January 2002 Gasification Archive

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Jan 3 07:17:15 2002
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The Mystery of heat variance in biomass
Message-ID: <183.1a99c0e.2965a5a4@cs.com>

Dear All:

Actually, not much mystery here.

If you examine the heating value of "fresh" biomass it can vary from 5 to 22
MJ/kg due to variations in WATER CONTENT, ASH CONTENT, and possibly
composition. If however you look at the 100 or so samples on our website,
www.woodgas.com , www.Phyllis.ne or others, you will see that the heating
values vary from 18 to 22 MJ/kg based on BONE DRY, ASH free analysis.

I use the average composition

C H(1.4) O (0.six) to represent ALL biomass, knowing that it all varies a
little. THere is also a formula at the site that predicts heating value from
the ultimate analysis within about 1.5%.

So, no great mystery if properly approached....

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF STOVEWORKS

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

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://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From Carefreeland at aol.com Fri Jan 4 08:51:42 2002
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pyrolisis and pressure Questions.
Message-ID: <c8.203c9082.29670d62@aol.com>

Questions for Chemists,
What is the change in the physical reaction of pyrolisis which favors
higher percentage carbon retention in the biomass/char at higher pressures?
Is there any other way to achieve this action at lower pressures?
How does it change the way O, N, H&C bonds break or form?
What bonds are favored?
What happens when H2O is added?
What role does temperature play relative to pressure?
Please explain this in detail.
I have taken first semester chemistry, but some on these lists may have
not. This seems to be a critical area of combustion chemistry.
Thank you in advance,
Daniel Dimiduk

-
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 Reedtb2 at cs.com Sat Jan 5 13:06:43 2002
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:50 2004
Subject: Pyrolisis and pressure Questions.
Message-ID: <a9.20daf79d.29689aaa@cs.com>

Dear Dan and All:

I may be the only real "chemist" (actually a physical chemist) on these
lists, having practiced and written chemistry at Union Carbide, MIT, NREL and
CSM.

Your question of why pressure helps carbon yield is an excellent one and has
a simple answer (but I hope Mike Antal reads this and will comment further).

Most organic compounds melt, then boil as they are heated, so a list of
melting points and boiling points helps to characterize simple compounds.
Some compounds, such as naphthalene and camphor (and CO2) have a "boiling
point" below the melting point, so they "sublime" (like mothballs=
naphthalene) and only melt under pressure.

Unfortunately, biomass is a mixture of three polymers: Cellulose,
hemicellulose and lignin (with minor variations of each), so does not have a
specific melting and boiling point and yet the analogy is useful.

Prof. Jaques Lede first discovered that wood does indeed have a "melting
point" of about 480 C under very high pressure.

During slow pyrolysis wood "sublimes" and emits the monomers, oligomers
(larger chunks) and fragments of C,H,L for all to see if they have a mass
spectrograph or our book on biomass tars. Some of these fragments then
decompose further to charcoal on their way out of the biomass matrix giving a
yield of charcoal typically 20to 30%.

At a pressure of 1 atmosphere this pyrolytic breakdown of biomass occurs at
250 to 450 C. In a vacuum the gases leave the matrix more readily at lower
temperatures and therefore charcoal yield is reduced. At a pressure of 10
atmospheres, the gases leave more slowly and at a higher temperature, thus
having more time to undergo the charcoal decomposition. It is my belief that
this is the primary basis of Antal's patent.

Comments?

TOM REED BEF

In a message dated 1/4/02 5:53:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Carefreeland@aol.com writes:

<< Questions for Chemists,
What is the change in the physical reaction of pyrolisis which favors
higher percentage carbon retention in the biomass/char at higher pressures?
Is there any other way to achieve this action at lower pressures?
How does it change the way O, N, H&C bonds break or form?
What bonds are favored?
What happens when H2O is added?
What role does temperature play relative to pressure?
Please explain this in detail.
I have taken first semester chemistry, but some on these lists may
have
not. This seems to be a critical area of combustion chemistry.
Thank you in advance,
Daniel Dimiduk
>>

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

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>

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From CAVM at aol.com Sun Jan 6 21:01:11 2002
From: CAVM at aol.com (CAVM@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification tests
Message-ID: <170.6c10955.296a5b5c@aol.com>

http://www.nf-2000.org/secure/Fair/F826.htm

"Demonstration of small bio-power plant for rural application"

This site gives some very interesting data on gasification.

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

From snkm at btl.net Mon Jan 7 09:55:35 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification tests
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20020107084853.00904320@wgs1.btl.net>

At 09:01 PM 1/6/2002 EST, CAVM@aol.com wrote:

>http://www.nf-2000.org/secure/Fair/F826.htm
>
>"Demonstration of small bio-power plant for rural application"
>
>This site gives some very interesting data on gasification.
>

Have appended this article.

Interesting -- when all the "smoke" settles -- 20% over all efficiency at
some astronomical costs!

And still a problem with "dirty" fuel leading to unreliable operation -
-and a humongous servicing head-ache.

All could be so easily avoided by going with a small refrigeration working
fluid Rankine Cycle device. And getting better over all efficiencies -- and
at much better prices.

But beating dead horse to get more performance is the rule of the day when
it comes to gasification of biomass for power!

At present -- Ormat produces 250 KWH "ORC" devices that are easily coupled
to a simple fire tube boiler -- thermal oil heat transfer (Atmospheric
boiler pressure) -- that results in around 18% efficiencies with room for
improvement -- and runs for ever and one day with very minimum of
maintenance -- and for a fraction of the costs presented below. And
requires no gas cleaning! (Or -- as far as that goes -- a gasifier!!)

But no -- dead horse mentality prevails ---

Peter Singfield / Belize

*********appended article ******************

Final Report Abstract
Source: Final report, 1999

Consortium: The project was co-ordinates by Meurer Maschinen GmbH+Co KG,
Fursteneu (Germany), in partnership with Stork Comprimo, Amsterdam (The
Nethedands), BIBA, University of Bremen (Germany), Joanneum Research,
Institute of Energy Research, Graz (Austria), FH Hannover (Germany), TFH
Bochum (Germany).

Abstract

Objectives: The objectives of the project were to design and to operate a
demonstration unit for the gasification of rural feedstocks and to produce
electricity.

During the first year the design and the construction of the plant were
finished and the operation of the plant began. During the second year the
operation of the plant has been continued and the operation demonstrated
the production of electricity. The result was that the plant produced a
cold, clean and combustible gas as required for gas-motors. The engine
together with the generator produced electricity for the grid. Nevertheless
some goals like the high efficiency of e.g. 40% could not be proved as
expected. But the SME - Meurer Maschinen - got helpful information for the
production of such plants and the market situation in the field of
small-scale CHP production plants (CHP =. Combined Heat and Power
Production). Users can get data for planning and further operation of
Bio-Power Plants from the project or the producer.

During the third year of the project the operation has been improved, in
that way that the operation was stable, more safe and more efficient. One
of the main objectives to produce power to the grid could be demonstrated,
also to outstanding experts.

The third year of the project was the most successful year in the projects
time, because of the continuous development of the design especially of the
gas-cleaning system, which enables the plant to demonstrate the production
of a clean and combustible gas, which is the basis for the contracted
demonstration character of the plant.

because of the key decision to use an electrical precipitator for
de-dusting of the gas and for tar-removal, to protect the engine.
because of the duration of a long consisting demonstration run of about 150
h together with the engine/generator unit, that was possible with the
activities in the field of gas-cleaning design and with the designed and
constructed precipitator.
Especially the introduction of the new electrical condenser was the step to
enable long engine runs. It can be assumed that the gasifier operated more
than 2000 hot operation hours and together with the engine more than 400.
The Electro-condenser improved the operation tremendously. The longest
operation period was done during the time between the 1.7. and the 9.7.99
within 150 hours of steady operation. Six further longer runs P01
demonstrated in the time of 19.7. to the 25.9.99.

At the end of the 3rd year nearly all contracted objectives have been
realised by the project-partners. Only partially realised is the proposed
power of 200 kwel and the total efficiency of 30%: One of the important
objectives has been to install a 200 kW CHP.

A proposal from an external supplier was received. After long negotiations
the supplier would not guarantee the proposed power output if the engine
was used with leangas, nor would they guarantee a long term running time of
the engine with leangas (particle and tars have been the critical point),
nor would they modify the engine, which was built for natural gas, in a way
so that it could be used for leangas (leangas has an energy content of 4
MJ/m3 and is thus nearly ten times lower in its caloric value than natural
gas).

The price of the offered engine (250,000 Euro) was to high for the projects
budget, that had an overall budget for hard-ware of 467,000 Euro. The
specific cost can be calculated from this price as 4000 Euro/kW, which
appears too high for CHPS. The contract-negotiations with the proposed
supplier were thus closed. Hence, the project group decided to find a used
engine for the first runs.

That this decision was right, was confirmed to the partners, when the
engine crashed totally during the first day of use. This event endorsed the
need to improve the gas-cleaning part of the plant.

The produced power of the 5 1 engine requiring 120 m3/h leangas at 25 kW
(average) 30 kW (max.) fell into the power range that had been identified
as that required by many potential customers as a result of a two year
market survey showed.

The project held meetings at which extensive discussions centered on the
possible use of a Diesel engine (for which 30 % of the fuel would be
supplied as diesel oil, to supplement the leangas, resulting in a higher
efficiency) rather than an Otto (spark ignition) engine. However, it was
decided to use the Otto engine, in part since the EC informed the project
that the use of fossil energy was within the remit of the FAIR-project.

Activities:

In the third year the project demonstrated the operation of the plant and
produced power for the grid, it was the most successful year.

Progress:

The plant succeded as a demonstration, that could be easily developed as a
commercial plant. This would require a longer run, of around 150 hours, to
enable the SME involved to give guarantees to customers.

Achievements:

Results and discussions indicate that the proposed gasification scheme is
valid for the production of power with an Otto cycle-gas engine. The main
advantage compared with other schemes is the two stage biomass gasification
process. In the ARCAS scheme a thermal tar cracking step is used as the
second stage of gasification. The project has learnt that other research
groups have also tried to introduce such a second reaction stage. In all
known projects a catalytic stage will be introduced, but this method is not
as efficient as an E-filter.

The results of the test- runs prove that a second stage of gasification
decreases the tars. To increase the life-time of the engine partner 01
decided to design and to build an electrical condenser in order to decrease
the moisture and the tars of the gas. This plant started operation with the
new filter at the end of 98.

The introduction of this apparatus improved the total situation: The gas
was much cleaner and had less humidity. The operation of the engine was
much better, resulting in stable and safe operation. The main demonstration
goal was reached over the period of January to March 99. Long periods of
running were demonstrated.

The results of the demonstration runs can be summarised as follows, with
information presented showing the yield of gas and power as well as the
qualities of the produced raw gas and of the cleaned gas.

