BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

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

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

February 2002 Gasification Archive

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

From hauserman at corpcomm.net Fri Feb 1 06:48:56 2002
From: hauserman at corpcomm.net (Hauserman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: maximum pressure
In-Reply-To: <92D6AAE888CED411A16A00508BB0B827261419@ecntex.ecn.nl>
Message-ID: <001301c1ab42$04542860$898ab1d8@Hauserman>

Dear Bram, et al. -

Re. Maximum pressure for biomass gasification: There are no
"fundamental" barriers to gasifying biomass at 50 bar, or any other
pressure. In fact, it's been done, quite a few times - under rather
expensive R&D projects. Certainly there are possible chemical advantages.
And high pressures would permit much smaller reactor volumes for the same
production rates, which would contribute to reduced capital costs. However,
this appears to be rather decisively off-set by a whole array of practical
mechanical and economic constraints. The etermal problem of feeding light
fluffy, bridging, non-free-flowing stuff thru lock hoppers into a gas-tight
vessel becomes far more formidable as pressure increases. The same goes for
ash removal. Then, although the reaction vessels, gas conditioning steps and
piping may be a lot smaller, they are also a lot more costly, per capacity.
Though gases take up less space at high pressures, solids (feed and ash) do
not. So these components are just as big but must be designed for higher
pressures. Estimating these higher costs is even prohibitive, since few or
none of these components are standard equipment, and will generally have to
be designed/specified from scratch for any conceivable project. (I know a
few of you out there have done good work in this area: Tom Miles? Michael
Antal? Can you add anything more positive to this?) My own hands-on in
pressurized gasification has only been with more-or-less-free-flowing
coal, which is enough of a PinA to handle at high pressures, even 10 bar,
and appears to be potentially economic - if at all - only on huge scales.
So -- until atmospheric biomass gasification becomes generally accepted
commercially, probably in some future generation, I would not recommend
worrying about pressurized processes -- appealing tho they may be to
design. But on the other hand -- Yeah, we need a backlog of good ideas
whose times haven't come.

Bill Hauserman

----- Original Message -----
From: Drift, A. van der <vanderdrift@ecn.nl>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 2:05 AM
Subject: GAS-L: maximum pressure

> Dear members,
>
> Can anyone give me arguments why biomass gasification is or is not
possible
> at 50 bar? I know that the composition changes, tar concentration
increases
> and the inert gas consumption is high, but are there any fundamental
> barriers?
>
> Greetings,
>
> Bram van der Drift
> ECN Biomass
> POBox 1
> NL 1755 ZG Petten, the Netherlands
> tel: (31) 224-564515
> fax: (31) 224-568487
> Email: vanderdrift@ecn.nl
>
>
> -
> Gasification List Archives:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
> www.webpan.com/BEF
> 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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

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

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Feb 1 09:23:38 2002
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: maximum pressure
Message-ID: <3d.1891b53a.298c456a@aol.com>

Dear Bill,
The high pressure gasification of biomass has been done on a large scale
at the Hawaii project where sugar cane bagasse was fed into a high pressure
system with oxygen feed. The recent offerings from the DOE have requested low
pressure gasification technology to deal with the material handling problems
into and out of the gasification system at pressure. Considering that the DOE
was a major sponsor of the Hawaii project, this is an interesting
philosophical change.
The major benefit to high pressure is not having to compress the gas to
feed into a turbine which operates at 150-350 psi. Compressing the gas after
gasification is a significant parasitic load.
There are ways to deal with the power generation without having to worry
about pressurized systems which work out very economic.

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

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

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

 

From dglickd at pipeline.com Fri Feb 1 11:13:36 2002
From: dglickd at pipeline.com (Dick Glick)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: maximum pressure
In-Reply-To: <3d.1891b53a.298c456a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <047b01c1ab65$90d80f90$0100a8c0@cframcomp>

Hello --

In the mid-eighties, we had been scheduled to use a Canadian developed
gasifier, developed over the previous 15 years or so, by SNC -
Hydro-Quebec - Nouveler and operated at 10 atmospheres with a gas output at
1000 F and fed directly into the combustor of a Brown-Bavari gas turbine --
output of near 50 MW. The gasifier was to be first used -- after
temperature reduction and washing of the output gas -- in a diesel electric
system in French Guiana. The developer, SNC (now the largest Canadian
engineer firm) was to be paid for developing the conversion to cleaned gas
under contract with the French government -- We were told that the French
decided not to honor the SNC investment (?) -- after the gasifier had been
shipped to Guiana and tested -- SNC backed out of our agreement saying that
they could not go forward until they had been paid for their prior effort.
The B-B turbine was no longer produced -- and our project crashed. We had a
PURPA 55 MW contract at the time, but our fate was shared by many holding
those contracts.

The primary difficult operating the gasifier was the pressurized lock-box
arrangement feeding the fuel into the gasifier. That seemed to have been
reasonable perfected on a system -- operating at 10 tons per hour -- that
had been tested in Canada.

Dick

----- Original Message -----
From: <LINVENT@aol.com>
To: <hauserman@corpcomm.net>; <vanderdrift@ecn.nl>; <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: maximum pressure

> Dear Bill,
> The high pressure gasification of biomass has been done on a large
scale
> at the Hawaii project where sugar cane bagasse was fed into a high
pressure
> system with oxygen feed. The recent offerings from the DOE have requested
low
> pressure gasification technology to deal with the material handling
problems
> into and out of the gasification system at pressure. Considering that the
DOE
> was a major sponsor of the Hawaii project, this is an interesting
> philosophical change.
> The major benefit to high pressure is not having to compress the gas
to
> feed into a turbine which operates at 150-350 psi. Compressing the gas
after
> gasification is a significant parasitic load.
> There are ways to deal with the power generation without having to
worry
> about pressurized systems which work out very economic.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Leland T. Taylor
> President
> Thermogenics Inc.
> 7100-2nd St. NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107
> phone 505-761-1454 fax 505-761-1456
> Attached files are zipped and can be decompressed with <A
> HREF="http://www.aladdinsys.com/expander/">www.aladdinsys.com/expander/
</A>
>
> -
> Gasification List Archives:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
> www.webpan.com/BEF
> 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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>

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

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

 

From CAVM at aol.com Fri Feb 1 17:17:39 2002
From: CAVM at aol.com (CAVM@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification to diesel and methanol
Message-ID: <2f.21bdd89a.298cb488@aol.com>

I don't know where I have been the last year of so when I was supposedly
reading the posts to this group but I totally missed the point I guess. I
just read on a DOE web page about gasification with O2 to produce Synthesis
gas which can be converted to Methanol, Ethanol and Diesel fuel. I think it
said that the ethanol production was via a bacteria but I didn't see how the
Methanol and Diesel are produced.

Up till now I was looking at gasification as a way to make a flammable gas to
use to produce hot air, hot water, steam or even electricity. Now I find
that I have been missing the big ticket items.

I ran across a patent lately that even talks about producing a single source
protein by feeding producer gas through a glass tube to feed bacteria with
cooperation of sunlight. This high protein product is human food grade.
Amazing.

I apologize if this has been the topic of the last 200 postings but could
somebody go over these again for me, be easy I am no engineer. And if you
already went over this with me before, keep in mind that I have the memory of
a short order cook.

Neal Van Milligen

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

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

 

From gregandapril at earthlink.net Sat Feb 2 06:36:58 2002
From: gregandapril at earthlink.net (Greg and April)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification to diesel and methanol
In-Reply-To: <2f.21bdd89a.298cb488@aol.com>
Message-ID: <004601c1ac07$7dff0ca0$6c530e3f@oemcomputer>

 

----- Original Message -----
From: <CAVM@aol.com>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 20:18
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification to diesel and methanol

> I don't know where I have been the last year of so when I was supposedly
> reading the posts to this group but I totally missed the point I guess. I
> just read on a DOE web page about gasification with O2 to produce
Synthesis
> gas which can be converted to Methanol, Ethanol and Diesel fuel. I think
it
> said that the ethanol production was via a bacteria but I didn't see how
the
> Methanol and Diesel are produced.
>
This is why I joined the list, hopefuly to learn how to make methanol, from
synthesis gas.

Greg H.

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

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

 

From snkm at btl.net Sat Feb 2 16:05:07 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Peter Einstein Singfield was Re: Gasification terminology
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20020202192928.009aa100@wgs1.btl.net>

 

Bruno --

>Please tel us about your last hint, how exactly do you turn excess CO into
H2 ?

You must have been off list the past year??

Search the archives -- it was studied and "presented" in great detail --
maybe 6 months ago??

Catalytic heaters -- tin metal baths -- steam reforming raw biomass -- the
whole business. With clear references to "existing" technology.

Don't expect me to lay it all out in detail to convince you -- research it
yourself!! Go to this lists archives.

Producing a good yield of pure H2 from biomass at high efficiency is real.

Fuel cells?? You probably know more about them than I do ---

But the best -- highest efficiencies -- operate on pure H2

Then there is also just getting the right ratio of H2 and CO for the purest
possible synthesis gas for further products. All part of this technology.

Should we ignore this technology just because people prefer to be blind to
it??

That is the real question ---

>and you'll be the next Bill Gate§ if you pattent it :-)) LOL

I have a patent -- search "peter singfield" at the US patent office.
Believe me -- a waste of time and money. As Arnt and friends are about to
discover.

I can't see myself compared to Einstein -- he was a theorist -- better
comparison would be Edison -- he was an innovator.

