by closing down UK coal fired power
stations, has recently been found to have awarded
export guarantee grants to UK companies to build
coal fired power stations abroad that produce 3
times more CO2 than ours did! Last week it was
reported that the Swaziland government is to spend
GBP 150M on an aircraft for their King, their
reason, was to allow the King to travel the world
in order to raise - you've guessed it - grant aid!
Yet I think it was Crispin that only a few weeks
ago mentioned the grave difficulties faced by the
impoverished people of Swaziland in even affording
cheap, 1-dollar fans for their stoves. On a more
tongue- in-cheek note, it is also reported today
that a ceremony in which thousands of women
present bundles of reeds to the King is just about
to take place in that same country - could he be
building a reed gasifier, I wonder?

After much pondering, I now, on the advice of the
"Iron Duke", take this opportunity to "publish and
be damned!"

Kindest regards,

David Reynolds-Lacey

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From gldthrp at nznet.gen.nz Sat Aug 31 13:44:15 2002
From: gldthrp at nznet.gen.nz (Goldthorpe)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:06 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Doom and gloom for gasification?
In-Reply-To: <3D7112A9.69E47CF2@virgin.net>
Message-ID: <005001c25136$73d7c6c0$86d81bca@GLDTHRP>

David,

I agree with the sentiments expressed in your posting about the difficulties
faced in the transition of biomass gasification technologies from the realm
of the enthusiast to widespread commercial reality. As you rightly point
out, without the essential element of NEED, it is an uphill struggle for any
"future product" to find a place in the present market.

Here in New Zealand, we have a strong movement promoting Bioenergy. This is
driven primarily by the need to find an outlet for the by-products of timber
harvesting operations. In our case, the principal products are logs and
their derivatives. So bark, sawdust and forest arisings are the by-product
resources that need an outlet. In other countries by-products of harvesting
rice, sugar etc. provide by-product bioenergy resources that find real
applications as energy sources in the commercial market place.

Our current NZ Bioenergy applications are focussed almost exclusively on the
combustion of biomass, because the typical need is for process heat. This
is often viable where the need is for heat at a wood processing plant.
Similarly, the use of bagasse as an energy source for sugar processing is
well established.

The use of more sophisticated gasification/pyrolysis technologies to convert
biomass into the higher value energy forms of electricty, gas and liquids is
unlikley to occur without the need to displace the fossil-based supplies of
those ubiquitous commodities. Only in specific niche circumstances does
biomass gasification make economic sense.

So what changes are out there that will change the status quo?

The first is Climate Change and the consequent need to limit the rate at
which fossil carbon is released into the global atmosphere as CO2. Through
the Kyoto Protocol, or other mechanisms, the cost of that adverse
environmental effect will be internalised as an economic penalty on the use
of fossil fuels. This will provide a significant need to displace the use
of fossil resources for the provision of electricty, gas and liquids.

Under this scenario, the plentiful supplies of coal world-wide could become
the natural alternative to oil and gas as the primary energy supply.
However, the imperative to avoid Climate Change should slant the playing
field in favour of Bioenergy as the natural substitute for depleting oil and
gas resources.

So, David, I agree with you that at present it does appear to be doom and
gloom for biomass gasification. However, not today and probably not
tomorrow, there will be a need for biomass gasification technology to follow
on the heels of biomass combustion as a significant contributor to the
energy supply portfolio. Until that time, the biomass gasification
community needs to hang on in there solving the technical problems of
feeding, cleaning and scale-up, and seeking those niche opportunities to
demonstrate that bioenergy applications can be economically viable in the
right conditions.

Best regards

Steve Goldthorpe
Energy Systems Analyst
PO Box 68, Greenhithe,
Auckland 1330
New Zealand
Phone 09 413 9696
Fax 09 413 9642
Mobile 0274 849764
Email GLDTHRP@NZNET.GEN.NZ

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Reynolds-Lacey" <d.rl@virgin.net>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 7:02 AM
Subject: GAS-L: Doom and gloom for gasification?