Fuel Wood-chips: max. length 30 mm, air-dried, moisture content 10-30%

Fuel-through-put: average: 40 kg/h Max.: 50 kg/h

Gas production average: 90 m3/h Max.: 120 M3/h

Heating value: 4 M.J/m3

Tar/dust-content: in the raw-gas 100 mg/m3, 10 mg/m3 in the cleaned gas

Humidity (water-content) of the gas: 25 g/m3, relative humidity 90%

Temperature: 40°C

Dry gas analysis: CO: 18 vol%, CO2:14 vol%, H2: 12 vol%, CH4: 1 vol%

Methane Number: 120

Power of the engine/generator-system: 25 kWe (average) 30 kWe (max.)

Specific Power yield per cylinder volume: 5 kW/l

Efficiency of the engine/generator system: 20 %

Specific wood consumption (basis air dried biomass): l.6 kg /Kwh

The plant, as designed and realised is a complete system. It consist of
following elements :

Raw material bin
The gasifier (concurrent, two stages)
Gas cleaning (two stages)
The gas/air - mixing system
The motor/generator system
The converter for sending power to the grid
The system is controlled automatically, with:

Level controller for the solids e.g. in the gasifier
Non manual ignition
Lambda-sound for the control of the gas/air - mixer
Overall computer control and monitoring of the plant
The plant works in a safe manner and can be produced in the workshops of
Meurer Maschinen at an economic cost. The plant demonstratee the
feasibility of small scale use of biomass for power generation.

Future Prospects and Conclusion:

Biomass: There is still now no normal commercial market for biomass, but
enough biomass is present in all regions. The most important fuel is wood
in different kinds also some other agricultural (chopped straw like
sorghum, which was used in big quantities )and industrial residues (The
plant used residues of the coffee roasting industries and paper pellets).
To use chicken manure made no sense, because this material will .be used in
digesters. Rape cake should not be gasified it can be used for pig
breeding. Wood is available not only in regions with large forests e.g.
like in the countries of the Alps or in Scandinavia, also in agricultural
regions and in big towns, too hedges, trees in parks, gardens, roads etc.)

The humidity of biomass, particle-size: The used biomass for CHPs should
contain only 10 -20 % of moisture, that means the biomass should be
air-dried: The high O/H - ratio of biomass causes high quantities of
formation - water, together with the humidity a gas with dew points of e.g.
70 % will be produced and that means high quantities of contaminated waste
water will occur, if the gas is used in a cooled status. The used particle
size of <30mm is valid. Air dried leaves, branches or stems have to be
shredded. Not all machines can realise the required size. However, within
the project expertise was developed to enable biomass to be shredded in the
correct way.

The gasifier - concept: The bottom fired, stirred gasifier concept is
valid. The thermal cracking step is valid as well. Some authors have
suggested that a part of energy will lost according to the following
reaction:

CO + 0.5 O2 = CO2

However, project results suggest that additional fuel will be formed
according to equation

CO2 + C = 2 CO

The gas cleaning system: The need for a gas cleaning system depends on the
requirement of the engine. Two extreme options are possible:

to use warm gas for the engine: the project started with this idea but
found that no engines capable of using crude gas are available
to use cold and cleaned gas: the project decided to go this way.
The key solution was the development of an electrical precipitation process

The prime mover: The ARCAS- Project developed a gasification plant for
producing a cold and clean gas, in order to use a IC - engine (not a
turbine, but a commercial piston engine) as prime mover. In the beginning,
in spite of considerable discussions with experts inside and outside the
project, it was not clear which type of engine was the best for a small
bio-power-plant.

The engine/generator unit had an energy yield of 20%. On the basis of
results from other systems, especially when operated at low rpm (1500),
this is reasonable. It was found experimentally that the engine used in the
project had mechanical losses of 5kW. This lower efficiency contributes to
a reduced power yield. However, the above efficiency is based on use of
electrical energy only, the heat is ignored. If the heat was used, the
efficiency could be raised to 50 to 60%

The results of the project enable the SME Meurer Maschinen, to build and to
offer a commercial plant with a capacity up to 50kW.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Progress Report May 1997
Introduction The report describes the installed Arcas-Gasifier, for which
the basic design has now been completed. It describes the definition,
design and construction of the plant as well as the first phase of the test
runs.

Activities The following parts of the project were carried out:

the P&I scheme was laid out together with guidelines for sampling and
analysing tar, condensates and particulates
a proposal for supply of buffer was made along with suggestions for those
measuring instruments that had to be installed and where they have to be
located
analysis of four biofuels enabled the result to be used in building of the
dryer and the shredder, indicated that the test runs should be started
using wood
the specifications for the tar filter were calculated, in order to reduce
the tar content to a level suitable for the motor
a gas cooler was built since the motor could not cope with hot lean gas
The tar filter and the gas cooler were designed in consultation with
representatives of motor producing companies. The resulting tar filter, the
continuous adsorber, the gasifier and the gas cooler were constructed by
Meurer Maschinen.

Progress Several changes in design have been made, resulting in a new flow
scheme. Wood which is stored with an approximate moisture content of 50% is
sent to the shredder. Before the wood flows into the continuous adsorber it
is dried to drop the moisture content to 15 %. As a result of this only 200
kg of wood per hour (rather than 340 kg as previously estimated) is
required. The wood is then carried to the continuous adsorber and from here
to the reactor. The produced lean gas of about 500 m3 per hour is sent to
the continuous adsorber. The lean gas is cooled by a gas cooler and passed
through the tar filter that is filled with activated carbon during the test
runs.

This is followed by a dust filter, that is meant to remove all the dust
particles that pass through the tar filter. The clean lean gas should then
be sent to the motor. Since the motor company cannot build an engine
without having the gas components of the produced lean gas the question of
the motor been postponed and hence the motor cannot be described as yet.
The goal of the project is an engine that works with gas from biomass alone.

Following a few test runs, during which the tar content and composition of
the lean gas will be established, the motor/generator unit will be ordered.

Discussion

Although there are additional measurements still to be undertaken, it is
unlikely that tar will be removed completely, most probably it cannot be
reduced to less than 100 ppm. However, an unofficial statement of a motor
company indicated that 40 ppm of tar would be required. The test runs will
show whether the required 40 ppm can be achieved with the flow scheme
described above.

An alternative to this flow scheme would be the substitution of the gas
cooler and the tar filter by an electrostatic precipitator.

Future Activities

It has been decided to operate the gasifier to measure the tar content as
the next step in order to propose the engine. Then, the engine will be
ordered and operated with the produced lean gas. Since the aim of this
project is to operate a demonstration plant, completing long term runs of
the motor, the tar problem has to be considered carefully.

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

From Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk Mon Jan 7 11:39:22 2002
From: Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification tests
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020107084853.00904320@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGMEEOCEAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>

Peter,

Do you mean Ormat ORC devices rated at 250kW electrical output? For about
1.2Mw heat input?
What temperature the waste heat streams?
Regards
Gavin

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Singfield [mailto:snkm@btl.net]
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 14:50
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Gasification tests

At 09:01 PM 1/6/2002 EST, CAVM@aol.com wrote:

>http://www.nf-2000.org/secure/Fair/F826.htm
>
>"Demonstration of small bio-power plant for rural application"
>
>This site gives some very interesting data on gasification.
>

Have appended this article.

Interesting -- when all the "smoke" settles -- 20% over all efficiency at
some astronomical costs!

And still a problem with "dirty" fuel leading to unreliable operation -
-and a humongous servicing head-ache.

All could be so easily avoided by going with a small refrigeration working
fluid Rankine Cycle device. And getting better over all efficiencies -- and
at much better prices.

But beating dead horse to get more performance is the rule of the day when
it comes to gasification of biomass for power!

But no -- dead horse mentality prevails ---

Peter Singfield / Belize

*********appended article ******************

Final Report Abstract
Source: Final report, 1999

Abstract

Objectives: The objectives of the project were to design and to operate a
demonstration unit for the gasification of rural feedstocks and to produce
electricity.

That this decision was right, was confirmed to the partners, when the
engine crashed totally during the first day of use. This event endorsed the
need to improve the gas-cleaning part of the plant.

Activities:

In the third year the project demonstrated the operation of the plant and
produced power for the grid, it was the most successful year.

Progress:

Achievements:

Fuel Wood-chips: max. length 30 mm, air-dried, moisture content 10-30%

Fuel-through-put: average: 40 kg/h Max.: 50 kg/h

Gas production average: 90 m3/h Max.: 120 M3/h

Heating value: 4 M.J/m3

Tar/dust-content: in the raw-gas 100 mg/m3, 10 mg/m3 in the cleaned gas

Humidity (water-content) of the gas: 25 g/m3, relative humidity 90%

Temperature: 40°C

Dry gas analysis: CO: 18 vol%, CO2:14 vol%, H2: 12 vol%, CH4: 1 vol%

Methane Number: 120

Power of the engine/generator-system: 25 kWe (average) 30 kWe (max.)

Specific Power yield per cylinder volume: 5 kW/l

Efficiency of the engine/generator system: 20 %

Specific wood consumption (basis air dried biomass): l.6 kg /Kwh

The plant, as designed and realised is a complete system. It consist of
following elements :

Future Prospects and Conclusion:

CO + 0.5 O2 = CO2

However, project results suggest that additional fuel will be formed
according to equation

CO2 + C = 2 CO

The gas cleaning system: The need for a gas cleaning system depends on the
requirement of the engine. Two extreme options are possible:

The results of the project enable the SME Meurer Maschinen, to build and to
offer a commercial plant with a capacity up to 50kW.

Activities The following parts of the project were carried out:

Following a few test runs, during which the tar content and composition of
the lean gas will be established, the motor/generator unit will be ordered.

Discussion

An alternative to this flow scheme would be the substitution of the gas
cooler and the tar filter by an electrostatic precipitator.