Peter

At 03:47 AM 1/31/2002 +0100, you wrote:
> > In a message dated 1/28/02 4:24:13 AM, Harry.Parker@ttu.edu writes:
> > Hello all,
> > We have to get our terms clarified. To me gasification is the reaction
>of carbon with steam,
> > but some of you may call it the water gas shift reaction too.
> > C + H2O <---> CO + H2
> > This reaction is highly endothermic since you are "unburning" water.
> > The combustible hydrocarbons you get from organic matter pyrolysis are a
>bonus.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>>At 07:31 30/01/2002 -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
>>Dear Harry, Tom and All:
>>
>>Regarding your statement:
>> >The above endothermic reaction results in real processes
>> >being rather inefficient, usually about 50%.
>>--snip--
>>
>>You can't simply make energy disappear -- or get lost.
>>
>>One last hint -- the CO in the mentioned H2 reaction products is utilized
>>to operate the catalytic converter -- to fuel to reaction.
>>
>>Also -- you can straight convert excess CO from the above to H2
>>using the tin liquid metal bath -- with extremely high efficiencies.
>>If they can do all this in a car -- certainly they can do it in a coal
>>fueled power plant??
>>Peter Singfield / Belize
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Dear Peter,
>
>Please tel us about your last hint, how exactly do you turn excess CO into
H2 ?
>If you realy can do that, you can make from every (sustainable ) hydrocarbon
>source the cleanest Hydrogen wich will stop the greenhouse gas emissions
>of CO2 worldwide; and you'll be the next Bill Gate§ if you pattent it :-))
LOL
>
>Now serious, I realy like to know, how coal and biomasse can be used in a car
>to power a fuelcell, since you know a lot more about fuelcells than about
>chemistry :-)
>
>sorry about the yoke, couldnt help it,
>just a chemist,
>Bruno Meersman
>
>Reply's to BrunoM1@yucom.be
>
>

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

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

 

From snkm at btl.net Sun Feb 3 09:05:10 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: maximum pressure and the wooden "battery"
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20020203130532.009c35c0@wgs1.btl.net>

 

Dear All --

At 10:59 AM 2/1/2002 -0600, Hauserman wrote:
>Dear Bram, et al. -
>
> Re. Maximum pressure for biomass gasification: There are no
>"fundamental" barriers to gasifying biomass at 50 bar, or any other
>pressure. In fact, it's been done, quite a few times - under rather
>expensive R&D projects. Certainly there are possible chemical advantages.
>And high pressures would permit much smaller reactor volumes for the same
>production rates, which would contribute to reduced capital costs.

More on pressure gasification --

http://www.rebresearch.com/MRessay.html

Fine example of replacing the theoretically perfect electric resistance
heating with a catalytic burner.

That burner being fueled by the waste gasses of this steam reforming/ H2
purifying (CO and a little H2 that slips thought the works)

All in all -- a tight little system.

In this case -- the fuel being reformed is methanol -- but this interesting
little device care not where the "product" gas comes from -- more on
alternative sources near the end of this com.

At the very least -- reading this "paper" through will result in some clear
answers regarding pressurized gasification -- with clear formula and examples.

The "Blurb" from this Url :

MEMBRANE REACTORS, FUNDAMENTAL AND COMMERCIAL ADVANTAGES, E.G. FOR METHANOL
REFORMING
Robert Buxbaum,
REB Research & Consulting
25451 Gardner
Oak Park, MI 48237
Membrane reactors achieve efficiencies by combining in one unit a
reactor that generates a product with a semipermeable membrane that
extracts it. The result is a more compact design plus greater conversion.
Removal of a product increases the residence time for a given volume of
reactor and drives equilibrium-limited reactions towards completion. This
latter advantage is reviewed excellently by Armor1,2 while the former has
been, largely, ignored. In my opinion, a yet-larger advantage of membrane
reactors is that they expand the allowed range of temperatures and
pressures for a reaction. Membrane reactors fundamentally change the
pressure dependence of conversion in gas phase decomposition reactions so
that the reactions are preferentially performed at high pressures rather
than low. Higher pressures allow much smaller reactors and more efficient
purification. Membrane reactors can be advantageous also for sequential
endothermic and exothermic reactions, by using the product extraction to
promote heat transfer. Enhanced heat transfer permits plug flow where CSTR
designs would have been necessary otherwise. The net result is smaller
reactors, lower capital costs, and often fewer side-reactions. These
general benefits will be illustrated for methanol reforming to hydrogen.

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

Everything is sitting on those shelves -- it is a simple matter of taking
them down and hooking them together.

>The etermal problem of feeding light
>fluffy, bridging, non-free-flowing stuff thru lock hoppers into a gas-tight
>vessel becomes far more formidable as pressure increases.

The problem with pressurized gasification of biomass, coal and so forth --
is everyone is locked into a continuous flow model. Which has nightmare
proportions sealing problems.

Batch mode solves all of that. Biomass of proper humidity is heated (using
waste gas products and a catalytic heater) reforming temps and pressures.
The humidity of the biomass supplying the right amount of steam required.

So now we are talking a steel cylinder filled with biomass -- like a wooden
battery!

The product is bled off under any pressure to be further refined in the
device this man proposes.

Pressurizing is simply pressure regulating the release of product from this
batch reaction chamber -- or wood battery. In there, the biomass is
pyrolized and steam reformed -- tars and chars -- everything! But slowly --
over a long period.

The final result out the end of the membrane H@ purifier is two parts.

1: A waste gas that can still fuel a catalytic heater.

2: Pure H2 to feed the right kind of fuel cell.

I believed I described this all in detail on this list a few years back.
And it can be found in the archives.

Fine tuned balancing can be achieved by using a tin metal bath and this
reaction -- which is energy "neutral":

H2O + Sn ------> SnO2 + H2
SnO2 + 2CO -----> Sn + CO2

As in balancing for max H2 -- and just the right amount of CO for "heat".
Extra CO being converted to H2 -- buy reducing SnO2 back to Sn.

The H2 that slips through the membrane purifier can simply be re-introduced
-- 80% more being extracted each pass.

All in all -- high over all efficiencies -- biomass to electrical energy --
and can be done easily in small sizes -- say 1 kwh to 10 kwh

As for the "batch"

Well, say 1.75 kwh btu per pound for biomass (wood)

Say 45% over all efficiencies (Yes -- and even more)

Say 1 kw for 24 hrs -- 24 kwh.

24 kwh times 1.55 = 37.2 kwh Fuel per gross batch for 24 hours operation.

37.2/1.75 = 21.25 lbs of biomass per batch.

This would be in a cylinder -- replaced every 24 hours.

Hardly reason enough to discourage batch processing??

Yes -- we are talking slow -- pressurized -- steam reformation (ultimately)
gasification. A wooden battery if you will??

It discharges -- and then is opened and re-charged.

You could have four or five "batteries" charges -- hooked on line -- just
switch from one to the other -- as required.

So -- say 10 kwh power plant -- 212.5 pound of wood.

Wood the cost of a cylinder to hold 212.5 pound of wood be so prohibitive
as to make this unfeasible??

There is no reason to chip or pelletize -- the wood can be charged as solid
pieces or as dust.

It need not be dried -- can go in to "wet". The extra humidity -- as steam
-- passes straight through this device --

Why is this concept so hard to comprehend? Why bother with continuous
process??

Peter Singfield -- Belize

At 10:59 AM 2/1/2002 -0600, Hauserman wrote:
>Dear Bram, et al. -
>
> Re. Maximum pressure for biomass gasification: There are no
>"fundamental" barriers to gasifying biomass at 50 bar, or any other
>pressure. In fact, it's been done, quite a few times - under rather
>expensive R&D projects. Certainly there are possible chemical advantages.
>And high pressures would permit much smaller reactor volumes for the same
>production rates, which would contribute to reduced capital costs. However,
>this appears to be rather decisively off-set by a whole array of practical
>mechanical and economic constraints. The etermal problem of feeding light
>fluffy, bridging, non-free-flowing stuff thru lock hoppers into a gas-tight
>vessel becomes far more formidable as pressure increases. The same goes for
>ash removal. Then, although the reaction vessels, gas conditioning steps and
>piping may be a lot smaller, they are also a lot more costly, per capacity.
>Though gases take up less space at high pressures, solids (feed and ash) do
>not. So these components are just as big but must be designed for higher
>pressures. Estimating these higher costs is even prohibitive, since few or
>none of these components are standard equipment, and will generally have to
>be designed/specified from scratch for any conceivable project. (I know a
>few of you out there have done good work in this area: Tom Miles? Michael
>Antal? Can you add anything more positive to this?) My own hands-on in
>pressurized gasification has only been with more-or-less-free-flowing
>coal, which is enough of a PinA to handle at high pressures, even 10 bar,
>and appears to be potentially economic - if at all - only on huge scales.
>So -- until atmospheric biomass gasification becomes generally accepted
>commercially, probably in some future generation, I would not recommend
>worrying about pressurized processes -- appealing tho they may be to
>design. But on the other hand -- Yeah, we need a backlog of good ideas
>whose times haven't come.
>
> Bill Hauserman

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

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

 

From snkm at btl.net Mon Feb 4 03:22:52 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: maximum pressure and the wooden "battery"
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20020204064540.0096e330@wgs1.btl.net>

 

Arnt ---

You mean:

2(H2O) + C = CO2 + 2(H2)

CO2 + 2(CO) = C + 2(CO2)

I doubt this reaction is as "stable" as the tin example.

As in easily reproducible with near total completion -- time after time --
etc.

Further -- your looking at an all gas reaction in that example.

The tin metal bath is liquid with an amount a SnO2 in it -- great heat sink
-- and easy to manipulate.

For the curious -- the tin metal bath "converter" is at:

http://www.alchemix.net/products.htm

Bruno -- here is you chance to check it out!

Peter

At 01:14 AM 2/4/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>On Sunday 03 February 2002 20:06, Peter Singfield wrote:
>
>> Fine tuned balancing can be achieved by using a tin metal bath and
>> this reaction -- which is energy "neutral":
>>
>> H2O + Sn ------> SnO2 + H2
>> SnO2 + 2CO -----> Sn + CO2
>
>..this _tin = Sn_ metal bath replaces our trusty good old
>carbon bed in our thermochemical gasification magic?????
>
>--
>..med vennlig hilsen = with kind regards from Arnt... ;-)
>
> Scenarios always come in sets of three:
> best case, worst case, and just in case.
>

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

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

 

From snkm at btl.net Mon Feb 4 07:35:57 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: maximum pressure and the wooden "battery"
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20020204112901.00794d90@wgs1.btl.net>

 

Arnt --

Metals oxide reduction/oxidation cycles are very well established!

Thermite is a classy example -- iron oxide & aluminum

So -- steam/iron = iron oxide + H2

Aluminum and iron oxide = aluminum oxide -- pure iron -- and a lot of heat.

The problem is always reducing the oxide back to the pure metal -- in this
example -- reducing back to aluminum.

But in the tin molten metal case -- it is "good"

Try getting rid of the oxide in aluminum with any kind of efficiency!

Further -- the "chemical" required -- CO -- is exactly what we have in our
pocket!

This reaction is very controllable. And runs to completion -- extremely
high purity H2 requiring no further purification -- and at extremely high
efficiencies.

Your carbon cycle is a nightmare -- comparatively. Sure -- it is there in
huge gasifiers -- doing a "little" -- as in "maybe".

The tin metal bath is very positively reversible -- over and over -- under
very compact conditions -- and very energy neutral.

>...which can be rewritten:
>
>H2O + Sn + 2 CO + SnO2 <-> SnO2 + H2 + Sn + 2 CO2

Sure -- if one puts CO there during the "steam" cycle -- but why in the
world do that!!