> Dear All,
>
> Another Earth summit and the media is again full
> of "sustainable development" and "aid for
> developing countries" stories, well will THIS
> summit finally make a difference? - You can bet
> that it certainly won't
>
> The posts of late seem to be casting a grim shadow
> over biomass gasification/pyrolosis technology. We
> hear folks saying that nobody making money out of
> biomass, another project that becomes so many
> tonnes of scrap. We hear of fears of difficulty in
> raising grant funding for gasification/pyrolosis
> work, low cost of fossil fuel, high cost of
> transportation of biomass, biomass companies
> making entire workforces redundant and the lack of
> will of governments to upset polluting
> manufacturing industry, etc. etc. Quite frankly,
> there is not yet a real need for sustainable
> energy solutions and it is NEED that drives the
> market, so meanwhile, let's just shut this
> discussion group down and all do something else! -
> No, of course not but you can't really blame any
> group observer for thinking along those lines.
>
> I have been in "future product" orientated
> businesses all of my business life. Here, in the
> UK, then a telecommunications backwater (and still
> is, in comparison to many countries), I fitted
> mobile phones in 1968 and sold hand held (sort of)
> electronic calculators in 1971. I tried to develop
> and sell small business computers in the (pre PC)
> early 70's, I sold Fax machines in 1982 and
> satellite TV in 1983, to mention but a few. I
> think I have a good idea of what it is like to
> survive in a market when there is no need,
> perceived or (sometimes) at all. I had to search
> hard to find and target individuals and
> organisations that really had a need, or even a
> problem that I could solve and I suggest that this
> is what we have to do in the biomass energy
> market.
>
> Large grandiose gasification projects in the
> developed industrialised world are clearly a no-go
> at the moment, cheap fuel and power is too readily
> available, why should a business invest vast sums
> in the infrastructure to use such forms of energy?
> It is true that some such projects do exist but I
> think that many, if not all, are either installed
> by local or national government departments or
> subsidised by them, or some other fund provider.
> It is small, well-targeted systems that will keep
> the ball rolling, there is a need for them now and
> with proper location and planning I am sure they
> can be cost effective without continuous subsidy.
>
> Ready availability of poorly supervised grants
> from governments and some corporations, anxious to
> appear to be doing something "green", often purely
> for political gain, simply creates a grant
> dependent mentality amongst researchers and would
> -be manufacturers. I question whether all of these
> grants are spent wisely and effectively, in a
> proper businesslike manner. Often, it seems that
> more effort and planning is put into obtaining
> grants than is put into system planning of the
> project. It is only a few months ago that an
> entire system with a build cost of, I think, 25M
> tax dollars was up for sale for, I think, less
> than 1M dollars, I believe the reason was a
> failure to secure an agreement obtain a subsidy to
> sell the energy. Therefore, not only was a large
> amount of grant money required in order to build
> the plant, but a large amount of what was
> effectively more grant money was required to run
> it - not good business sense in my book. Yet
> another project failed because they could not feed
> the fuel in, I wonder, did anybody think to carry
> out extensive fuel feeding experiments, before
> building the plant? 15 years work and 50M down
> the pan, doesn't it just make your blood boil?
> What real business would invest 25M of it's OWN
> money in a project without first securing an
> agreement with someone to buy the produce?
> Furthermore, what real business would make the
> same investment knowing that they could only ever
> sell the produce at a loss? What real business
> would invest 50M of it's OWN money, developing
> (say) a vehicle with an engine for which no
> useable fuel existed? Spending other people's
> money is the easiest thing in the world to do.
> Until governments step in and impose massive taxes
> on all fossil fuels and then allocate ALL of that
> revenue to STRICTLY controlled and supervised
> grants, large scale biomass energy projects are
> dead in the water, that is, of course, until the
> fossil fuel runs out!
>
> Another thing that will delay rapid advancement is
> the greed that fuels much of the current obsession
> with patents and protection of Intellectual
> Property Rights in this area, this serves only to
> stifle healthy competition and create monopolies.
> Existence of these patents can also cause other,
> probably more idealistic and less profit
> orientated, researchers and would-be manufacturers
> to spend valuable time looking for alternative
> ways of doing the job without infringing someone
> else's patent and having to pay large license
> fees. I certainly believe that any and all
> Intellectual Property Rights arising from any
> grant aided work, paid from Taxpayers money,
> belong to those Taxpayers should be in the public
> domain. The environment is too important a
> commodity to be left in the hands of the few that
> aspire to become the global "clean hands", purely
> license selling, corporations of the future,
> probably with pockets bulging to bursting point
> with politicians. Just look at what some of the
> "Globals" have done to the environment to date.
> Some of the very same corporations, that have made
> fortunes over the years whilst destroying the
> environment, are now putting on their fashionable
> "environmental hats", hoping to make more fortunes
> out of "helping" us to rescue and protect the
> environment. Of course there is nothing wrong
> with making profit, I would be a hypocrite to
> suggest otherwise but there has got to be a limit
> when it comes to essential services and the
> environment. We have seen what happens when
> essential supplies and services are in the hands
> of a few large, profit driven corporations -
> haven't we learnt anything?
>
> As a slightly cynical aside but perfectly
> demonstrating what I have been saying about the
> folly of unsupervised and ill-researched grant
> aid, there have been a couple of news stories in
> my local business newspaper that are quite
> topical. Our somewhat superficial government,
> that has been trumpeting it's success in reducing
> CO2 emissions by closing down UK coal fired power
> stations, has recently been found to have awarded
> export guarantee grants to UK companies to build
> coal fired power stations abroad that produce 3
> times more CO2 than ours did! Last week it was
> reported that the Swaziland government is to spend
> GBP 150M on an aircraft for their King, their
> reason, was to allow the King to travel the world
> in order to raise - you've guessed it - grant aid!
> Yet I think it was Crispin that only a few weeks
> ago mentioned the grave difficulties faced by the
> impoverished people of Swaziland in even affording
> cheap, 1-dollar fans for their stoves. On a more
> tongue- in-cheek note, it is also reported today
> that a ceremony in which thousands of women
> present bundles of reeds to the King is just about
> to take place in that same country - could he be
> building a reed gasifier, I wonder?
>
> Now that I have got that out of my system, you may
> ask, if I have a better idea - yes, I think I
> have, which will, if nothing else, demonstrate
> that this post is effectively (and eventually)
> on-topic. My idea, which is based on small-scale
> renewable biomass gasification, may not be new but
> I believe the proposed method of assisted
> implementation may well be. However this post is
> already a trifle too long and I will put forward
> my ideas, aspirations and proposals in further
> post in the near future.
>
> Herein, I may have made what some may consider as
> being somewhat idealistic and maybe controversial,
> although I hope not offensive, comments. I may
> also have touched nerves but there comes a time
> when one simply just has to say, as politely as
> possible, just what one feels. I therefore invite
> and will accept constructive, polite criticism and
> correction, but most of all, having nailed my
> colours to the mast, I wish to identify any (if
> any) like-minded people amongst you, with whom I
> can have further discussions about my plans and a
> freer exchange of information.
>
> After much pondering, I now, on the advice of the
> "Iron Duke", take this opportunity to "publish and
> be damned!"
>
>
> Kindest regards,
>
>
> David Reynolds-Lacey
>
>
>
> -
> Gasification List Archives:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
> www.webpan.com/BEF
> List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>
>
> Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Gasification Events and Information:
> http://www.bioenergy2002.org
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk Sat Aug 31 14:28:08 2002
From: Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:06 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Doom and gloom for gasification?
In-Reply-To: <005001c25136$73d7c6c0$86d81bca@GLDTHRP>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGKEDDCGAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>