Future Activities

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

From snkm at btl.net Mon Jan 7 12:52:49 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small OCR Devices
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20020107114351.00926220@wgs1.btl.net>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 3678 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20020107/caa25c3e/attachment.bin
From arnt at c2i.net Mon Jan 7 15:36:50 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: tests download patience, was: GAS-L: Gasification tests
In-Reply-To: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGMEEOCEAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>
Message-ID: <200201071821.28914@arnt.c2i.net>

..on Monday 7 January 2002 17:38, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:
> Peter,
>
> Do you mean Ormat ORC devices rated at 250kW electrical output? For
> about 1.2Mw heat input?
> What temperature the waste heat streams?
> Regards
> Gavin

...and left in _all_ of:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Singfield [mailto:snkm@btl.net]
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 14:50
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Gasification tests
>
> At 09:01 PM 1/6/2002 EST, CAVM@aol.com wrote:
> >http://www.nf-2000.org/secure/Fair/F826.htm
> >
> >"Demonstration of small bio-power plant for rural application"
> >
> >This site gives some very interesting data on gasification.
>
> Have appended this article.
>
> Interesting -- when all the "smoke" settles -- 20% over all
> efficiency at some astronomical costs!
>
> And still a problem with "dirty" fuel leading to unreliable operation
> - -and a humongous servicing head-ache.
>
> All could be so easily avoided by going with a small refrigeration
> working fluid Rankine Cycle device. And getting better over all
> efficiencies -- and at much better prices.
>
> But beating dead horse to get more performance is the rule of the day
> when it comes to gasification of biomass for power!
>
> At present -- Ormat produces 250 KWH "ORC" devices that are easily
> coupled to a simple fire tube boiler -- thermal oil heat transfer
> (Atmospheric boiler pressure) -- that results in around 18%
> efficiencies with room for improvement -- and runs for ever and one
> day with very minimum of maintenance -- and for a fraction of the
> costs presented below. And requires no gas cleaning! (Or -- as far as
> that goes -- a gasifier!!)
>
> But no -- dead horse mentality prevails ---
>
> Peter Singfield / Belize
>
> *********appended article ******************

<...>

...which, minus the header and a table, is the full text of:
http://www.nf-2000.org/secure/Fair/F826.htm
...so, I snipped it off at "<...>".

...I downloaded it for the 2'nd _&_ 3'rd time, when I checked my mail
just now. Like Peter, I am on an expensive 3'rd world style metered
line, only isdn. Crap. Monopolized. Telenor.

..I am not aware of any preferred gas list message format,
my own preference is _plain_text only_, with quotes _before_
my own text, and providing _links_ to any and all html-formatted stuff,
so I can click and read the web page anytime I please.
And, with _semi-automatic_ quoting, so I need to click, to quote.

..enforcing this, helps minimize any metered 3'rd world style metered
download expenses. Further, this helps preserve the context, which
again facilitates the discussion, as I and you all can insert our
comment whereever we please and leave everything else to the mail
software. Any modern mail software can be set up to do this.

..what we have now, is a mix of the good, the bad and the evil,
some people take the time to set up their mail reader in the good old
fashion usenet style, which is the way I like it. Some even go to the
length of stripping off unneccesary quote noise, which makes it easy to
understand and take part in the discussion, as we can simply drop our
own comment exactly where we feel it belongs, in the context.

..some posts plain text _+_ html messages, some with full length
quotes appended that they make no use of, and with no "> "-hint
of who wrote what. I stay away from these, my interest is in
gasification, not in html format style message quote formatting.

..as you can see from the quote, snipping out parts of this
could cause doubt on what Gavin wrote, on what Peter wrote,
and, on what Katy wrote, as the "> "-count is the same.
IMHO, bad. Bad form.

..and, we the gas listers, has lost a few members on the noise to
usefulness ratio, according to the few people I asked about this.

..any modern email software can do this.
On the server side, messages can be "massaged" to come out any way we
please. Which means we can have the gas list available in any format,
plain text, html, pdf or even M$ Word, each of us prefers.
Compressed digests too.

..on the client side, each of us can set up our own email reader, to
send our messages any format each of us please, on modern software,
even on a per mailing list basis. Can chop up digests too.

..meanwhile, on the gas list, I feel all of us, should post our
messages in the _agreed_ preferred message format.
Or, have the gas list server do it for us, when it's ready.

..am I just flogging another dead horse here?

--
..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/

From arnt at c2i.net Mon Jan 7 15:44:15 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small OCR Devices
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020107114351.00926220@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <200201072147.59495@arnt.c2i.net>

On Monday 7 January 2002 18:47, Peter Singfield wrote:

> http://www.atlascopco-act.com/turboexpand03.htm

...returns 404. Also tried "html".

--
..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/

From snkm at btl.net Mon Jan 7 13:41:49 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small OCR Devices
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20020107173417.009084f0@wgs1.btl.net>

At 09:49 PM 1/7/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>On Monday 7 January 2002 18:47, Peter Singfield wrote:
>
>> http://www.atlascopco-act.com/turboexpand03.htm
>
>...returns 404. Also tried "html".
>
>--
>..med vennlig hilsen = with kind regards from Arnt... ;-)
>
> Scenarios always come in sets of three:
> best case, worst case, and just in case.

Arnt -- they have went "Java" -- so no more direct Urls.

You start at:

http://www.atlascopco-act.com/index.php

In the frame to the left -- click "Products"

Once at that page -- again to the left -- click "Turboexpanders"

Across the top of that page you have these to click on:

"Design Features Configuration Options Energy Recovery"

Check on each one -- that is right click on them.

You'll soon get the picture.

Peter/Belize

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

From snkm at btl.net Mon Jan 7 13:53:49 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small OCR Devices
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20020107174928.00926220@wgs1.btl.net>

Sorry folks -- this line is wrong --

"Check on each one -- that is right click on them."

Should be "Left-Click on all of these"

Peter

At 05:38 PM 1/7/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>At 09:49 PM 1/7/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>>On Monday 7 January 2002 18:47, Peter Singfield wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.atlascopco-act.com/turboexpand03.htm
>>
>>...returns 404. Also tried "html".
>>
>>--
>>..med vennlig hilsen = with kind regards from Arnt... ;-)
>>
>> Scenarios always come in sets of three:
>> best case, worst case, and just in case.
>
>Arnt -- they have went "Java" -- so no more direct Urls.
>
>You start at:
>
>http://www.atlascopco-act.com/index.php
>
>In the frame to the left -- click "Products"
>
>Once at that page -- again to the left -- click "Turboexpanders"
>
>Across the top of that page you have these to click on:
>
>"Design Features Configuration Options Energy Recovery"
>
>Check on each one -- that is right click on them.
>
>You'll soon get the picture.
>
>Peter/Belize
>
>-
>Gasification List Archives:
>http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
>
>Gasification List Moderator:
>Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
>www.webpan.com/BEF
>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/

From Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk Mon Jan 7 13:55:05 2002
From: Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: tests download patience,
In-Reply-To: <200201071821.28914@arnt.c2i.net>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGCEFBCEAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>

Arnt and Listers

Please accept my apologies for causing the resending of large amounts of
text.

I have deleted Arnts text from this reply But rest assured I will keep it to
remind myself of the appropriate style for this (and other lists) to which I
subcribe.

I have Outlook to default to text only but occasionally have to change it
when sending a formatted message to clients and I can forget to change it
back.

However not clipping the wodge of text was inexcusable on my part.

| will also try to set up to allow the quote style which has so far eluded
me.

My apologies

Gav (the old dog)

-----Original Message-----
From: Arnt Karlsen [mailto:arnt@c2i.net]
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 20:42
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: tests download patience, was: GAS-L: Gasification tests

..on Monday 7 January 2002 17:38, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:
<snip>...
...which, minus the header and a table, is the full text of:
http://www.nf-2000.org/secure/Fair/F826.htm
...so, I snipped it off at "<...>".

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

From snkm at btl.net Mon Jan 7 14:35:12 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small OCR Devices
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20020107183043.0092de00@wgs1.btl.net>

More "specifically" ---

Here is the text from the AtlasCopco page titled: "Energy Recovery"

High-lighting:

"Isobutane vapor is expanded in a binary cycle process that produces
significant electric power."

"Waste heat is another energy source that can be converted to useful energy
by using expanders in an Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) system."

Peter/Belize

**********complete page text**********

Energy Conversion & Cryogenic Applications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Energy recovery application

Expanders can enhance your process performance.

Virtually any process that uses high-temperature or high-pressure gas may
be a resource for energy recovery. Generator-loaded or compressor-loaded
expanders can be custom engineered to recover the maximum amount of useful
energy available in the process.

Waste heat is another energy source that can be converted to useful energy
by using expanders in an Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) system.

Potential heat sources include: tail gas from industrial furnaces or
combustion engines, waste vapor from chemical and petrochemical processes,
and solar heat from flat or parabolic reflectors.

Extraction of energy from geothermal resources offers a promising
alternative to fossil fuels.

Expanders have demonstrated excellent results in converting low-grade heat
from geological brine streams into electricity. Isobutane vapor is expanded
in a binary cycle process that produces significant electric power.

For gas pressure let down in natural gas pipeline transmission, substantial
energy can be recovered by using expanders to replace throttle valves.

Thermal energy resources can also exist in the world's oceans. In a
demonstration process, an Atlas Copco turboexpander successfully recovered
energy from sun heated ocean surface water, using ammonia as the working
fluid.

In typical investment calculations regarding energy recovery potentials,
payback is often achieved within 18 to 24 months. Since fuel cost for most
turboexpander operations is zero, the expanders can make a significant
contribution to the profitability of your operation.

Your Atlas Copco representative can proved detailed application information
specific to your process, and help project your investment payback cycle.

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

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Jan 8 02:57:43 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: tests download patience,
In-Reply-To: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGCEFBCEAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>
Message-ID: <200201081217.16535@arnt.c2i.net>

On Tuesday 8 January 2002 00:56, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:

> I have Outlook to default to text only but occasionally have to
> change it when sending a formatted message to clients and I can
> forget to change it back.

..can anyone with M$ Outlook advice on how to set it up to do this
automatically, ideally on a per mailing list basis? So we keep both
clients, coworkers, usenet'ers etc, and gas listers happy?
(I don't have M$ Outlook, or M$ Windows.)

> Gav (the old dog)

..accepted. Now, does the dead horse I flog, still breathe?
As in, how do we want the message and quote style here?

..and, do we flog each gas list member to do this right, or
do we flog the gas list admin to set up our list server to
massage all messages for us, the way we the gas listers want them?
(This may be of interest to the other Crest lists too?)

--
..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/

From hseaver at cybershamanix.com Tue Jan 8 05:34:37 2002
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: tests download patience,
In-Reply-To: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGCEFBCEAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>
Message-ID: <3C3B11D1.6A4E356B@cybershamanix.com>

Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>
> ..accepted. Now, does the dead horse I flog, still breathe?
> As in, how do we want the message and quote style here?
>
> ..and, do we flog each gas list member to do this right, or
> do we flog the gas list admin to set up our list server to
> massage all messages for us, the way we the gas listers want them?
> (This may be of interest to the other Crest lists too?)
>

I'm not 100% sure, but am pretty doubtful that the list software can
do anything about the quoting problem, that's something each member
needs to do, and I'm not sure why they don't, since hitting the "quote"
button when you're answering mail is certainly the easiest way to
include the previous comments.
One thing that the list can do that would help a tremendous amount
is block html posts -- that would cut bandwidth considerably, stop email
html-based viruses, and also give a uniform basis for the messages.
That is, if they are all just pure text, they'll format pretty much
the same. I know that outlook does something with html posts that make
it very difficult for other mail readers to break in to make comments so
that it shows up properly, usually when you do a "quote" on someone's
outlook html post, when you add your two cents, it ends up looking like
the first person said everything.
So anyway, that's the first step -- block html posts. Personally I
think it's very annoying to get html email with GIANT type faces, or
teeny-tiny ones and/or weird colors, and I can well imagine how
frustrating it must be for someone on a slow modem to wait minutes for a
post to download, only to find it's someone saying very little, but
doing it with html. Not to mention the fact that if you're trying to
read email from a shell account with elm or pine or mutt, it just looks
like garbage.