It is a dual cycle deal Arnt -- you mean you really missed that??

Cycle one:

Pure tin -- pass through pure steam -- result -- pure H2

There is no problem producing pure steam.

You turn off the steam well before H2O no longer reacts with Zn -- so no
H2O crosses over.

Ergo -- no H2O contaminating the "pure" H2 product.

Cycle Two:

Once a set amount of ZnO2 is reached in the bath -- you turn off the steam
-- and pass through the gas product that has been stripped of H2 in the
membrane separator.

The feed gas that is used to "reduce" the metal oxide back to a pure metal
is the exhaust from the membrane separator.

(The feed gas to the membrane separator can be product from a biomass steam
reformation device -- or from even a biomass partial combustion gasifier)

This "gas" exhaust from the membrane separator can be a combination of
atmospheric (mostly N2) gas, residual H2, CO2, CO.

The ones we do not want there is O2 or H2O -- but small levels will not
effect this reduction to a great extent anyway! There is no need to make
the entire metal bath pure -- just to recover sufficient ZN from ZnO2 to
repeat a cycle.

The CO reacts with the ZnO2 as above -- reducing the oxide to pure tin
again -- the rest of the gasses pass through. Some residual side action due
to contaminants of O2 and H2O may create new ZnO2 -- but the net result
will be a lot of the ZnO2 back as Zn. And a little extra H2 at the exhaust.

The Gas exhaust products -- still containing some hydrogen (and some CO) as
well as the rest -- can either be used as a very low value fuel for the
catalytic converter -- or passed through the membrane separator again --

What is the purpose of all this??

Maximizing production of H2 at extremely high product efficiencies to run
an H2 fuel cell!!

OK -- I've showed you mine -- using a tin bath --

Now -- you show me yours -- using a hot charcoal bed?? Show me how you can
maximize pure H2 using a hot charcoal bed??? And at high over all
efficiencies!!

In the system I outline -- no need for a flywheel device -- you can put
that where the sun don't shine! Cause all of the above would fit under the
hood -- the big advantage of a pressurized gasification system -- and you
could feed any biomass fuel you want into the "tank" -- along the lines of
the MaClaren in Back to the Future -- or what ever.

You got Urls for yours???

By the way folks -- Bright Star found 40% humidity the idea rate for self
steam reforming biomass.

That Url is long gone -- but I did save a copy!! Very specific -- very
enlightening. They to used catalytic heating -- and membrane separators.

What they lacked -- and what would have made the big difference -- is the
tin metal bath deally!

I hope this is not lost on this list?? Re: The vital importance of
converting CO to H2 at extremely high efficiency. It makes or breaks the
economics of gasifying any hydrocarbon for purposes of supplying H2 to a
fuel cell.

Peter

At 05:24 PM 2/4/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>On Monday 04 February 2002 02:00, Peter Singfield wrote:
>> Arnt ---
>>
>> You mean:
>>
>> 2(H2O) + C = CO2 + 2(H2)
>>
>> CO2 + 2(CO) = C + 2(CO2)
>
>..nope, I meant the unbalanced:
>> >> H2O + Sn ------> SnO2 + H2
>> >> SnO2 + 2CO -----> Sn + CO2
>
>...which can be rewritten:
>
>H2O + Sn + 2 CO + SnO2 <-> SnO2 + H2 + Sn + 2 CO2
>
>> I doubt this reaction is as "stable" as the tin example.
>
>.."gas only" does not work, and the coal bed is "stable" and
>self-regulating, run my way. But this?
>
>..numbers for the tin bath?
>
>> As in easily reproducible with near total completion -- time after
>> time -- etc.
>>
>> Further -- your looking at an all gas reaction in that example.
>>
>> The tin metal bath is liquid with an amount a SnO2 in it -- great
>> heat sink -- and easy to manipulate.
>>
>> For the curious -- the tin metal bath "converter" is at:
>>
>> http://www.alchemix.net/products.htm
>
>..sexy.
>
>> Bruno -- here is you chance to check it out!
>
>..my mistake, we're off-list. ;-)
>
>> Peter
>>
>> At 01:14 AM 2/4/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>> >On Sunday 03 February 2002 20:06, Peter Singfield wrote:
>> >> Fine tuned balancing can be achieved by using a tin metal bath and
>> >> this reaction -- which is energy "neutral":
>> >>
>> >> H2O + Sn ------> SnO2 + H2
>> >> SnO2 + 2CO -----> Sn + CO2
>> >
>> >..this _tin = Sn_ metal bath replaces our trusty good old
>> >carbon bed in our thermochemical gasification magic?????
>
>--
>..med vennlig hilsen = with kind regards from Arnt... ;-)
>
> Scenarios always come in sets of three:
> best case, worst case, and just in case.
>
>

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

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

 

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Feb 5 03:09:44 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: maximum pressure and the wooden "battery"
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020204112901.00794d90@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <200202050351.37372@arnt.c2i.net>

On Monday 04 February 2002 18:37, Peter Singfield wrote:
> Arnt --
>
> Metals oxide reduction/oxidation cycles are very well established!
>
> Thermite is a classy example -- iron oxide & aluminum
>
> So -- steam/iron = iron oxide + H2
>
> Aluminum and iron oxide = aluminum oxide -- pure iron -- and a lot of
> heat.

..yeah, I know thermite.
I thought of "tin" as the wavy roofing kinda thin steel sheets. ;-)

> The problem is always reducing the oxide back to the pure metal -- in
> this example -- reducing back to aluminum.
>
> But in the tin molten metal case -- it is "good"
>
> Try getting rid of the oxide in aluminum with any kind of efficiency!

..is how we use hydropower to cook aluminum up here. ;-)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=soderberg+aluminum+Norsk+Hydro&btnG=Google+Search

> Further -- the "chemical" required -- CO -- is exactly what we have
> in our pocket!
>
> This reaction is very controllable. And runs to completion --
> extremely high purity H2 requiring no further purification -- and at
> extremely high efficiencies.
>
> Your carbon cycle is a nightmare -- comparatively. Sure -- it is

..so I handle nightmares just fine. ;-)

> there in huge gasifiers -- doing a "little" -- as in "maybe".
>
> The tin metal bath is very positively reversible -- over and over --
> under very compact conditions -- and very energy neutral.
>
> >...which can be rewritten:
> >
> >H2O + Sn + 2 CO + SnO2 <-> SnO2 + H2 + Sn + 2 CO2
>
> Sure -- if one puts CO there during the "steam" cycle -- but why in
> the world do that!!
>
> It is a dual cycle deal Arnt -- you mean you really missed that??

..you saw my "<->" ? ;-)

> Cycle one:
>
> Pure tin -- pass through pure steam -- result -- pure H2
>
> There is no problem producing pure steam.
>
> You turn off the steam well before H2O no longer reacts with Zn -- so
> no H2O crosses over.
>
> Ergo -- no H2O contaminating the "pure" H2 product.
>
> Cycle Two:
>
> Once a set amount of ZnO2 is reached in the bath -- you turn off the
> steam -- and pass through the gas product that has been stripped of
> H2 in the membrane separator.
>
> The feed gas that is used to "reduce" the metal oxide back to a pure
> metal is the exhaust from the membrane separator.
>
> (The feed gas to the membrane separator can be product from a biomass
> steam reformation device -- or from even a biomass partial combustion
> gasifier)
>
> This "gas" exhaust from the membrane separator can be a combination
> of atmospheric (mostly N2) gas, residual H2, CO2, CO.
>
> The ones we do not want there is O2 or H2O -- but small levels will
> not effect this reduction to a great extent anyway! There is no need
> to make the entire metal bath pure -- just to recover sufficient ZN
> from ZnO2 to repeat a cycle.

..dynamics, agreed. Zn=zinc, Sn=tin. It is tin?

> The CO reacts with the ZnO2 as above -- reducing the oxide to pure
> tin again -- the rest of the gasses pass through. Some residual side
> action due to contaminants of O2 and H2O may create new ZnO2 -- but
> the net result will be a lot of the ZnO2 back as Zn. And a little
> extra H2 at the exhaust.
>
> The Gas exhaust products -- still containing some hydrogen (and some
> CO) as well as the rest -- can either be used as a very low value
> fuel for the catalytic converter -- or passed through the membrane
> separator again --
>
> What is the purpose of all this??
>
> Maximizing production of H2 at extremely high product efficiencies to
> run an H2 fuel cell!!
>
> OK -- I've showed you mine -- using a tin bath --
>
> Now -- you show me yours -- using a hot charcoal bed?? Show me how
> you can maximize pure H2 using a hot charcoal bed??? And at high over
> all efficiencies!!

..I do _not_ want to maximize H2. H2 is like vitamin C rice; an
avocado or orange every 3'rd day fixes that vitamin C problem, and
provides a diet change that "can be looked forward to".
Ok, H2 and genetic wizardry is sexier when reeling in R&D funds.

..I want to maximize _total_fuel_system_efficiency_.

 

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Tue Feb 5 03:18:57 2002
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: maximum pressure
Message-ID: <21.187facc8.29913608@cs.com>

Many projects have gone belly up because of feeding problems (ie Hawaii, cost ~ $50 M and 15 years of wasted technical effort, sunk by bagasse feeding problems).

If we pelletize all biomass for high pressure use first, it can probably be fed using the reliable coal pressure feeding technologies that have been standard for 100 years.     

While most pelletizing today is for sawdust for the new automatic pellet stoves, there is also significant pelletizing of peanut shells and bagasse - both excellent candidates for high pressure feeding.  

Onward...     TOM REED          BEF GASWORKS

In a message dated 2/1/02 12:25:08 PM Mountain Standard Time, LINVENT@aol.com writes:

 

Dear Bill,
The high pressure gasification of biomass has been done on a large scale
at the Hawaii project where sugar cane bagasse was fed into a high pressure
system with oxygen feed. The recent offerings from the DOE have requested low
pressure gasification technology to deal with the material handling problems
into and out of the gasification system at pressure. Considering that the DOE
was a major sponsor of the Hawaii project, this is an interesting
philosophical change.
The major benefit to high pressure is not having to compress the gas to
feed into a turbine which operates at 150-350 psi. Compressing the gas after
gasification is a significant parasitic load.
There are ways to deal with the power generation without having to worry
about pressurized systems which work out very economic.