See comments in text
Gavin
David,

So what changes are out there that will change the status quo?

The second change that will increase the need for Bioenergy will be the
depletion of oil and gas resources. Oil reserves are already being used up
at a faster rate than they are being discovered and gas will follow suit. As
this inevitable result of the use of unsustainable resources bites, prices
will rise and the economic need to replace these resources will open up
Bioenergy opportunities.[GGG] This is already happening in the UK, the UK
Govt has published several reports regarding Energy security and
independence from foreign producers, However Biomass pellet fuel can be
imported at 50% the cost of UK production? So ??? and EU rules prohibit Govt
market protection -Unless you're French!! ;-)

Best regards

Steve Goldthorpe
Energy Systems Analyst
PO Box 68, Greenhithe,
Auckland 1330
New Zealand
Phone 09 413 9696
Fax 09 413 9642
Mobile 0274 849764
Email GLDTHRP@NZNET.GEN.NZ

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Reynolds-Lacey" <d.rl@virgin.net>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 7:02 AM
Subject: GAS-L: Doom and gloom for gasification?

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/

From tmiles at trmiles.com Sat Aug 31 22:08:33 2002
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:06 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Engine Experience
Message-ID: <00bf01c2517d$a6f940f0$0301a8c0@tomslaptop>

What has the experience been with engines and
gasifiers? What are the maintenace requirements? What is the typical annual use,
2000 hours? Are there any that operate 6000 to 8000 hours per year? What is the
expected life? What are the actual maintenance intrevals? What facilities and
equipment are necessary for engine maintenance that are different than for
automotive or diesel power generation? What engines (make and model) work well:
Waukesha? Caterpiller? Lister?

The most used engines for producer gas seem to be
modified natural gas or LP engines or diesels that are run as dual fueled. Are
oil and air filter change intrevals the same for producer gas as for LP?
Every 150 hours? What other maintenance needs to be done?What is the
expected engine life compared with actual engine life for LP or duel fueled
diesels on producer gas? Can we expect an overhaul with producer gas after 2000
hours? Is engine life 10000 hours? After than what needs to be
done?

What has the experience been with converting
existing diesels to dual fueled applications? Good? Bad? What works and what
doesn't work?

What is a practical genset size? Do the 500 kWe
engine-gensets that we have seen promoted actually survive? If you were doing
distributed generation at 200 kWe what would you use? Four 50 kWe or larger
gensets?

What's the experience with derating? What's the
actual power production for an engine rated for LP or diesel? If you were sizing
a new system for 200 kWe how would you specify the engine?

We understand from the more successful
gasifier-genset suppliers that engine applications need a well organized
"support system." What support does a 50-200 kWe gasogen need?

Moisture in the fuel. If I make "bad" gas because
of wet fuel does the engine care? What kinds of problems result from wet fuel?
What range of gasifier fuel moisture can an engine tolerate without
excessive derating?

Where does one go for engine experience or
information about the use of engines with gasifiers(what documents or web
links)? Are there test block benchmark performance tests for producer gas?

These are a lot of ignorant questions from one who
is often asked for direction. Until I use a gasogen to keep my own
electronics on standby I'll have to rely on the experience of others. Thank you
for your contributions.

Kind regards,

Tom Miles

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

August 2002 Gasification Archive