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

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

From snkm at btl.net Wed Jan 9 05:05:23 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20020109090047.00920e10@wgs1.btl.net>

A question -- Gentlemen and Ladies;

During my perusal of "reforming" technology I came across so many
references to reforming natural gas into many various products -- including
"ethanol".

Being as their are humongous deposits of natural gas in Alaska and the
North West territories of Canada that are presently no commercially viable
due to the extreme costs of pipe-lining said product to market:

Would it not be viable to "reform" natural gas to ethanol for tanker
shipment to market??

If such a market was to develop --

How is that you might say??

Well, read below ---

[Note: ethanol is an ideal fuel cell propellent]

Peter Singfield/Belize

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

January 9, 2002

U.S. Ends Car Plan on Gas Efficiency; Looks to Fuel Cells
By NEELA BANERJEE with DANNY HAKIM

he Bush administration is walking away from a $1.5 billion eight- year
government-subsidized project to develop high-mileage gasoline- fueled
vehicles. Instead it is throwing its support behind a plan that the Energy
Department and the auto industry have devised to develop hydrogen-based
fuel cells to power the cars of the future, administration and industry
officials said yesterday.

The new effort, to be announced in Detroit today by Energy Secretary
Spencer Abraham, aims at the eventual replacement of the internal
combustion engine. Fuel cells use stored hydrogen and oxygen from the air
to create electricity, and the only emission from engines they power is
water vapor.

Environmentalists and some energy experts favor the research. But critics
said that the new program would let Washington and Detroit focus on vague,
long-term aims while avoiding the more difficult task of improving the
mileage of existing cars and sport utility vehicles in the short term.
Experts say that commercial production of cars with fuel- cell engines is
10 to 20 years away.

With hearings scheduled in the Senate next month on a Democratic
alternative to President Bush's energy program, it has been unclear how
either party will address fuel economy standards, which are equally
unpopular with carmakers and organized labor.

Yesterday, an administration official speaking on the condition of
anonymity said that the Transportation Department would offer a proposal
later this year on tightening those standards. But he added that since any
changes would be years in the making, the fuel-cell project could make them
"a nonissue."

The original program, begun in 1993, aimed to develop affordable cars that
got 80 miles to a gallon of gasoline. Vice President Al Gore, its most
vocal backer in the Clinton administration, likened the project, known as
the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, to the Apollo space
program in its technological complexity. In addition to about $1.5 billion
in government subsidies, the Big Three automakers — General Motors
(news/quote), Ford Motor (news/quote) and DaimlerChrysler (news/quote) —
together spent about $1 billion a year on related technologies.

The carmakers all developed prototype vehicles that got at least 70 miles a
gallon, and the project nurtured advances in aerodynamics and lighter
composite materials now used in auto manufacturing.

But none of the Big Three came close to commercial production of an
80-mile-a-gallon car. The average fuel economy of cars and trucks for sale
in the United States has, meanwhile, steadily dropped, so that this year's
fleet — with its growing proportion of sport utility vehicles — gets the
worst gas mileage in 21 years, according to the government.

The new program, called Freedom Car, will not require the automakers to
produce a fuel-cell powered vehicle, according to the Energy Department.
Energy experts expressed concern yesterday that without such clear targets,
it too would do little to alleviate the country's growing dependence on oil.

"I think fuel cells are a useful long- term goal," said Steven Nadel,
executive director of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy,
a research and advocacy group in Washington. "But the big problem I have is
that the Bush administration proposal doesn't seem to address anything for
the next 10 years. There's a lot of technology that can go into cars in
2006 or 2007."

The new initiative was disclosed yesterday by The Detroit News. The
administration said it would not discuss its proposed spending on the
project until President Bush's 2003 budget proposal was released in
February, but the program it replaces was to receive $127 million in
federal funds this year.

Although gasoline prices are now low, the conflict in Afghanistan has
thrown a spotlight once more on America's enormous appetite for fuel and
has renewed calls for reducing American dependence on foreign oil. The
United States, with only 5 percent of the world's population, consumes 25
percent of its oil, mostly in the form of gasoline.

Mr. Abraham, in remarks prepared for delivery today at the North American
International Auto Show in Detroit, said the new project was "rooted in
President Bush's call, issued last May in our National Energy Plan, to
reduce American reliance on foreign oil." He added, "The eventual goal of
this research are technologies that aim to solve many of the problems
associated with our nation's reliance on petroleum to power our cars and
trucks."

While the Clinton administration program focused on developing high-
mileage family sedans — vehicles that fell out of favor with consumers as
the research progressed — Mr. Abraham said the new project would give
automakers the flexibility to use the fuel-cell engines in a range of
vehicles.

"We should be developing energy- efficient components that can be adapted
for use in several models throughout our fleet," he said.

The stocks of several companies that are developing fuel cells surged
yesterday on news of the administration initiative. Shares in Ballard Power
Systems (news/quote), probably the best known of these companies, jumped 15
percent, to $34.96. FuelCell Energy (news/quote) rose 22 percent, to
$21.85; Plug Power was up 39 percent, to close at $12.04.

The Big Three automakers are expected to introduce so-called hybrid
vehicles, using gasoline-electric engines, by 2004. Toyota (news/quote) and
Honda — which did not share in the Clinton-era program's subsidies —
already have hybrids getting at least 40 miles a gallon.

The auto industry has steadily resisted government-mandated increases in
fuel economy, with some carmakers arguing that such requirements would
divert investment from fuel-cell research. Government standards, unchanged
for more than a decade, require each automaker's cars to average 27.5 miles
a gallon and light trucks — including pickups, minivans and sport utility
vehicles — to average 20.7 miles a gallon.

Kara Saul Rinaldi, the deputy policy director for the Alliance to Save
Energy, a bipartisan advocacy group in Washington, said that she welcomed
the investment in fuel cells but hoped the administration would explore
improvements in fuel-economy standards. "We're looking at long-term
technology when we haven't made the first step," she said. "Raising
fuel-economy standards is the first step."

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

From gregandapril at earthlink.net Wed Jan 9 09:18:20 2002
From: gregandapril at earthlink.net (Greg and April)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020109090047.00920e10@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <003401c19942$83b5b720$26530e3f@oemcomputer>

This was proposed ( but by reforming into methanol due to the higher
hydrogen to carbon ratio ) in the book Methanol : Bridge to a Renewable
Energy Future by John H. Perry and Christina P. Perry (1990 University
Press of America).

The idea was reform to methanol then pipe the methanol using existing
pipelines, or use tankers to transport from off shore oil rigs and the
Middle East were natural gas is flared off.

Greg H.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <>
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 08:01
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas

During my perusal of "reforming" technology I came across so many
references to reforming natural gas into many various products -- including
"ethanol".

Would it not be viable to "reform" natural gas to ethanol for tanker
shipment to market??

<snip>

Peter Singfield/Belize

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

From LINVENT at aol.com Wed Jan 9 09:44:08 2002
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
Message-ID: <170.6e9b288.296df7cb@aol.com>

Dear Gaslisters,
Stranded natural gas has been proposed for various types of petrochemical
and other processes to make use of it. Shell operates a plant which converts
it to fuel oil, gasoline and other products. Several companies offer various
technologies to do the same, but the markets and technical developments have
not been realized. Several engineering companies offer off the shelf plants
for natural gas to methanol production. Economics is generally the limiting
factor.

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/

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Jan 10 03:51:43 2002
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Information request fro Spain...
Message-ID: <12d.a9c5a01.296ef6e3@cs.com>

Dear Thomas Reed and Gasification Group:

My name is Guillermo Matthies and I am working for a company called EDE
INGENIEROS, an engineering company specialized in energy subjects. It forms
parts of the LKS Group, one of the 120 cooperatives that make up MCC,
Mondragon Cooperative Corporation, the 8th largest business group in Spain.
EDE INGENIEROS is interested in developing turnkey plants that use the
biomass for power generation, with gasification technology, and we are
currently doing a market research, evaluating the technical-economical
viability of these projects.

- I have some questions related to gasification, but I don´t know whether
you prefer to answer to me directly or bring them to the discussion group.
My questions are:

* I am concerned about emission problems when some types of biomass is
gasified. I am speaking about shredded tyres, plastics, coated/laminated
paper or rests of paints and varnish that it´s possible to find in refusal
wood (old furnitures for example). I know that shredded tyres are being
gasified by Foster Wheeler at lahti (Finland)

* I am searching for partners who can provide us the gasifier and want to
develop projects with us. The plant size I am thinking about is 5 MWe,
although this figure is not definitive.

Thanks for your help

Hope to hear about you soon

Best regards

Guillermo Matthies

Dirección actual
Parque Empresarial Inbisa
Edificio C-Oficinas 2.1 y 2.2
Polígono Aurrerá - M8
48510 TRAPAGARAN (Bizkaia)

EDE INGENIEROS, S.A.
Web: <http://www.ede-ingenieros.com/> http://www.ede-ingenieros.com
e-mail: <mailto:edeing@ede-ingenieros.com> edeing@ede-ingenieros.com
Tfno: +34 94 472 41 41
Fax: +34 94 472 41 97

From hauserman at corpcomm.net Thu Jan 10 06:25:43 2002
From: hauserman at corpcomm.net (Hauserman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020109090047.00920e10@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <002301c199f4$e4e57f00$988ab1d8@Hauserman>

To: Peter Singfield - and anybody who's
interested.

I'm reluctant to clutter this
forum with oppinions and generalities, but the
conventional-fuel-efficiency VS H2-fuel-cell-vehicles argument can lead
to some serious boondogles if politically mishandled. Being peripherally
involved in the fuel cell side of this, I'd like to submit some - hopefully -
constructive inputs.

The use of H2-fuel-cell
powered cars offers the advantages that (1) It can be highly efficient. (2)
Hydrogen can be made from a huge variety of primary raw materials,
including biomass and garbage, as well as coal and "surplus" natural gas. (3)
Oh, and as an afterthought, it's complete "clean." The
fuel-cell-electric propulsion systems are probably of near-commercial,
technical availability -- pending a big enough market to spur a mass production
infrastructure to reduce costs. Hydrogen can be stored on-board the
vehicle, or it can be produced as needed, by various on-board means of
reforming of ethanol, methanol or various still-undefined low grade
(compared with gasoline) hydrocarbons - which in turn may be made from the
primary raw materials. These small scale, fuel-to-hydrogen concepts
still neeed some pre-prototype development. These technologies appear
intimidatingly complex, but no more so than state-of-the-art automotive
technology would have appeared back when the first "flivvers" were just hiting
the market. The disadvantages of such vehicles are: (1) Limited range, due
to low energy density (HP-hours per pound or per cubic foot) of the on-board
fuel system. (2) Safety. (3) High cost and limited access to specialized
maintenance, for the first couple of decades. In my oppinion,
hydrogen-powered vehicles will never replace more than some
minority of vehicles, probably for short range urban commuting or
delivery.