Sincerely,
Leland T. Taylor
President

 

From snkm at btl.net Tue Feb 5 04:05:06 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Url for Brite Star info
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20020205075904.00974840@wgs1.btl.net>

 

Deal Listers;

I have acted on Arnt's suggestion and have mounted all the info archived on
my Hard Drive regarding Brite Star at:

http://tzabcan.com/gas/BriteStar/TechnicalOverview.zip

Yes -- it is a zip file. One must open it into it's own directory. Then
simply double click on the HTM file called:

Technical Overview.htm

The result will be an HTM presentation -- graphics -- etc -- or all info
regarding Brite Star that I have.

It also includes an article regarding Brite Star found at:

http://www.pyr.ec.gc.ca/ep/wet/section16.html

This site probably still active.

The title of that "paper":

Technology Review - Wood Ethanol

In that "section" is also an excellent overview in what Neil is interested in:

Gasification-Fermentation Routes

The ethanol production system reviewed here is unique because it is a
combination of two processes offered by two companies that has been put
together for the report as they offer an interesting alternative to the
other processes reviewed. The two systems are a wood gasification system
offered by Brightstar Synfuels Company of Texas and a biological syngas to
ethanol process developed by Bioengineering Resources, Inc. (BRI) of
Arkansas. Several companies, who would be essentially systems integrators,
are discussing the combination of the two technologies.

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

Which also is about Brite Star.

Actually -- the section on wood ethanol gives a good technical run-down of
all processes to achieve this end presently in the "works".

There you go folks -- special for the Gas list --

Peter

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

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

 

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Feb 5 04:18:06 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Url for Brite Star info
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020205075904.00974840@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <200202051526.03493@arnt.c2i.net>

On Tuesday 05 February 2002 15:06, Peter Singfield wrote:
> Deal Listers;
>
> I have acted on Arnt's suggestion and have mounted all the info
> archived on my Hard Drive regarding Brite Star at:
>
> http://tzabcan.com/gas/BriteStar/TechnicalOverview.zip

..download size is 435 kB.

> Yes -- it is a zip file. One must open it into it's own directory.
> Then simply double click on the HTM file called:

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with kind regards from Arnt... ;-)

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

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

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

 

From snkm at btl.net Tue Feb 5 05:11:06 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Url for Brite Star info
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20020205090415.00988e00@wgs1.btl.net>

At 03:27 PM 2/5/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>On Tuesday 05 February 2002 15:06, Peter Singfield wrote:
>> Deal Listers;

>>
>> http://tzabcan.com/gas/BriteStar/TechnicalOverview.zip
>
>..download size is 435 kB.
>

Bigger once unzipped -- and not a "wasted" byte in there!

Pure hard info -- enjoy --

Peter

 

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

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

 

From tmiles at trmiles.com Tue Feb 5 07:10:06 2002
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: maximum pressure
In-Reply-To: <21.187facc8.29913608@cs.com>
Message-ID: <027701c1ae68$0b88efc0$0301a8c0@trmhp>

 

Tom Reed,

(Tom has been baiting me on the feeding issue for
some time so I guess it's time to respond.)

Your conclusions regarding the pressurized
gasification of bagasse in Hawaii are rubbish.

Your cost figure is, I believe, grossly
exaggerated. It's like the fish that grows in the
telling. 

Your comment implies that it was all "wasted"
public funding and does not recognize the investments and contributions made by
private companies to the technology development. <FONT face=Arial
size=2>The experience was costly, there are aspects of the project that appear
to be wasted, but I wouldn't say that the whole effort was
"wasted." Since 1997 I have seen the experience from Hawaii productively
applied to both research and industry in a variety of applications, including
some of your own. Other publically funded projects have also benefitted from the
experience that people involved in the Hawaii project have carried forward. For
those who participated in it, and for others who have never heard of it, the
project was useful. For those who had nothing to do with it but watched
from the sidelines I'm sure that it was considered a wasted
effort. As you well know there are
technological risks in pressurized gasification. I happen to believe that it is
an appropriate use of public funds to help find ways to offset those risks.

 
The Hawaii project was cancelled for a combination
of reasons: political, economic and technological. The economic circumstances
that made the project look interesting in 1989 had changed significantly by
1997. Today the host facility, a sugar mill, is permanently closed. The ultimate
goal of combined cycle power generation at some of the world's 900 sugar mills
began to dim even by 1995 when the gasifier first operated. What began as a
promising Princeton "thesis" in the late 1980s began to lose its glow. How many
commercial biomass gasification IGCC plants are operating today, let alone on
bagasse? All current efforts are publicly assisted development
projects.

On the technology side there
were modifications in several areas that had to be addressed to continue
the project: gasification and feeding, hot gas handling, and in the service
island, the utilities that keep the plant going. The feed system was a
convenient scapegoat. The principal technology participants (GTI and
Westinghouse/Siemens) felt that we had practical solutions and wanted to
continue the work. But without a host (among other things Hawaii was in an
election year, hence no support there) or convincing economic benefits, the
political hurdles couldn't be overcome.

It is possible to feed gasifiers under pressure but
it can be complex and somewhat more costly than most projects can afford.(That
is also true, by the way, for pressurized pulping and chemical processing of
biomass.)

In the first phase of the Hawaii project we (TR
Miles) designed and built the 75 MMBtuh enclosed flare which by all
accounts performed as expected. The feed system was a (Sunds Defibrator) plug
screw system with almost no feed preparation ahead of it. In retrospect the
designers in Phase I would have benefitted from the modifications that we made
to prepare the fuel in Phase II. To credit the feed system suppliers, there was
no opportunity for them to improve on the pressurized plug screw
system with the experience obtained in the first phase of testing.

In the second phase the project was under different
management. We (TR Miles) modified the feed system to a lockhopper with a
pressurized metering bin, subject to some constraints that turned out to be
crippling. We had used the lock hopper systems successfully in a dozen
applications up to 125 tpd and 300 psi. Successful systems have
redundancy, which we were not afforded in Hawaii due to budget limitations. We
had just five months to almost completely modify and test the gasification
system so that when feed system (or other) failures tripped the
gasifier during the first several tests we had no time to make the
appropriate modifications. Nor could we make essential changes to other parts of
the system. We had to vacate the site and await the next phase, which never
came. We did, however, have several productive runs that allowed us to
document the performance of the system and plan the necessary
changes.

In my opinion, after several years of experience
with commercial scale gasifiers, melters and combustors, the gasifier (GTI
RENUGAS) worked extremely well during the many hours that we did operate. The
scaleup was successful. Gas quality, BFB control, etc. all eventually
worked very well. The (Siemens/Westinghouse) hot gas cleanup system also worked
very well. We also came away with a clear concept of how we would design a
pressurized feed system for bagasse.

Many organizations have worked on feed system
designs. We can design feed systems that will operate at turbine
pressures. There are good gasification systems available. But is there a
need? More than one company has backed away from pressurized biomass
gasification system development after substantial investments. When you look at
the real costs of IGCC systems I don't think you'll find that the feed system
is the principal constraint. For the
next several years BFB and travelling grate boilers will be the
investors principal choice. Low pressure gasifiers will be used
for difficult fuels, cofiring or for NOx reburn.

Regards,

Tom Miles 




Thomas R MilesTR Miles, Technical Consultants<A
href="mailto:tmiles@trmiles.com">tmiles@trmiles.com503-292-0107
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
Reedtb2@cs.com
To: <A title=LINVENT@aol.com
href="mailto:LINVENT@aol.com">LINVENT@aol.com ; <A
title=hauserman@corpcomm.net
href="mailto:hauserman@corpcomm.net">hauserman@corpcomm.net ; <A
title=vanderdrift@ecn.nl
href="mailto:vanderdrift@ecn.nl">vanderdrift@ecn.nl ; <A
title=gasification@crest.org
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 5:20
AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: maximum
pressure
Dear Leland and all:
Many projects have gone belly up because of feeding problems (ie
Hawaii, cost ~ $50 M and 15 years of wasted technical effort, sunk by bagasse
feeding problems). If we pelletize all biomass for high pressure use
first, it can probably be fed using the reliable coal pressure feeding
technologies that have been standard for 100 years.     
While most pelletizing today is for sawdust for the new automatic
pellet stoves, there is also significant pelletizing of peanut shells and
bagasse - both excellent candidates for high pressure feeding.  
Onward...     TOM REED
BEF GASWORKS
In a message dated 2/1/02 12:25:08 PM Mountain Standard Time,
LINVENT@aol.com writes:
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
TYPE="CITE">Dear Bill,    The high pressure
gasification of biomass has been done on a large scale at the Hawaii
project where sugar cane bagasse was fed into a high pressure system
with oxygen feed. The recent offerings from the DOE have requested low
pressure gasification technology to deal with the material handling
problems into and out of the gasification system at pressure.
Considering that the DOE was a major sponsor of the Hawaii project, this
is an interesting philosophical change.    The major
benefit to high pressure is not having to compress the gas to feed into
a turbine which operates at 150-350 psi. Compressing the gas after
gasification is a significant parasitic load.
There are ways to deal with the power generation
without having to worry about pressurized systems which work out very
economic. Sincerely, Leland T. Taylor
President

From JackProot at aol.com Tue Feb 5 17:35:39 2002
From: JackProot at aol.com (JackProot@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: maximum pressure
Message-ID: <4f.18252235.2991feb9@aol.com>

In a message dated 02-02-01 14:25:07 EST, LINVENT@aol.com writes:

<< The major benefit to high pressure is not having to compress the gas to
feed into a turbine which operates at 150-350 psi. Compressing the gas after
gasification is a significant parasitic load. >>

I am still trying to understand the advantages of working under pressure
in a hot gasifier. Reflections :

- compressing the gas after gasification requires energy, OK. But so does
the compression of air before gasification. Slightly smaller volume maybe
but then consider the unavoidable leaks ...

- I keep thinking something is missing in the reasoning. Or why would
people spend so much money in Hawai to replace a stupid compressor
after the gasifier ?

- In a first message, I wrote that Le Chatelier was pushing the reactions
the wrong way : when pressure goes up, the reactions are displaced
towards the least volume. Ex : 2CO <-> CO2 + C goes to the right.
Not exactly what we want.
Well, actually, I didn't get the whole picture : we can also see something
like C + 2H2 <-> CH4 which is favored by an increase in pressure.
Generating methane is quite exciting !
I ran a quick thermodynamic model with a 20% moisture wood at 800°C.
No methane at atmospheric pressure of course, it is largely decomposed
above 600°C. But at 15 bar, I had about 5% in the gas. (Could not go any
higher as the wood began leaving an important carbon residue in the
vessel. Need more moisture to increase the pressure.)
Interestingly enough, the yield increases slowly with the pressure.
(I mean the ratio of heat capacity in the gas vs. the wood used.)

- If we take the gas produced at one atmosphere and we compress it
to 15 bar at the same temperature, we get approximately the same
composition as the gas produced at 15 bar in the furnace. This latter
operation is of course a lot easier. (A heat exchanger could cool down
the gas before the blower and reheat it after, to soften the cost.)

Ain't that fun, to run a furnace on paper ?
We can still burn the paper when we are done :-)

Still suspicious : rich idea in hiding or mad scientist ?

Jacques Proot
(metallurgical process - and gas amateur after hours)

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

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

 

From Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk Tue Feb 5 23:40:59 2002
From: Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: maximum pressure
In-Reply-To: <4f.18252235.2991feb9@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGEEIICEAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>

Jack and all

My understanding of the reason for pressurising gasifiers is to reduce gas
clean up:

Compressing air is easy: the resultant pressurised gas can be burnt in a
pressurised burner (say Gas turbine) directly, or stored under that pressure
for consumption at a varying rate .

If you try to compress producer gas you have to clean it first or the
compressor gets gummed up with tars etc. If you intend to burn the gas
directly then the suspended tares have useful CV so why remove them?

Gav (the old dog)

-----Original Message-----
From: JackProot@aol.com [mailto:JackProot@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 3:36
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: Re: GAS-L: maximum pressure

In a message dated 02-02-01 14:25:07 EST, LINVENT@aol.com writes:

<< The major benefit to high pressure is not having to compress the gas to
feed into a turbine which operates at 150-350 psi. Compressing the gas
after
gasification is a significant parasitic load. >>

I am still trying to understand the advantages of working under pressure
in a hot gasifier. Reflections :

- compressing the gas after gasification requires energy, OK. But so does
the compression of air before gasification. Slightly smaller volume maybe
but then consider the unavoidable leaks ...

- I keep thinking something is missing in the reasoning. Or why would
people spend so much money in Hawai to replace a stupid compressor
after the gasifier ?

- In a first message, I wrote that Le Chatelier was pushing the reactions
the wrong way : when pressure goes up, the reactions are displaced
towards the least volume. Ex : 2CO <-> CO2 + C goes to the right.
Not exactly what we want.
Well, actually, I didn't get the whole picture : we can also see something
like C + 2H2 <-> CH4 which is favored by an increase in pressure.
Generating methane is quite exciting !
I ran a quick thermodynamic model with a 20% moisture wood at 800°C.
No methane at atmospheric pressure of course, it is largely decomposed
above 600°C. But at 15 bar, I had about 5% in the gas. (Could not go any
higher as the wood began leaving an important carbon residue in the
vessel. Need more moisture to increase the pressure.)
Interestingly enough, the yield increases slowly with the pressure.
(I mean the ratio of heat capacity in the gas vs. the wood used.)

- If we take the gas produced at one atmosphere and we compress it
to 15 bar at the same temperature, we get approximately the same
composition as the gas produced at 15 bar in the furnace. This latter
operation is of course a lot easier. (A heat exchanger could cool down
the gas before the blower and reheat it after, to soften the cost.)

Ain't that fun, to run a furnace on paper ?
We can still burn the paper when we are done :-)

Still suspicious : rich idea in hiding or mad scientist ?

Jacques Proot
(metallurgical process - and gas amateur after hours)

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

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

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

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

 

From dglickd at pipeline.com Wed Feb 6 05:32:17 2002
From: dglickd at pipeline.com (Dick Glick)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: maximum pressure
In-Reply-To: <4f.18252235.2991feb9@aol.com>
Message-ID: <02cc01c1af23$ae1989f0$0100a8c0@cframcomp>

Hello -- Your assuming equilibrium thermodynamics-- the reaction in question
is not run under equilibrium conditions! Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: <JackProot@aol.com>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 10:36 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: maximum pressure

> In a message dated 02-02-01 14:25:07 EST, LINVENT@aol.com writes:
>
> << The major benefit to high pressure is not having to compress the gas to
> feed into a turbine which operates at 150-350 psi. Compressing the gas
after
> gasification is a significant parasitic load. >>
>
> I am still trying to understand the advantages of working under pressure
> in a hot gasifier. Reflections :
>
> - compressing the gas after gasification requires energy, OK. But so does
> the compression of air before gasification. Slightly smaller volume maybe
> but then consider the unavoidable leaks ...
>
> - I keep thinking something is missing in the reasoning. Or why would
> people spend so much money in Hawai to replace a stupid compressor
> after the gasifier ?
>
> - In a first message, I wrote that Le Chatelier was pushing the reactions
> the wrong way : when pressure goes up, the reactions are displaced
> towards the least volume. Ex : 2CO <-> CO2 + C goes to the right.
> Not exactly what we want.
> Well, actually, I didn't get the whole picture : we can also see something
> like C + 2H2 <-> CH4 which is favored by an increase in pressure.
> Generating methane is quite exciting !
> I ran a quick thermodynamic model with a 20% moisture wood at 800°C.
> No methane at atmospheric pressure of course, it is largely decomposed
> above 600°C. But at 15 bar, I had about 5% in the gas. (Could not go any
> higher as the wood began leaving an important carbon residue in the
> vessel. Need more moisture to increase the pressure.)
> Interestingly enough, the yield increases slowly with the pressure.
> (I mean the ratio of heat capacity in the gas vs. the wood used.)
>
> - If we take the gas produced at one atmosphere and we compress it
> to 15 bar at the same temperature, we get approximately the same
> composition as the gas produced at 15 bar in the furnace. This latter
> operation is of course a lot easier. (A heat exchanger could cool down
> the gas before the blower and reheat it after, to soften the cost.)
>
> Ain't that fun, to run a furnace on paper ?
> We can still burn the paper when we are done :-)
>
> Still suspicious : rich idea in hiding or mad scientist ?
>
> Jacques Proot
> (metallurgical process - and gas amateur after hours)
>
> -
> Gasification List Archives:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
> www.webpan.com/BEF
> 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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>

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

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

 

From snkm at btl.net Wed Feb 6 06:45:41 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: maximum pressure
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20020206104547.009881f0@wgs1.btl.net>

 

And with catalysts???

Peter / Belize

At 10:33 AM 2/6/2002 -0500, Dick Glick wrote:
>Hello -- Your assuming equilibrium thermodynamics-- the reaction in question
>is not run under equilibrium conditions! Dick

 

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

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

 

From luizmagri at yahoo.com Wed Feb 6 15:00:34 2002
From: luizmagri at yahoo.com (Luiz Alberto Magri)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: maximum pressure
In-Reply-To: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGEEIICEAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20020207010152.38836.qmail@web11705.mail.yahoo.com>

Jack,

Maybe just a minor reason, but generally speaking,
compressing of cold air is likely to spend far less
energy than compressing of hot gases, and besides
intercooling could be also employed for the air
stream. But there is another, yet important
technological issue remaining under this scenario.
When we are going to integrate a gas turbine into a
gasification pattern, there is no easy way to get rid
of the compressor section. Any attempt to do that
would lead to a complete redesign of the gas turbine
itself - not a simple task. The best we can do is to
bleed the air from the compressor section into the
gasifier. Other options I can imagine are: using of
the gas turbine under partial load only (efficiency
becomes horrible); bleeding the excess air into the
atmosphere (again not so good for the efficiency);
using of not standard gas turbine models (if we are
lucky enough to have one).

Best regards,

Luiz Magri - Rio de Janeiro

> -----Original Message-----
> From: JackProot@aol.com [mailto:JackProot@aol.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 3:36
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: maximum pressure
(...)
> - compressing the gas after gasification requires
> energy, OK. But so does
> the compression of air before gasification. Slightly
> smaller volume maybe
> but then consider the unavoidable leaks ...

 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

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

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

 

From tombreed at attbi.com Thu Feb 7 14:33:55 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: First production of FT-diesel from Biomass
In-Reply-To: <92D6AAE888CED411A16A00508BB0B8272ECA26@ecntex.ecn.nl>
Message-ID: <00a301c1b033$2c292840$49b2ff0c@attbi.com>

Dear Gasification net:

I received the following from my friend Hans Boerrigter (at the Energy
Center Netherlands) who I visited last November. ...

Nice to see someone producing synthetic fuels from biomass. Looking forward
to his paper...

TOM REED
From: "Boerrigter, H." <boerrigter@ecn.nl>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 7:51 AM
Subject: First production of FT-diesel from Biomass

> Dear professor Reed,
>
> During your visit we discussed the ECN plans to integrate one of our
biomass
> gasifiers and a Fischer-Tropsch (FT) unit.
> I am happy to tell you that we successfully performed that test in
December
> 2001: we operated the FT-unit for 150 hours on biosyngas produced from
> willow gasification.
>
> Unfortunatelly, I have no English publications with these results to send
to
> you - only Dutch papers. We plan to present a paper on the 12th biomass
> conference in Amsterdam in June (that will be in English). I will keep you
> informed.
>
> best regards,
> Harold Boerrigter
>
>
>
>

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

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

 

From tombreed at attbi.com Thu Feb 7 14:39:52 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: [hedon] Workshop and Newsletter on Household Energy
Message-ID: <00ee01c1b033$ff388780$49b2ff0c@attbi.com>

Dear All:

Here are some sites that will be of interest to all of us, sent me by Anke
Weymann at GTZ in Germany.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Weymann Anke 4556" <Anke.Weymann@gtz.DE>
To: "Thomas Reed (E-Mail)" <tombreed@attbi.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 8:32 AM
Subject: WG: [hedon] Workshop and Newsletter on Household Energy

Dear Tom Reed, do you know HEDON, the Household Energy Development
Organisations Network ? this is an old mail that informs you on the website
address. Regards Anke Weymann

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Grant Ballard-Tremeer [mailto:grant@ecoharmony.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. Oktober 2001 13:03
An: hedon@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: [hedon] Workshop and Newsletter on Household Energy

Dear HEDON colleagues

The following NEWS items and EVENTS have been added to the HEDON databases:

NEWS (http://ecoharmony.net/hedon/news.php):
** Workshop puts spotlight on Poverty Alleviation from Improved Stoves **
A workshop, held in the London office of the UK Government's Department for
International Development (DFID) on Wednesday 17 October 2001, focussed on
the poverty alleviation potential of improved stoves, principally in an
urban/commercial context.

Find out more at
http://ecoharmony.net/hedon/news.php?op=view&rowid=48

** Strategies for a Sustainable Future: energy newsletter from the SEI **
The September issue of Renewable Energy for Development, published by the
Energy Programme of the Stockholm Environment Institute - SEI (Vol 14, No
2/3) is out now. This issue includes articles about Rural Electrification
programme in South Africa, and Renewable Energy in Honduras and in Vietnam".