Both increased conventional
engine efficiency and the fuel-cell approach are thoroughly essential to a
future in which the world's petroleum reserves WILL run out. More than
increasing conventional efficiency - which the automotive industry and a
better-educated public can acieve immediately - the fuel cell approach should
receive government support, simply because of the tremendous developmental
costs and investment risks before anyone can squeeze a profit out of
hydrogen-powered vehicles. A major benefit of their development, again in
my oppinion, will be a spin-off effect on the development of an
incredible array of practical, small-scale fuel-cell-based energy systems.
(Imagine a 2-5 kW intigrated package, consisting on an automated
biomass gasifier, gas processing by micro-channel components and a PEM
fuel cell, supplying all the electricity and most of the heat for a household,
at an overall fuel efficiency of 50-80%. Possible? Probably so
- with enough market demand and a couple of decades of
tinkering.)

So - government has a
responsibility to encourage and enable the development BOTH these
approaches to our automotive future - but definitely should not
make political decisions to predict this future, based on one approach over the
other There is, in my oppinion, one thoroughly neutral and
effective approach, that would let the market demand drive the rate of
development in both areas - that will be effective but equally repugnant to all
political constituencies: Phase in an extra $1.00/gallon gasoline tax - or more.
Government can allways use such "revenue enhancement" to compensate for
ill-advised tax cuts and pay for inevitable "social" and environmental
boondogles. And it would very rapidly educate the driving public to
appreciate any and all alternatives that developers can get to the market.

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Singfield <<A
href="mailto:snkm@btl.net">snkm@btl.net>
To: <<A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 9:01
AM
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming
natural gas
> > A question --
Gentlemen and Ladies;> > During my perusal of "reforming"
technology I came across so many> references to reforming natural gas
into many various products -- including> "ethanol".> >
Being as their are humongous deposits of natural gas in Alaska and the>
North West territories of Canada that are presently no commercially
viable> due to the extreme costs of pipe-lining said product to
market:> > Would it not be viable to "reform" natural gas to
ethanol for tanker> shipment to market??> > If such a
market was to develop --> > How is that you might say??>
> Well, read below ---> > [Note: ethanol is an ideal fuel
cell propellent]> > Peter Singfield/Belize> >
*************************> > January 9, 2002> > U.S.
Ends Car Plan on Gas Efficiency; Looks to Fuel Cells> By NEELA BANERJEE
with DANNY HAKIM> > he Bush administration is walking away from a
$1.5 billion eight- year> government-subsidized project to develop
high-mileage gasoline- fueled> vehicles. Instead it is throwing its
support behind a plan that the Energy> Department and the auto industry
have devised to develop hydrogen-based> fuel cells to power the cars of
the future, administration and industry> officials said yesterday.
> > The new effort, to be announced in Detroit today by Energy
Secretary> Spencer Abraham, aims at the eventual replacement of the
internal> combustion engine. Fuel cells use stored hydrogen and oxygen
from the air> to create electricity, and the only emission from engines
they power is> water vapor.> > Environmentalists and some
energy experts favor the research. But critics> said that the new program
would let Washington and Detroit focus on vague,> long-term aims while
avoiding the more difficult task of improving the> mileage of existing
cars and sport utility vehicles in the short term.> Experts say that
commercial production of cars with fuel- cell engines is> 10 to 20 years
away.> > With hearings scheduled in the Senate next month on a
Democratic> alternative to President Bush's energy program, it has been
unclear how> either party will address fuel economy standards, which are
equally> unpopular with carmakers and organized labor. > >
Yesterday, an administration official speaking on the condition of>
anonymity said that the Transportation Department would offer a proposal>
later this year on tightening those standards. But he added that since
any> changes would be years in the making, the fuel-cell project could
make them> "a nonissue."> > The original program, begun in
1993, aimed to develop affordable cars that> got 80 miles to a gallon of
gasoline. Vice President Al Gore, its most> vocal backer in the Clinton
administration, likened the project, known as> the Partnership for a New
Generation of Vehicles, to the Apollo space> program in its technological
complexity. In addition to about $1.5 billion> in government subsidies,
the Big Three automakers - General Motors> (news/quote), Ford Motor
(news/quote) and DaimlerChrysler (news/quote) -> together spent about $1
billion a year on related technologies. > > The carmakers all
developed prototype vehicles that got at least 70 miles a> gallon, and
the project nurtured advances in aerodynamics and lighter> composite
materials now used in auto manufacturing. > > But none of the Big
Three came close to commercial production of an> 80-mile-a-gallon car.
The average fuel economy of cars and trucks for sale> in the United
States has, meanwhile, steadily dropped, so that this year's> fleet -
with its growing proportion of sport utility vehicles - gets the> worst
gas mileage in 21 years, according to the government. > > The new
program, called Freedom Car, will not require the automakers to> produce
a fuel-cell powered vehicle, according to the Energy Department.> Energy
experts expressed concern yesterday that without such clear targets,> it
too would do little to alleviate the country's growing dependence on
oil.> > "I think fuel cells are a useful long- term goal," said
Steven Nadel,> executive director of the American Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy,> a research and advocacy group in Washington. "But the
big problem I have is> that the Bush administration proposal doesn't seem
to address anything for> the next 10 years. There's a lot of technology
that can go into cars in> 2006 or 2007."> > The new
initiative was disclosed yesterday by The Detroit News. The>
administration said it would not discuss its proposed spending on the>
project until President Bush's 2003 budget proposal was released in>
February, but the program it replaces was to receive $127 million in>
federal funds this year.> > Although gasoline prices are now low,
the conflict in Afghanistan has> thrown a spotlight once more on
America's enormous appetite for fuel and> has renewed calls for reducing
American dependence on foreign oil. The> United States, with only 5
percent of the world's population, consumes 25> percent of its oil,
mostly in the form of gasoline. > > Mr. Abraham, in remarks
prepared for delivery today at the North American> International Auto
Show in Detroit, said the new project was "rooted in> President Bush's
call, issued last May in our National Energy Plan, to> reduce American
reliance on foreign oil." He added, "The eventual goal of> this research
are technologies that aim to solve many of the problems> associated with
our nation's reliance on petroleum to power our cars and>
trucks."> > While the Clinton administration program focused on
developing high-> mileage family sedans - vehicles that fell out of favor
with consumers as> the research progressed - Mr. Abraham said the new
project would give> automakers the flexibility to use the fuel-cell
engines in a range of> vehicles.> > "We should be
developing energy- efficient components that can be adapted> for use in
several models throughout our fleet," he said.> > The stocks of
several companies that are developing fuel cells surged> yesterday on
news of the administration initiative. Shares in Ballard Power> Systems
(news/quote), probably the best known of these companies, jumped 15>
percent, to $34.96. FuelCell Energy (news/quote) rose 22 percent, to>
$21.85; Plug Power was up 39 percent, to close at $12.04.> > The
Big Three automakers are expected to introduce so-called hybrid>
vehicles, using gasoline-electric engines, by 2004. Toyota (news/quote)
and> Honda - which did not share in the Clinton-era program's subsidies
-> already have hybrids getting at least 40 miles a gallon.>
> The auto industry has steadily resisted government-mandated increases
in> fuel economy, with some carmakers arguing that such requirements
would> divert investment from fuel-cell research. Government standards,
unchanged> for more than a decade, require each automaker's cars to
average 27.5 miles> a gallon and light trucks - including pickups,
minivans and sport utility> vehicles - to average 20.7 miles a
gallon.> > Kara Saul Rinaldi, the deputy policy director for the
Alliance to Save> Energy, a bipartisan advocacy group in Washington, said
that she welcomed> the investment in fuel cells but hoped the
administration would explore> improvements in fuel-economy standards.
"We're looking at long-term> technology when we haven't made the first
step," she said. "Raising> fuel-economy standards is the first
step."> > > > > > >
-> Gasification List Archives:> <A
href="http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/">http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/>
> Gasification List Moderator:> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy
Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com> <A
href="http://www.webpan.com/BEF">www.webpan.com/BEF> List-Post:
<<A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">mailto:gasification@crest.org>>
List-Help: <<A
href="mailto:gasification-help@crest.org">mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>>
List-Unsubscribe: <<A
href="mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org">mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>>
List-Subscribe: <<A
href="mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org">mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>>
> Sponsor the Gasification List: <A
href="http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html">http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html>
-> Other Gasification Events and Information:> <A
href="http://www.bioenergy2002.org">http://www.bioenergy2002.org> <A
href="http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml">http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml>
<A
href="http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/">http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

From joacim at ymex.net Thu Jan 10 07:17:33 2002
From: joacim at ymex.net (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020109090047.00920e10@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10201101359420.663-100000@localhost>

On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Peter Singfield cited:

> January 9, 2002
>
> U.S. Ends Car Plan on Gas Efficiency; Looks to Fuel Cells
> By NEELA BANERJEE with DANNY HAKIM
[interesting reading snipped]

* Compare the statistics for world production of petroleum products to,
for instance, world production of pulp, and with the corresponding heat
value (and realistic process efficiencies), to get a hint of how much
biomass (in wood) there may be available for powering transportation.
Too many vehicles, and not enough trees? Where else would all that
hydrogen, ethanol, whatever, come from in the long run? Only switching
technology of vehicle motors won't be enough. The problem goes deeper than
that.

* They look for complicated solutions. What must be added to the equation
is the cost (in energy) to build and maintain the technology. The more
complex it is, the more it takes to get it and keep it running. Simple is
beatiful. Complexityficationalisation is an unnecessary long word.

Much of the energy consumption is intrinsic to the cultural geographical
structure. A city takes significantly more energy to keep running, than a
corresponding rural population and small but plentiful installations rather
than concentration and few large installations. Small is beatiful. Synergy
is a myth. (More precisely, synergy is a concept which only applies to a
/portion/ of a larger system. This is often ignored. People often make the
mistake of assuming that positive synergetic effects also implies overall
positive effects. But the second law says there will be more mess outside
than there is order at the hub. The whole is /less/ than the sum of its
parts.)

The oligarchy in the car industry is a serious problem. Why are there so
few new, small, car manufacturers showing up on the market? There are just
about none. The few there are, are into extreme sport vehicles and such.
The car industry in the world is producing cars today that most people
cannot afford to buy. They are building luxury cars, all of them. No wonder
the car industry is so sensitive to variations in market cycle. Henry Ford
was a man who realised one must produce stuff people can afford, to have a
`market.' If all this (necessary) new technology costs a bleeding fortune,
and must be replaced `overnight,' there simply won't be buyers of it and
nothing will happen. The wheels will just stop turning.