Find out more at
http://ecoharmony.net/hedon/news.php?op=view&rowid=47

EVENTS (http://ecoharmony.net/hedon/events.php):
** Stakeholder's Workshop on the Review of Labour and Skills in the Energy
Sector **
To be held in Johannesburg, South Africa 26 October 2001. Attendance must be
confirmed on or before Friday 19th October 2001!

Find our more at
http://www.ecoharmony.net/hedon/events.php?op=view&rowid=22

Regards
Grant

-------------------
Grant Ballard-Tremeer PhD, visit ECO Ltd on the web at http://ecoharmony.com
HEDON Household Energy Network http://ecoharmony.net/hedon/
-------------------

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck
Monitoring Service trial
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Gi0tnD/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/PMYolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------
Does your organisation feature on the Shell Foundation online database? Take
a look at http://ecoharmony.net/hedon/org.php to find out more.

Please feel free to forward this mail to any of your colleagues or business
partners. We rely on users to spread the word about HEDON to the entire
Household Energy community. In addition, please consider adding your own
material to the HEDON web page resources. This is a simple process and can
go a long way towards generating publicity for your activites among a select
audience of professionals.

For more information about HEDON visit:
http://ecoharmony.net/hedon

NOTE: Advertisements in this message have been added by Yahoo Groups who
provides us with free email group services. HEDON does not endorse products
or support the advertisements in any way.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

 

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

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

 

From gregandapril at earthlink.net Thu Feb 7 15:09:06 2002
From: gregandapril at earthlink.net (Greg and April)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification to diesel and methanol
Message-ID: <009c01c1b03c$d3230ae0$ef4f0e3f@oemcomputer>

TOM :

I have read several of the books listed, and the best information that I
have found, does not talk much about the Cu / Zn catalyst. Shoot, for all I
know, you could use brass shavings or the new copper plated zinc pennies,
both have copper and zinc. If you could enlighten me as to to the what, how,
and why of the Cu / Zn catalyst, it would be very helpful.

Greg Harbican

>----- Original Message -----
>From: Reedtb2@cs.com
>To: gregandapril@earthlink.net
>Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 06:19
>Subject: Re: GAS-L: Gasification to diesel and methanol

>Dear GregandApril:

>Simple...

>BIOMASS + O2 ==> CO + H2 (+ other, purify) Oxygen Gasification

>CO + H2O ==> CO2 + H2 (The water gas SHIFT reaction) can change the ratio
of >CO/H2 as needed

>CO + 2 H2 ==> CH3 OH (Methanol, 50 atm pressure, 300 C, Cu/Zn catalyst).

>See our books on this and other at www.woodgas.com

 

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

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

 

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Feb 7 23:24:27 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: First production of FT-diesel from Biomass
In-Reply-To: <92D6AAE888CED411A16A00508BB0B8272ECA26@ecntex.ecn.nl>
Message-ID: <200202081027.23007@arnt.c2i.net>

On Friday 08 February 2002 00:57, Thomas Reed wrote:
> Dear Gasification net:
>
> I received the following from my friend Hans Boerrigter (at the
> Energy Center Netherlands) who I visited last November. ...
>
> Nice to see someone producing synthetic fuels from biomass. Looking
> forward to his paper...

>
> > 2001: we operated the FT-unit for 150 hours on biosyngas produced
> > from willow gasification.
> >
> > Unfortunatelly, I have no English publications with these results
> > to send to
> > you - only Dutch papers. We plan to present a paper on the 12th

..advice him we understand Dutch just fine here, using
http://www.tranexp.com:2000/InterTran.cgi ;-)

> > biomass conference in Amsterdam in June (that will be in English).
> > I will keep you informed.
> >
> > best regards,
> > Harold Boerrigter

 

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with kind regards from Arnt... ;-)

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

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

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

 

From gregandapril at earthlink.net Fri Feb 8 08:48:00 2002
From: gregandapril at earthlink.net (Greg and April)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification to diesel and methanol
In-Reply-To: <009c01c1b03c$d3230ae0$ef4f0e3f@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <00ea01c1b0d0$c27de040$19540e3f@oemcomputer>

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Reed" <tombreed@attbi.com>
To: "Greg and April" <gregandapril@earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 06:05
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Gasification to diesel and methanol

> Dear Greg:
>
> I really don't know what your purpose is. United Catalysts in Louisville
Ky
> makes and sells catalysts for many purposes, and MAYBE they'll tell you
> what's in their catalysts - and how they make them. But I doubt it.
>
> Is it your intention to make methanol yourself? Hope you have $100 M for
> starters.
>

I read the book "Making't down on the farm", it contained an artical about
about a guy that made a small farm scale methanol plant that used bio/synth
gas to produce methanol. I am wanting to explore this use of gasification
and digestion products.

While in most cases, large scale equates with final cost decreases, I only
looking to experament to see if it might be worth while to use methane
digester products as well as synth gas.

Greg Harbican

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

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF
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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

 

From enecon at ozemail.com.au Sun Feb 10 18:56:37 2002
From: enecon at ozemail.com.au (Jim Bland)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Emissions of sulfur dioxide from biomass gasification plants
Message-ID: <00e601c1b2b8$a9ca0440$6682140a@enecon.com.au>

Does anyone have any information on how much sulfur dioxide forms when a
woody biomass fuel is gasified?

I have various woody fuels with 0.02% - 0.08% w/w dry basis sulfur (as
sulfides) that I wish to gasify. Does all the sulfur convert to sulfur
dioxide or other gaseous sulphur compounds, or does some convert to sulfates
and stay in the ash.? Does gasification produce less sulfur dioxide than
combustion? What influences how much sulfur dioxide is formed?

Regards,

Jim

Enecon Pty. Ltd.
Level 2, 35 Whitehorse Rd., Deepdene VIC 3103, Australia
PO Box 555, Deepdene DC VIC 3103, Australia
Tel: +61-3-9817 6255
Fax: +61-3-9817 6455
www.enecon.com.au

-
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 Mon Feb 11 04:03:35 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pieces of Dolomite Puzzle
Message-ID: <006501c1b2fc$60a344e0$49b2ff0c@attbi.com>

 

Dear Gasification Group:

The mineral "dolomite" (nominally CaMg(CO3)2 is
widely acclaimed in Europe as a tar cracking catalyst (Ekstrom, D'Eglise, Black,
...) .  Knowing this, about 1985 we tested some U. S. dolomite, some
olivine, a Si-Al catalyst from Davison Chemicals and a Silicalite (molecular
sieve) catalyst from Union Carbide for tar cracking ability (reported in
Fundamentals, Development and Scaleup of the Air-Oxygen Stratified Downdraft
Gasifier (Reed, Graboski, Levie, available BEF Press). 

We were puzzled to find that the Si-Al catalyst and
Silicalite catalysts were significantly better than the dolomite and only
olivene was less effective ( probably inert, cracking due to high temperature
only). 

With this background and interest, I have kept my eyes and
ears open for any reports on dolomite cracking catalysts.  I continue to
hear that dolomite works very well in Europe, and not in the U.S.  A
Puzzle!  Can European dolomite be different from U.S.?  Are the tests
sufficiently different to give these different results?



~~~~~~~~
Last Friday, at the Colorado School of Mines Faculty club I
met a geologist, John Humphrey, who knew more about dolomite in 5 minutes than
the dozens of users I have queried over 17 years since then.

The name "Dolomite" covers a wide variety of minerals,
depending on origin and age.  The Ca/Mg ratio is ideally 1, but varies all
over the map. Older dolomites tend to leach excess Ca and move toward 1, but
many other dolomites will have larger excesses of Ca over Mg, seldom is Mg
larger than Ca. 



~~~~~
CaCO3 loses CO2 and becomes CaO at a temperature of (825C
(Merck), 900 C (CRH)) depending on the CO2 pressure existing in the surrounding
gases, a classical equilibrium problem.  John and I believe that the MgCO3
is more stable and probably various dolomites are more stable than
limestone. 

When dolomite is used as a cracking catalyst in a fluidized
bed there are two important properties to consider.  A low
decomposition temperature will cause
conversion to CaO and MgO which are very weak minerals and the
particles can break up. 

However, the possibility of producing "labile" CO2 may also
aid catalytic activity and will certainly promote removal of sulfur from the
gas. 

So, a wide range of decomposition temperatures and pressures
from a range of uncharacterized "dolomite" used in tar cracking experiments
could certainly cause a wide range of positive and negative results which is
what we observe. 

Sounds like a great PhD topic for some student.
<FONT
size=2>                                               
~~~~~
I hope I have quoted John correctly and welcome his and all
other comments on this. 

Yours truly,       
TOM REED         The
Biomass Energy Foundation

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Reed;Thomas;B;Dr.
FN:Thomas B Reed
NICKNAME:Tom
ORG:Biomass Energy Foundation;Publication, Consulting, Engineering
TITLE:President
TEL;WORK;VOICE:303 278 0558
TEL;HOME;VOICE:303 278 0558
TEL;CELL;VOICE:303 913 2074
TEL;WORK;FAX:303 278 0558
TEL;HOME;FAX:303 278 0558
ADR;WORK:;;1810 Smith Rd.;Golden;CO;80401;USA
LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:1810 Smith Rd.=0D=0AGolden, CO 80401=0D=0AUSA
ADR;HOME;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:;;1810 Smith Rd=0D=0A=0D=0A;Golden;CO;80401;United States
LABEL;HOME;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:1810 Smith Rd=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0AGolden, CO 80401=0D=0AUnited States
X-WAB-GENDER:2
URL;HOME:http://www.woodgas.com
URL;WORK:http://www.woodgas.com
BDAY:20010315
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:tombreed@attbi.com
REV:20020211T130236Z
END:VCARD

 

-
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 Mon Feb 11 04:37:29 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Emissions of sulfur dioxide from biomass gasification plants
In-Reply-To: <00e601c1b2b8$a9ca0440$6682140a@enecon.com.au>
Message-ID: <002801c1b301$0b1eed80$49b2ff0c@attbi.com>

Dear Jim:

Good question.. wish I had a complete answer.

Fortunately biomass is generally low in sulfur compared to other fuels, and
NO MORE sulfur can appear in the gas than was in the feedstock.

That said, the organic sulfur in biomass can convert to SO2, but also H2S or
COS in the carbon bed. Depending on severity, inorganic sulfur (as sulphate
etc.) may or may not show up in the gas.

I hope someone has a better answer than this....

TOM REED BEF GASWORKS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Bland" <enecon@ozemail.com.au>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 9:57 PM
Subject: GAS-L: Emissions of sulfur dioxide from biomass gasification plants

> Does anyone have any information on how much sulfur dioxide forms when a
> woody biomass fuel is gasified?
>
> I have various woody fuels with 0.02% - 0.08% w/w dry basis sulfur (as
> sulfides) that I wish to gasify. Does all the sulfur convert to sulfur
> dioxide or other gaseous sulphur compounds, or does some convert to
sulfates
> and stay in the ash.? Does gasification produce less sulfur dioxide than
> combustion? What influences how much sulfur dioxide is formed?
>
> Regards,
>
> Jim
>
> Enecon Pty. Ltd.
> Level 2, 35 Whitehorse Rd., Deepdene VIC 3103, Australia
> PO Box 555, Deepdene DC VIC 3103, Australia
> Tel: +61-3-9817 6255
> Fax: +61-3-9817 6455
> www.enecon.com.au
>
>
> -
> 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/

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 Carefreeland at aol.com Mon Feb 11 08:45:13 2002
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Emissions of sulfur dioxide from biomass gasification plants
Message-ID: <14e.8bd2b33.29996b5e@aol.com>

    > reply below text

Does anyone have any information on how much sulfur dioxide forms when a
woody biomass fuel is gasified?

I have various woody fuels with 0.02%  - 0.08% w/w dry basis sulfur (as
sulfides) that I wish to gasify.  Does all the sulfur convert to sulfur
dioxide or other gaseous sulphur compounds, or does some convert to sulfates
and stay in the ash.?  Does gasification produce less sulfur dioxide than
combustion?  What influences how much sulfur dioxide is formed?

Regards,

Jim

> Jim,
I cannot answer this completely.  I can say that for years, lime and silicon based carbonate Iron ores have been *burned* to remove sulfur and phosporus.  The temperature is probably the most critical factor. 
At lower temperatures, the sulfur would continue to bond to any calcium as first
choice, but also other minerals in the ash.   At high enough temperatures those bonds would surely break.  The gas can be cleaned up though by running it through lime just as a scrubber or filter for high sulfur coal emissions.
All you can do is test.

    Maybe this helps,   
Daniel Dimiduk

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Mon Feb 11 12:38:52 2002
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Emissions of sulfur dioxide from biomass gasification plants
Message-ID: <ce.216d99fd.2999a238@aol.com>

Sulfur in biomass forms organic and the other sulfur compounds which were
stated in other responses to the question. We have run high levels of sulfur
compounds in the feed and had very low levels of sulfur emissions in the
output gas, mostly organic forms which totalled about 60 ppm from a 1.2%
sulfur feed. This is unusual and had more to do with the gas cleaning and
operating temperatures of the gasifier than anything else. No H2S or SO2 was
seen in the output gas.

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

-
Gasification List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/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 wycliffe.musungu at kam.co.ke Tue Feb 12 01:56:00 2002
From: wycliffe.musungu at kam.co.ke (Wycliffe Musungu)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Emissions of sulfur dioxide from biomass gasification plants
In-Reply-To: <ce.216d99fd.2999a238@aol.com>
Message-ID: <OMEFLIBBBFDEEFKCJPKMKEFHCBAA.wycliffe.musungu@kam.co.ke>

Could you please state at what temperature this was attained.
Musungu.

-----Original Message-----
From: LINVENT@aol.com [mailto:LINVENT@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 1:40 AM
To: Carefreeland@aol.com; enecon@ozemail.com.au; gasification@crest.org
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Emissions of sulfur dioxide from biomass
gasification plants

Sulfur in biomass forms organic and the other sulfur compounds which were
stated in other responses to the question. We have run high levels of sulfur
compounds in the feed and had very low levels of sulfur emissions in the
output gas, mostly organic forms which totalled about 60 ppm from a 1.2%
sulfur feed. This is unusual and had more to do with the gas cleaning and
operating temperatures of the gasifier than anything else. No H2S or SO2 was
seen in the output gas.

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

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

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 Tue Feb 12 03:57:02 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: Fw: GAS-L: Pieces of Dolomite Puzzle
Message-ID: <003a01c1b3c3$3aea1ae0$49b2ff0c@attbi.com>

 

Dear Gasification:

I'm transmitting a message from Bill Hauserman concerning
dolomite research for those of you involved in catalytic tar
cracking.

(I am primarily interested in downdraft gasifiers which
generate only small amounts of high temperature tars on which no one has claimed
dolomite effectiveness.  So to me it is an academic question which I hope
those of you using fluidized bed and updraft low temperature tar producers will
pursue...)

Yours truly,       
TOM
REED               
BEF GASWORKS (Low tar)
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
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:
<A title=hauserman@corpcomm.net
href="mailto:hauserman@corpcomm.net">Hauserman
To: <A title=tombreed@attbi.com
href="mailto:tombreed@attbi.com">Thomas Reed
Cc: <A title=adolfo.parmaliana@unime.it
href="mailto:adolfo.parmaliana@unime.it">.Adolfo Parmaliana(UM)
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 4:43
PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Pieces of Dolomite
Puzzle

Tom -

Are you acquainted w/ Prof.
Jose Corella, at U.de Madrid? He seems to have been making breakthroughs on
use of Dolomite and similar things for tar cracking, for last few years. If
not, you might contact him at  <A
href="mailto:macaball@posta.unizar.es">macaball@posta.unizar.es 







Bill Hauserman
<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:
Thomas Reed

To: <A title=gasification@crest.org
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification
Cc: <A title=jhumphre@mines.edu
href="mailto:jhumphre@mines.edu">jhumphre@mines.edu
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 7:02
AM
Subject: GAS-L: Pieces of Dolomite
Puzzle

Dear Gasification Group:

The mineral "dolomite" (nominally CaMg(CO3)2 is
widely acclaimed in Europe as a tar cracking catalyst (Ekstrom, D'Eglise,
Black, ...) .  Knowing this, about 1985 we tested some U. S. dolomite,
some olivine, a Si-Al catalyst from Davison Chemicals and a Silicalite
(molecular sieve) catalyst from Union Carbide for tar cracking ability
(reported in Fundamentals, Development and Scaleup of the Air-Oxygen
Stratified Downdraft Gasifier (Reed, Graboski, Levie, available BEF
Press). 

We were puzzled to find that the Si-Al catalyst
and Silicalite catalysts were significantly better than the dolomite and
only olivene was less effective ( probably inert, cracking due to high
temperature only). 

With this background and interest, I have kept my eyes and
ears open for any reports on dolomite cracking catalysts.  I continue
to hear that dolomite works very well in Europe, and not in the U.S.  A
Puzzle!  Can European dolomite be different from U.S.?  Are the
tests sufficiently different to give these different results?



~~~~~~~~
Last Friday, at the Colorado School of Mines Faculty club
I met a geologist, John Humphrey, who knew more about dolomite in 5 minutes
than the dozens of users I have queried over 17 years since then.


The name "Dolomite" covers a wide variety of minerals,
depending on origin and age.  The Ca/Mg ratio is ideally 1, but varies
all over the map. Older dolomites tend to leach excess Ca and move toward 1,
but many other dolomites will have larger excesses of Ca over Mg, seldom is
Mg larger than Ca. 



~~~~~
CaCO3 loses CO2 and becomes CaO at a temperature of (825C
(Merck), 900 C (CRH)) depending on the CO2 pressure existing in the
surrounding gases, a classical equilibrium problem.  John and I believe
that the MgCO3 is more stable and probably various dolomites are more stable
than limestone. 

When dolomite is used as a cracking catalyst in a
fluidized bed there are two important properties to consider.  A
low decomposition temperature will cause
conversion to CaO and MgO which are very weak minerals and
the particles can break up. 

However, the possibility of producing "labile" CO2 may
also aid catalytic activity and will certainly promote removal of sulfur
from the gas. 

So, a wide range of decomposition temperatures and
pressures from a range of uncharacterized "dolomite" used in tar cracking
experiments could certainly cause a wide range of positive and negative
results which is what we observe. 

Sounds like a great PhD topic for some
student.
<FONT
size=2>                                               
~~~~~
I hope I have quoted John correctly and welcome his and
all other comments on this. 

Yours truly,       
TOM REED        
The Biomass Energy Foundation

-Gasification List
Archives:http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/Gasification
List Moderator:Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, 
Reedtb2@cs.comwww.webpan.com/BEFList-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.orghttp://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html
Bioenergyhttp://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
Gasificationhttp://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html
Carbon

From tombreed at attbi.com Tue Feb 12 04:11:13 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Water tolerance of natural and forced draft WoodGas Stoves
Message-ID: <004c01c1b3c5$3371a6a0$49b2ff0c@attbi.com>

 

Dear Paul and All:

Paul has been operating more natural draft WoodGas stoves than
Ron and I, since I have "graduated" to forced draft.

English and I tested the forced draft stove on wood with 0,10,
20,25 and 30% MCWB.  I was amazed to find that the forced draft stove
worked at least as well on 25% moisture as 0%.  The only difference is that
with 0% you produce 25% charcoal after the burn, while with 25% you
produce only 5%, since the charcoal produced by pyrolysis must be burned in
situ to dry the lower layers and propogate the reaction. 

How about running these same tests on the Natural Draft
WoodGas stove?

Yours truly,       
TOM
REED        WetWoodGas
Stoveworks 

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Reed;Thomas;B;Dr.
FN:Thomas B Reed
NICKNAME:Tom
ORG:Biomass Energy Foundation;Publication, Consulting, Engineering
TITLE:President
TEL;WORK;VOICE:303 278 0558
TEL;HOME;VOICE:303 278 0558
TEL;CELL;VOICE:303 913 2074
TEL;WORK;FAX:303 278 0558
TEL;HOME;FAX:303 278 0558
ADR;WORK:;;1810 Smith Rd.;Golden;CO;80401;USA
LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:1810 Smith Rd.=0D=0AGolden, CO 80401=0D=0AUSA
ADR;HOME;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:;;1810 Smith Rd=0D=0A=0D=0A;Golden;CO;80401;United States
LABEL;HOME;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:1810 Smith Rd=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0AGolden, CO 80401=0D=0AUnited States
X-WAB-GENDER:2
URL;HOME:http://www.woodgas.com
URL;WORK:http://www.woodgas.com
BDAY:20010315
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:tombreed@attbi.com
REV:20020212T130008Z
END:VCARD

 

-
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 psanders at ilstu.edu Tue Feb 12 06:54:05 2002
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: Water tolerance of natural and forced draft WoodGas Stoves
In-Reply-To: <004c01c1b3c5$3371a6a0$49b2ff0c@attbi.com>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20020212105739.01b61bd0@mail.ilstu.edu>

The message below did not go to Stove list (oversight).