The car industry is heavily regulated. A crash test costs a fortune, and
having designers working on design problems caused by red tape rather than
physics, making sure it conforms to the details, costs time and money. If
anyone can drag out a motor, a few bent steel pipes or whatever he fancy
from nearest pile of junk, weld it together and call it "car", design costs
would be near to zero. That would hardly make developers of complicated
space technology zillionaires, but if would certainly speed development.
Even a blind hen can find a seed. A million blind hens would find quite
a few, I should think.

Instead of subsidising specific (often costly) projects, selected by
politicians (with their specific motives), they should let the tinkerers
play. This is also much cheaper. Think of it as "massive parallell
computing". The Big Guys have lost the initiative; they build ornamental
status objects. It's the bronze age all over. Poverty is the mother of
creativety, freedom is the father.

[Regarding the reference to the bronze ages: It is a period in history
sometimes called "a wonderful parenthesis" by archeologists. They knew
about iron, but rarely produced it. It is twice as complicated to make bronze
than iron, and tin and copper ore is rare compared to iron ore. Still, they
made bronze. Why? One theory is that the ones that were wealthy enough to
hire the pre-historic metalurgists weren't interested in practical tools,
but status objects. A bronze axe is not better than a stone axe to cut
with, but is shines a whole lot better than a rusty plain old, but useful,
steel axe, and not everyone can afford to go bronze. In some areas, this
absurd situation was maintained for up to 6000 years. Idiocracy can rule
forever if you don't do anything.]

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

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

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Jan 10 14:31:33 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ..swinging the 9-tailed on message quote style
Message-ID: <200201110027.08465@arnt.c2i.net>

Hi, fellow listers,

..swinging the 9-tailed on the dead horse known as
message quote style: Do we want to have a guide on it?

..was message quote style ever discussed when the lists started
or did you just take usenet style messages for granted?

..I raise this issue here on the gasification list, where malformed
quoting with no "> "-hints on who wrote what, have people lose
interest in discussing our intriguing thermochemical gasification
tricks, as we have little interest in reformatting every damn gas list
message, to preserve the much needed context.
Which eventually has people lose interest in the gas list and we then
lose valuable experience which otherwise could trigger the occational
good new idea.

..I must first ask _if_, there is an interest in flogging this dead
horse, here. ;-)

..flogging, I believe I'm past half way exected to share the 9-tailed.

..first, the Gospel: "Email Quotes and Inclusion Conventions",
by one of the founding hacker fathers of open source software:
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/Email-Quotes.html

..once Herbert fixes his wee -bug, my top 3 how-to's:
http://herbert.the-little-red-haired-girl.org/en/quoting/
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting.html
http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/~guckes/mail/edit.html

..I'd like Sally to be much more firm: the Gospel on netiquette:
http://marketing.tenagra.com/rfc1855.html and my top how-to:
http://www.newsreaders.com/guide/netiquette.html

..given an interest in the above, could anyone find and _test_,
a recent guide on how to set up a _recent_ M$ Outlook client,
on a per email list basis? Could try start weeding from this
_1_-line 547-hit search link here:
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=usenet+message+quote+style+guide&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Outlook&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=off
(I don't have or run any M$ software.)

..the other possible option is, if anyone can spare a box in their
DMZ*, I can set up a mail list massage server for us the way we want it.

..(I'll need the ip-number or name of the box, and may need to
have someone put a kick start diskette into and out of the box,
everything else is done remotely over ssh. Email me the details.)
(DMZ*=demilitarized zone, slang for server zone for public access,
web servers, ftp servers and mail transport servers should be here,
behind a firewall, not behind a firewall and inside the _internal_ net.
Ssh*=open source secure shell, an encrypted telnet replacement.)

--
..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/

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Jan 10 15:46:56 2002
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Methanol/ethanol confusion...
Message-ID: <26.215ba6fb.296f9e61@cs.com>

It is well established technology to make natural gas (or coal or wood) into synthesis gas, CO + H2. It is also well established to change the ratio of H2 to CO from .5 to infinity.

It is well extablished technology to make synthesis gas into methanol - about 2 billion gallons a year for the US selling wholesale for ~ $0.50/gal.

It is very difficult to make synthesis gas into ethanol and costs about $2/gal.

Both alcohols burn very well and cleanly in IC engines because of their high octane.

There is so much confusion in the world about fuels and I try to keep them straight. (Hydrogen is the most confused. I see Bush is converting our 80 mi/gal car program into a hydrogen fueled car program. Currently there is NO hydrogen produced primarily for commercial fuel use.) Grin and bear it.

Yours, TOM REED THE FUEL CHEMIST

It is very difficult to make ethanol from synthesis gas.

In a message dated 1/9/02 8:07:57 AM Mountain Standard Time, snkm@btl.net writes:

A question -- Gentlemen and Ladies;

During my perusal of "reforming" technology I came across so many
references to reforming natural gas into many various products -- including
"ethanol".

Would it not be viable to "reform" natural gas to ethanol for tanker
shipment to market??

If such a market was to develop --

How is that you might say??

Well, read below ---

[Note: ethanol is an ideal fuel cell propellent]

Peter Singfield/Belize

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Jan 10 15:47:46 2002
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Ethanol vs Methanol
Message-ID: <178.1f419a0.296f9e5b@cs.com>

There continues to be confusion between ethanol and methanol.

Ethanol can be made easily from corn and with great difficulty from the cellulose in most biomass. Typical costs $1.50-$3 per gallon.

Methanol is easily made from synthesis gas which is made from biomass, natural gas, coal etc. by partial oxidation to CO and H2.

CO + 2H2 ==> CH3OH

Typical cost $0.50 - $1 per gallon, but made in high tech plants at high pressure with a highly specific catalyst.

Ethanol can also be made from synthesis gas, but at much greater expense. Methanol and ethanol are both clean and efficient (in high compression engines) burning fuels. Brazil has many 90 proof alchohol cars in its fleet but is now considering methanol from sugar cane bagasse.

So the pragmatists of the world still favor methanol as the ideal replacement for gasoline.

FYI TOM REED BEF GASWORKS
In a message dated 1/9/02 12:46:20 PM Mountain Standard Time, LINVENT@aol.com writes:

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 HREF="http://www.aladdinsys.com/expander/">www.aladdinsys.com/expander/

From CAVM at aol.com Thu Jan 10 16:49:32 2002
From: CAVM at aol.com (CAVM@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
Message-ID: <22.21d6e6d8.296fad15@aol.com>

In a message dated 1/10/2002 10:30:08 AM Central Standard Time,
hauserman@corpcomm.net writes:

<< Hydrogen can be made from a huge variety of primary raw materials,
including biomass and garbage, as well as coal and "surplus" natural gas. >>

I am very interested in this comment. I thought the production of hydrogen
was expensive and impractical except for certain uses.

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

From hauserman at corpcomm.net Fri Jan 11 06:11:52 2002
From: hauserman at corpcomm.net (Hauserman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
In-Reply-To: <22.21d6e6d8.296fad15@aol.com>
Message-ID: <000201c19ab5$68250820$e48ab1d8@Hauserman>

To: CAVM et al.
Ref.: Below

Quite true. I said
that hydrogen "can be" made from a wade variety of raw materials -
Essentially from anything that can be gasified to an H2+CO syngas. But as Tom
Reed rightly points out, this is still quite expensive and
impractical. As far as I know, all commercial hydrogen is
currently made by large scale reforming of natural gas, though even coal
gasification - probably on an even larger scale - looks promising. But getting
the stuff to end users is clearly expensive and often impractical. Major
current uses are large scale hydrogenation of heavy petroleum fractions and
vegetable oils, and launching space shuttles. The microchip industry is a
big, distributed demand for small per-site amounts. The mandated
premise of hydrogen-fuel-cell vehicles is that ALL vehicles may eventually
get expensive and impractical to operate, either due to inevitable
depletion of petroleum reserves or human-imposed (geopolitical or
environmental) constraints.

Bill
Hauserman

----- Original Message -----
From: <<A
href="mailto:CAVM@aol.com">CAVM@aol.com>
To: <<A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 8:51
PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol --
reforming natural gas
> In a message dated 1/10/2002
10:30:08 AM Central Standard Time, > <A
href="mailto:hauserman@corpcomm.net">hauserman@corpcomm.net writes:>
> << Hydrogen can be made from a huge variety of primary raw
materials, > including biomass and garbage, as well as coal and "surplus"
natural gas. >>> > > I am very interested in this
comment. I thought the production of hydrogen > was expensive and
impractical except for certain uses.> > -> Gasification
List Archives:> <A
href="http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/">http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/>
> Gasification List Moderator:> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy
Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com> <A
href="http://www.webpan.com/BEF">www.webpan.com/BEF> List-Post:
<<A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">mailto:gasification@crest.org>>
List-Help: <<A
href="mailto:gasification-help@crest.org">mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>>
List-Unsubscribe: <<A
href="mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org">mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>>
List-Subscribe: <<A
href="mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org">mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>>
> Sponsor the Gasification List: <A
href="http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html">http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html>
-> Other Gasification Events and Information:> <A
href="http://www.bioenergy2002.org">http://www.bioenergy2002.org> <A
href="http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml">http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml>
<A
href="http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/">http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

From PletkaRJ at bv.com Fri Jan 11 06:38:49 2002
From: PletkaRJ at bv.com (Pletka, Ryan J.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
Message-ID: <61BCB4275920D211AA5700A0C9DB18FB0FE6D127@BVMAIL02>

Actually, gasification to produce hydrogen for fertilizer manufacture is
relatively "common."

We just completed a 1,143 ton per day (tpd) pet coke gasification project
for Farmland. Plant products include 74.6 million cu ft per day of hydrogen
for use in an 1100 tpd ammonia synthesis loop and 636 tpd of 99 percent
carbon dioxide.