I have no conditions to measure percent of moisture, etc.  I know it
is easy, but zero time for this.  Maybe at the ETHOS group at Iowa
State.  I could provide some stoves (so simple).  I plan to
visit there in late  Feb.  Or are others wanting to do
this? 

I doubt that there would be any differences from what Tom has already
measured.

Paul

At 06:00 AM 2/12/02 -0700, Thomas Reed wrote:
Dear Paul and All:

Paul has been operating more natural draft WoodGas stoves
than Ron and I, since I have "graduated" to forced
draft.

English and I tested the forced draft stove on wood with
0,10, 20,25 and 30% MCWB.  I was amazed to find that the forced
draft stove worked at least as well on 25% moisture as 0%.  The only
difference is that with 0% you produce 25% charcoal after the burn, while
with 25% you produce only 5%, since the charcoal produced by pyrolysis
must be burned in situ to dry the lower layers and propogate the
reaction. 

How about running these same tests on the Natural Draft
WoodGas stove?

Yours
truly,                   
TOM REED        WetWoodGas
Stoveworks

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.,  Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 -
7/00
Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of
2001-2003
Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State
University
Normal, IL  61790-4400   Voice: 
309-438-7360;  FAX:  309-438-5310
E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items:
www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

 

From tombreed at attbi.com Tue Feb 12 13:48:03 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fw: Pieces of Dolomite Puzzle
Message-ID: <002a01c1b41f$26787960$49b2ff0c@attbi.com>

 

Dear Gasifiers/tarifiers:

Here is an additional note from John Humphrey on
Dolomite...

Tom Reed

Subject: Re: Pieces of Dolomite Puzzle
Tom,You’ve captured the essence of
our conversation.  Natural dolomites range from about 40 mol% MgCO3 up to
50 mol% MgCO3.  “Young” dolomites tend to be less stoichiometrically
perfect (i.e., Ca-rich) and poorly ordered (i.e., not all cations moved to their
separate planes).  The Ksp for well-ordered and stoichiometric dolomite is
about 10e-17, calcite is about 10e-8.5, and calcian dolomite varies with the
amount of excess Ca (but generally in the 10e-16.3 range and lower).  I
really don’t know that much about the phase relations (high T stability, etc.),
but assume those relations should be consistent with the solubility differences.
I would check on the relative temperatures of dolomite versus calcite
decomposition if I were you.  From there, you can assume that less perfect
dolomite should lie somewhere intermediate between ideal dolomite and
calcite.
Last Friday, at the Colorado School
of Mines Faculty club I met a geologist, John Humphrey, who knew more about
dolomite in 5 minutes than the dozens of users I have queried over 17 years
since then. Thanks for the
plug and the flattery!Cheers,John-- Dr. John D. Humphrey
jhumphre@mines.eduAssociate
Professor
john_d@humphrey.netDept.
of Geology and Geological EngineeringColorado School of MinesGolden, CO
80401 USA(303) 273-3819; fax (303)
273-3859http://www.mines.edu/~jhumphre

From tombreed at attbi.com Wed Feb 13 08:01:12 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Thomas Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: Charcoal and water gas reaction
In-Reply-To: <20020213154201.LSJT22946.fep04-svc.ttyl.com@localhost>
Message-ID: <002601c1b4b7$e8b55fa0$49b2ff0c@attbi.com>

Dear Ken and All:

The water-gas reaction is

C + H2O ==> CO + H2

Great reaction that converts water and a solid fuel (coal, coke, charcoal)
into gaseous fuel. Temperature needs to be above about 800 C.

However, the reaction is VERY endothermic (absorbs heat) and needs to have
large quantities of heat supplied. This was done with coal in the water-gas
process. Air was blasted into coke to get it hot ("the blow"), then steam
was blasted through to make "blue water gas" (CO plus H2, "the run"). Read
all about it in the 1950 Enc. Brittanica at many libraries.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF

----- Original Message -----
From: <kenboak@stirlingservice.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 8:42 AM
Subject: Charcoal and water gas reaction

> Hi Stovers,
>
> Could someone please give me some basics on the water gas reaction between
hot char and steam.
>
> How hot do the reactants need to be?
>
> How much heat needs to be supplied.
>
> Has anyone tried this purposefully or by accident using a source of
superheated steam and hot charcoal?
>
> Any experimental experiences appreciated
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
>
>
> Ken
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Never pay another Internet phone bill!
> Freeserve AnyTime, for all the Internet access you want, day and night,
only £12.99 per month.
> Sign-up at http://www.freeserve.com/time/anytime
>
>
>
> -
> Stoves List Archives and Website:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/200202/
> http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/ (Under construction)
> http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html (Original)
>
> Stoves List Moderators:
> Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> Alex English, english@adan.kingston.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.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm
>

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/200202/
http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/ (Under construction)
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html (Original)

Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Alex English, english@adan.kingston.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.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

 

From snkm at btl.net Wed Feb 13 09:25:52 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Charcoal and water gas reaction
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20020213131502.0099cb20@wgs1.btl.net>

 

Dear Tom;

The "Blow" resulted in producer gas -- as well.

The process is well documented in my 1962 Enc. Britannica.

Peter Singfield / Belize

 

At 10:57 AM 2/13/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>Dear Ken and All:
>
>The water-gas reaction is
>
> C + H2O ==> CO + H2
>
>Great reaction that converts water and a solid fuel (coal, coke, charcoal)
>into gaseous fuel. Temperature needs to be above about 800 C.
>
>However, the reaction is VERY endothermic (absorbs heat) and needs to have
>large quantities of heat supplied. This was done with coal in the water-gas
>process. Air was blasted into coke to get it hot ("the blow"), then steam
>was blasted through to make "blue water gas" (CO plus H2, "the run"). Read
>all about it in the 1950 Enc. Brittanica at many libraries.
>
>Yours truly, TOM REED BEF
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <kenboak@stirlingservice.freeserve.co.uk>
>To: <stoves@crest.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 8:42 AM
>Subject: Charcoal and water gas reaction
>
>
>> Hi Stovers,
>>
>> Could someone please give me some basics on the water gas reaction between
>hot char and steam.
>>
>> How hot do the reactants need to be?
>>
>> How much heat needs to be supplied.
>>
>> Has anyone tried this purposefully or by accident using a source of
>superheated steam and hot charcoal?
>>
>> Any experimental experiences appreciated
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>>
>>
>> Ken
*

-
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 CHIRK at puknet.puk.ac.za Wed Feb 13 19:46:22 2002
From: CHIRK at puknet.puk.ac.za (Rufaro Kaitano)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:55 2004
Subject: GAS-L: maximum pressure
Message-ID: <sc6b6b77.040@groupwise.puk.ac.za>

Hi Guys,
The issue of pressure of operation in gasification is not very clear, when looking say at commercial gasifiers what sort of pressure are we looking at.? The other thing is does anyone have documented stuff to show that the use of high pressure makes it possible to attain conversion of the carbon to gas at relatively lower temperatures? It is also believed in some circles that as a result of lower temperatures of operation in gasification pollutant gases which are normally liberated in combustion remain trapped, hence the sudden change from combustion to gasification based technologies.

Regards
Rufaro..

-
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 CHIRK at puknet.puk.ac.za Wed Feb 13 21:28:14 2002
From: CHIRK at puknet.puk.ac.za (Rufaro Kaitano)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: maximum pressure
Message-ID: <sc6b8365.008@groupwise.puk.ac.za>

Motie,
Sorry for the hick-up, I am starting with high -ash, coal-char and then gasify separately in three different ways, (1) air/oxygen + char, (2) Hydrogen+char and (3) steam + char, the products of interest are H2 and CH4, this is at a laboratory scale and the focus is mainly on the reaction kinetics. The pollutant gases are presumably are SOx and the NOx gases.

Main Reactions

C + xO2 = 2(1-x) CO + (2x - 1) CO2

C + H2O = CO + H2

C + CO2 = 2CO

C + 2H2 = CH4

Initial posting Given Below

> Hi Guys,
> The issue of pressure of operation in gasification is not very clear, when
looking say at commercial gasifiers what sort of pressure are we looking
at.? The other thing is does anyone have documented stuff to show that the
use of high pressure makes it possible to attain conversion of the carbon to
gas at relatively lower temperatures? It is also believed in some circles
that as a result of lower temperatures of operation in gasification
pollutant gases which are normally liberated in combustion remain trapped,
hence the sudden change from combustion to gasification based technologies.
>
> Regards
> Rufaro..

 

-
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 vanderdrift at ecn.nl Tue Feb 26 21:03:40 2002
From: vanderdrift at ecn.nl (Drift, A. van der)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Emissions of sulfur dioxide from biomass gasification plants
Message-ID: <92D6AAE888CED411A16A00508BB0B82726147C@ecntex.ecn.nl>

In our CFB gasifier (0.5 MWth input) we did many measurements on H2S and COS
formed during the gasification of many different biomass materials like
demolition wood, willow, sewage sludge (mixed with wood), railway sleepers,
cacao shells etc. In all cases 20-50% of the sulpher in the fuel is
converted to H2S (85-90%) and COS (10-15%). In these experiments no
dolomite, limestone or other additive was used to reduce emission.

Regards,

Bram van der Drift
ECN Biomass
POBox 1
NL 1755 ZG Petten, the Netherlands
tel: (31) 224-564515
fax: (31) 224-568487
Email: vanderdrift@ecn.nl

Does anyone have any information on how much sulfur dioxide forms
when a
woody biomass fuel is gasified?

I have various woody fuels with 0.02% - 0.08% w/w dry basis sulfur
(as
sulfides) that I wish to gasify. Does all the sulfur convert to
sulfur
dioxide or other gaseous sulphur compounds, or does some convert to
sulfates
and stay in the ash.? Does gasification produce less sulfur dioxide
than
combustion? What influences how much sulfur dioxide is formed?

Regards,

Jim

-
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 rbaileys at prmenergy.com Thu Feb 28 04:54:19 2002
From: rbaileys at prmenergy.com (Ron Bailey)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:56 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RDF FLUFF NEEDED
Message-ID: <000301c1c068$c04bf620$6401a8c0@RONSR>

Dear List:

PRM Energy Systems is looking for approximately 40 tons of RDF Fluff as near
Tulsa, OK as possible. Please contact Ron Bailey at rbaileys@prmenergy.com

Thanks,
Ron Bailey
PRM Energy Systems, Inc.
http://www.prmenergy.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