Ryan

Ryan Pletka
Black & Veatch Energy Services Group
11401 Lamar / Overland Park, KS 66211 USA
913-458-8222

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hauserman [SMTP:hauserman@corpcomm.net]
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:32 AM
> To: GAS-L; CAVM@aol.com
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
>
> To: CAVM et al.
> Ref.: Below
>
> Quite true. I said that hydrogen "can be" made from a wade variety of
> raw materials - Essentially from anything that can be gasified to an H2+CO
> syngas. But as Tom Reed rightly points out, this is still quite expensive
> and impractical. As far as I know, all commercial hydrogen is currently
> made by large scale reforming of natural gas, though even coal
> gasification - probably on an even larger scale - looks promising. But
> getting the stuff to end users is clearly expensive and often impractical.
> Major current uses are large scale hydrogenation of heavy petroleum
> fractions and vegetable oils, and launching space shuttles. The microchip
> industry is a big, distributed demand for small per-site amounts. The
> mandated premise of hydrogen-fuel-cell vehicles is that ALL vehicles may
> eventually get expensive and impractical to operate, either due to
> inevitable depletion of petroleum reserves or human-imposed (geopolitical
> or environmental) constraints.
>
>
> Bill Hauserman
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: < CAVM@aol.com <mailto:CAVM@aol.com>>
> To: < gasification@crest.org <mailto:gasification@crest.org>>
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 8:51 PM
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
>
> > In a message dated 1/10/2002 10:30:08 AM Central Standard Time,
> > hauserman@corpcomm.net <mailto:hauserman@corpcomm.net> writes:
> >
> > << Hydrogen can be made from a huge variety of primary raw materials,
> > including biomass and garbage, as well as coal and "surplus" natural
> gas. >>
> >
> >
> > I am very interested in this comment. I thought the production of
> hydrogen
> > was expensive and impractical except for certain uses.
> >
> > -
> > Gasification List Archives:
> > <http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/>
> >
> > Gasification List Moderator:
> > Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
> <mailto:Reedtb2@cs.com>
> > www.webpan.com/BEF <http://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/

From snkm at btl.net Fri Jan 11 06:57:57 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:51 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20020111105327.00993630@wgs1.btl.net>

To all;

Some may be wondering what a discussion of H2 for Fuel cells is doing on a
gasification mail list.

By now it should be a "given" that production of H2 at present is dependent
on gasification/reforming technologies.

I wish to further remind listers. Fuel cells are operational by other
propellants -- such as natural gas, ethanol and methanol.

In these cases -- the gasification/reforming process is occurring as part
of the fuel cell power plant.

We covered this topic in some detain at this list a few months back.

Personally -- I to feel methanol is the right fuel for this. But we have a
huge "green" segment saying no!

And if the past has anything to say about all this --

Now -- one more question to ponder.

If indeed methanol is the ideal fuel -- would it not be of greater
expedience to cultivate woody biomass (as in tree plantations) rather than
food crops (For ethanol production) for fuel??

Is the conversion of woody biomass, by gasification/reformation, more
expedient than fermentation and distillation of food crops??

Considering the cost of raising trees over the cost of raising food crops.

(Or any other growing biomass suitable for this purpose -- such as grasses,
weeds, etc)

And try not to ignore the global need for food!

If not at present -- then in the future -- and especially should natural
events disturb present food production -- even though temporary.

In short folks -- becoming dependent on food crops for transportation fuels
could result in a lot of walking being required should even a minor global
crop failure occur.

Of course -- for the present -- natural gas will more than fill any real
requirements.

Also is it fair to say -- natural gas conversion to methanol can fill this
need more economically than through ethanol production from food plants??

If the present leader of the world's most powerful nation is promoting fuel
cells -- should not this list be concerned with the options??

(Or is this all just political rhetoric??)

Peter Singfield / Belize

At 09:31 AM 1/11/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>>>>
To: CAVM et al. Ref.: Below Quite true. I said that hydrogen "can
be" made from a wade variety of raw materials - Essentially from anything
that can be gasified to an H2+CO syngas. But as Tom Reed rightly points
out, this is still quite expensive and impractical. As far as I know,
all commercial hydrogen is currently made by large scale reforming of
natural gas, though even coal gasification - probably on an even larger
scale - looks promising. But getting the stuff to end users is clearly
expensive and often impractical. Major current uses are large scale
hydrogenation of heavy petroleum fractions and vegetable oils, and
launching space shuttles. The microchip industry is a big, distributed
demand for small per-site amounts. The mandated premise of
hydrogen-fuel-cell vehicles is that ALL vehicles may eventually get
expensive and impractical to operate, either due to inevitable depletion
of petroleum reserves or human-imposed (geopolitical or environmental)
constraints.
Bill Hauserman

----- Original Message ----- From: <CAVM@aol.com> To:
<gasification@crest.org> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 8:51 PM Subject:
Re: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
> In a message dated 1/10/2002 10:30:08 AM Central Standard Time,
> hauserman@corpcomm.net writes:
>
> << Hydrogen can be made from a huge variety of primary raw materials,
> including biomass and garbage, as well as coal and "surplus" natural
gas. >>
>
>
> I am very interested in this comment. I thought the production of
hydrogen
> was expensive and impractical except for certain uses.
>
> -
> Gasification List Archives:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, <mailto:Reedtb2@cs.com>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/

From andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Fri Jan 11 12:48:50 2002
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (AJH)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ..swinging the 9-tailed on message quote style
In-Reply-To: <200201110027.08465@arnt.c2i.net>
Message-ID: <9rpu3ukmvr2glgjm71fm7kvgmv5kt17k54@4ax.com>

On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 01:38:17 +0100, Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net> wrote:

>
>..I must first ask _if_, there is an interest in flogging this dead
>horse, here. ;-)

Probably not, as the bulk of the list probably use the software that
was supplied with their PCs, in the default format, and do not know
how to post otherwise, similarly the moderators all top post. It
cannot be seen as a problem as the list managers do not respond to
questions on it. The thing about lists is they are *not* a democracy,
so the principal is might is right, like it or lump it.

I agree with you Arnt that the lists would be easier for me to manage
if html were stripped and quotes attributed (the software is enabled
this way in the european groups to which I subscribe) especially as I
am soon to lose my unmetered access so I might well have my isp bounce
html messages at the pop3 mailbox, which no doubt will have me un
subscribed from crest pdq.

AJH

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

From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Jan 11 14:05:33 2002
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
Message-ID: <9a.1f49e52a.2970d81e@aol.com>

Dear Ryan,
I have heard of the Farmland petcoke to urea plant. I believe the final
plant is urea, but if it is just ammonia, then nitric acid, ammonia nitrate,
and the whole shooting match of fertilizers can be made.
Out of curiosity, what is the cost per ton of ammonia based upon petcoke
feed? What was the capital cost? Did you use the Texaco gasifier? This should
be cheaper than natural gas as a feed, but a comparison would be interesting.
The Farmland plant at least the refinery is for sale as I understand.
With the oil prices the way they are, there are quite a few dislocations
going on in the industry.

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

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Jan 11 16:35:55 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ..swinging the 9-tailed on message quote style
In-Reply-To: <200201110027.08465@arnt.c2i.net>
Message-ID: <200201120118.36582@arnt.c2i.net>

On Friday 11 January 2002 23:50, AJH wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 01:38:17 +0100, Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net> wrote:
> >..I must first ask _if_, there is an interest in flogging this dead
> >horse, here. ;-)
>
> Probably not, as the bulk of the list probably use the software that
> was supplied with their PCs, in the default format, and do not know
> how to post otherwise, similarly the moderators all top post. It
> cannot be seen as a problem as the list managers do not respond to
> questions on it. The thing about lists is they are *not* a democracy,
> so the principal is might is right, like it or lump it.
>
> I agree with you Arnt that the lists would be easier for me to manage
> if html were stripped and quotes attributed (the software is enabled
> this way in the european groups to which I subscribe) especially as I

..european, you mean european gas-lists??? Where people
actually try to build a business in thermochemical gasification???

> am soon to lose my unmetered access so I might well have my isp
> bounce html messages at the pop3 mailbox, which no doubt will have me
> un subscribed from crest pdq.
>AJH <andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com>,
> AJH

..agreed. And exactly why I propose I set up a list message massage
server on someones DMZ, to do the above. I dial-up to connect, so I
can't do it usefully on my own hardware, except as part of my own
personal mail feed filtering.

--
..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/

From hseaver at cybershamanix.com Sat Jan 12 06:06:09 2002
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ..swinging the 9-tailed on message quote style
In-Reply-To: <200201110027.08465@arnt.c2i.net>
Message-ID: <3C405F49.FB562D63@cybershamanix.com>

AJH wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 01:38:17 +0100, Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >..I must first ask _if_, there is an interest in flogging this dead
> >horse, here. ;-)
>
> Probably not, as the bulk of the list probably use the software that
> was supplied with their PCs, in the default format, and do not know
> how to post otherwise,

Oh, they'd figure it out quickly enough, they seem to have done so
on all the other lists I'm on which blocked html.

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

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

From bburt at kingston.net Sat Jan 12 06:24:21 2002
From: bburt at kingston.net (Brian Burt)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: FW: GAS-L: tests download patience,
Message-ID: <NEBBJJFLALDHCNLFFAKBMEGODCAA.bburt@kingston.net>

For MS Outlook go to contacts for the particular e-mail address, choose
general tag and just beneath the box for e-mail address is a checkbox to
check if you only want to send plain text messages to that recipient.
Outlook will then prompt you each time you try to send to that recipient
with html ("Do you really want to do this or is it Fido at the keyboard
again?). It will not prompt when sending plain text.

Secondly you can go to the top line menu tools, then options then choose tab
Mail Format. The top item has a drop-down that allows you to choose the
default e-mail format (choose plain text).

You should do both of these since the first option will prompt you everytime
you try to send in html, for instance when you reply to an html message. The
second option will start all your original messages in plain text so if you
are composing an original message it will always be in plain text (you can
always change the format in that particular message).

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arnt Karlsen [mailto:arnt@c2i.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:05 AM
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: tests download patience,
>
>
> On Tuesday 8 January 2002 00:56, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:
>
> > I have Outlook to default to text only but occasionally have to
> > change it when sending a formatted message to clients and I can
> > forget to change it back.
>
> ..can anyone with M$ Outlook advice on how to set it up to do this
> automatically, ideally on a per mailing list basis? So we keep both
> clients, coworkers, usenet'ers etc, and gas listers happy?
> (I don't have M$ Outlook, or M$ Windows.)
>
> > Gav (the old dog)
>
> ..accepted. Now, does the dead horse I flog, still breathe?
> As in, how do we want the message and quote style here?
>
> ..and, do we flog each gas list member to do this right, or
> do we flog the gas list admin to set up our list server to
> massage all messages for us, the way we the gas listers want them?
> (This may be of interest to the other Crest lists too?)
>
> --
> ..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/
>

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

From gregandapril at earthlink.net Sat Jan 12 07:55:41 2002
From: gregandapril at earthlink.net (Greg and April)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ..swinging the 9-tailed on message quote style
In-Reply-To: <200201110027.08465@arnt.c2i.net>
Message-ID: <009801c19b92$7412bc80$f24f0e3f@oemcomputer>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@cybershamanix.com>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 09:07
Subject: Re: GAS-L: ..swinging the 9-tailed on message quote style

> AJH wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 01:38:17 +0100, Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >..I must first ask _if_, there is an interest in flogging this dead
> > >horse, here. ;-)
> >
> > Probably not, as the bulk of the list probably use the software that
> > was supplied with their PCs, in the default format, and do not know
> > how to post otherwise,
>
>
> Oh, they'd figure it out quickly enough, they seem to have done so
> on all the other lists I'm on which blocked html.
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.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/
>

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

From gregandapril at earthlink.net Sat Jan 12 08:01:03 2002
From: gregandapril at earthlink.net (Greg and April)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ..swinging the 9-tailed on message quote style
Message-ID: <00c801c19b93$336d8d80$f24f0e3f@oemcomputer>

Subject: Re: GAS-L: ..swinging the 9-tailed on message quote style

> On one of the list that I'm on, that require a paticular format, the
people
> are given instructions on how to set up their software.
>
> I am aware of a few cases were the people did not have access to the
> software in order to change it or it was otherwise beyond their control.
If
> this is the case, what are you going to do, block them from the list? Why
> blame someone for something that they can not control?
>
> Greg H.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Harmon Seaver"
> Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 09:07
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: ..swinging the 9-tailed on message quote style
>
>
> >
> >
> > Oh, they'd figure it out quickly enough, they seem to have done so
> > on all the other lists I'm on which blocked html.
> >
>
>

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

From gregandapril at earthlink.net Sat Jan 12 09:07:54 2002
From: gregandapril at earthlink.net (Greg and April)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ..swinging the 9-tailed on message quote style
In-Reply-To: <200201110027.08465@arnt.c2i.net>
Message-ID: <000901c19b9c$8a5c6900$f24f0e3f@oemcomputer>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harmon Seaver"
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 11:42
Subject: Re: GAS-L: ..swinging the 9-tailed on message quote style

>
>
> Greg and April wrote:
> >
> > On one of the list that I'm on, that require a paticular format, the
people
> > are given instructions on how to set up their software.
> >
>
>
> ???? Such as what? Turning off html in email is an extremely easy
> thing to do in any mail reader, it's just a matter of choosing to do it.

If you know what your doing, not everyone does.

> Everyone has that much access, to the reader preferences, even in a
> corporate environment. And if you look at the headers of those who
> persist in sending html email, you'll see that they're all outlook or
> aol users, both of which can be easily modified.

Again not everyone is tecnosavy enough to know what one setting does -vs-
another setting, I know of one case on a list that used plaintext, that no
matter what setting was used, the company had full control, and the output
was html only, this case went on for about 4-6 weeks before the person is
question finaly had to give up and quit the list, because a few people kept
getting on his back about the html.

> The fact is that it's just plain rude and inconsiderate of others
> to send email and/or attachments of any sort to a list, many of the
> readers of which live in third world countries and have to pay dearly
> for each byte the receive.

Oh, you mean like how Yahoo attaches an ad to the e-mail of people who use
them? I don't see how it's the falt of people when they have no control,
over what a third party does to e-mail. Yes, they could stop using third
party e-mail, but, then they may not have e-mail altogether.

Greg H

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

From hseaver at cybershamanix.com Sat Jan 12 11:16:16 2002
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: FW: GAS-L: tests download patience,
In-Reply-To: <NEBBJJFLALDHCNLFFAKBMEGODCAA.bburt@kingston.net>
Message-ID: <3C40A7F7.5569EF5F@cybershamanix.com>

Yes, and it's just about exactly the same process for netscape. Go
to the address book, choose the recipient, uncheck the box for "prefers
to receive html messages". And, if you wish, go into "edit, preferences,
mail & newsgroups, formatting" and choose plain text. Also you can go
into "messages" under the same menu and choose how you want your quoting
to be set up.
Pretty simple stuff, not exactly rocket science, and I'm sure anyone
who can't figure it out on their own can easily find someone local to
help.
I can also give you the eudora settings if need be, at least for a
mac, and I could probably remember windoze pegasus settings as well.

Brian Burt wrote:
>
> For MS Outlook go to contacts for the particular e-mail address, choose
> general tag and just beneath the box for e-mail address is a checkbox to
> check if you only want to send plain text messages to that recipient.
> Outlook will then prompt you each time you try to send to that recipient
> with html ("Do you really want to do this or is it Fido at the keyboard
> again?). It will not prompt when sending plain text.
>
> Secondly you can go to the top line menu tools, then options then choose tab
> Mail Format. The top item has a drop-down that allows you to choose the
> default e-mail format (choose plain text).
>
> You should do both of these since the first option will prompt you everytime
> you try to send in html, for instance when you reply to an html message. The
> second option will start all your original messages in plain text so if you
> are composing an original message it will always be in plain text (you can
> always change the format in that particular message).
>
> Brian
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Arnt Karlsen [mailto:arnt@c2i.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:05 AM
> > To: gasification@crest.org
> > Subject: Re: GAS-L: tests download patience,
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday 8 January 2002 00:56, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:
> >
> > > I have Outlook to default to text only but occasionally have to
> > > change it when sending a formatted message to clients and I can
> > > forget to change it back.
> >
> > ..can anyone with M$ Outlook advice on how to set it up to do this
> > automatically, ideally on a per mailing list basis? So we keep both
> > clients, coworkers, usenet'ers etc, and gas listers happy?
> > (I don't have M$ Outlook, or M$ Windows.)
> >

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

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

From arnt at c2i.net Sat Jan 12 12:53:11 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020111105327.00993630@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <200201120105.26780@arnt.c2i.net>

On Friday 11 January 2002 17:54, Peter Singfield wrote:

> Personally -- I to feel methanol is the right fuel for this. But we

..actually, I prefer syngas here. Which we can make cheaper than
methanol. ;-)

> have a huge "green" segment saying no!

.._amen_.

> If indeed methanol is the ideal fuel -- would it not be of greater
> expedience to cultivate woody biomass (as in tree plantations) rather
> than food crops (For ethanol production) for fuel??
<...>
> In short folks -- becoming dependent on food crops for transportation
> fuels could result in a lot of walking being required should even a
> minor global crop failure occur.

.."no problem, we already buy food out of childrens mouths".

> (Or is this all just political rhetoric??)

.. ;-)

> Peter Singfield / Belize
>
> At 09:31 AM 1/11/2002 -0600, Bill Hauserman wrote:

> distributed demand for small per-site amounts. The mandated premise
> of hydrogen-fuel-cell vehicles is that ALL vehicles may eventually
> get expensive and impractical to operate, either due to inevitable
> depletion of petroleum reserves or human-imposed (geopolitical or
> environmental) constraints.
> Bill Hauserman

..another "green" myth.
We teach our kids "there is not enough for all. So, someone, has to do
something." and leave kids like Tim McVeigh, to reach their own
conclusions.
In Palestine and Asia Minor, we have the Jews teach "you are die
untermaenschen. So, we screw you." and leave kids like Mohammad Atta,
to reach their own conclusions.
In Iraq, we have Saddam teach kids they are brave soldiers and that the
AK-47 is their best friend. Nice working scheme, hah?

..instead we _could_ try either mating gasifiers to fuel cells, or drop
prop mills in between Florida and Cuba, and feed the power to flywheel
powered peeling MW autos, that leave the gas guzzles in the dust on the
drag strip.

..numbers? Half of todays electricity is made from coal boiling water
etc at an average 35% efficiency. Transport fuels move 1.5 billion
people around at an average 25% efficiency. "So, there is not enough
for all 6.5 billion. So, someone, has to do something."

..diverting todays coal thru a gasifier + fuel cell loop process, will
top out at 93% efficiency without extra heat supply. Jack Bitterly's
flywheels are now in use for spacecraft attitude control and has a 96%
charge cycle efficiency, afaik. Search for '"Jack Bitterly" + american
+ flywheel'.

..my allegation: we can keep 15 billion people driving for 400 years.
No need for WWIII, Noch Eine Endloesung, Ebola, Festung Europa,
AIDS, nukes, or Festung Amerika. And I, I get _stinking_ rich.

..or, or and, we can drop a few big prop mills into the strait between
Florida and Cuba and do it for a few billion years. Or, or and, we can
make Festung Europa freeze over. As in: "Who started the slave trade
and gassed and dumped the Jews in Palestine and won the Vietnam war?".

..a set of flywheels, will weigh as much as a typical engine + gear box
+ drive train + fuel systems + tail pipe etc, or a fuel cell rig plus
electric motors plus fuel tank systems plus tail pipe systems etc.
According to Jack Bitterly, a full flywheel charge is done about as
quick as you can tank your gasoline fired auto. You tank your auto in
5 minutes? Try calculate that "tanking power". Then imagine being
able to *use* that peeling power on a drag strip. After that, you can
make a qualified decision on "what, someone should do".

..or, have the "green" et al, keep doing it. Your call.

--
..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/

From arnt at c2i.net Sat Jan 12 13:55:50 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: FW: GAS-L: tests download patience,
In-Reply-To: <NEBBJJFLALDHCNLFFAKBMEGODCAA.bburt@kingston.net>
Message-ID: <200201130017.51262@arnt.c2i.net>

On Saturday 12 January 2002 22:17, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> Yes, and it's just about exactly the same process for netscape.

..which netscape? Version plus OS it is run on?
(There are several changes between the short cut key strokes
between "same-version" linux and wintendo netscapes.)

> Go to the address book, choose the recipient, uncheck the box for
> "prefers to receive html messages". And, if you wish, go into "edit,
> preferences, mail & newsgroups, formatting" and choose plain text.
> Also you can go into "messages" under the same menu and choose how
> you want your quoting to be set up.
> Pretty simple stuff, not exactly rocket science, and I'm sure
> anyone who can't figure it out on their own can easily find someone
> local to help.
> I can also give you the eudora settings if need be, at least for a
> mac, and I could probably remember windoze pegasus settings as well.

..yes, please.

> Brian Burt wrote:
> > For MS Outlook go to contacts for the particular e-mail address,
> > choose general tag and just beneath the box for e-mail address is a
> > checkbox to check if you only want to send plain text messages to
> > that recipient. Outlook will then prompt you each time you try to
> > send to that recipient with html ("Do you really want to do this or
> > is it Fido at the keyboard again?). It will not prompt when sending
> > plain text.
> >
> > Secondly you can go to the top line menu tools, then options then
> > choose tab Mail Format. The top item has a drop-down that allows
> > you to choose the default e-mail format (choose plain text).
> >
> > You should do both of these since the first option will prompt you
> > everytime you try to send in html, for instance when you reply to
> > an html message. The second option will start all your original
> > messages in plain text so if you are composing an original message
> > it will always be in plain text (you can always change the format
> > in that particular message).

..can this be done on a per-mailing-list, or per e-mail-address basis?
Using the "contacts" or address book" or whatever?
So it is possible to use M$ style html top post as the standard and
usenet style in the gas list?

> > Brian

..thanks Brian, this solves the M$ Outlook html posting.

..now, how do we stop the top posting and set it to quote usenet style?

..quoting usenet style, once you click "reply", the message window pops
up ideally empty. Then when you click the quote button, my full
original message pops into top of the message body window, and with
your prompt on an empty line between my full quote at the top, and your
signature at the very bottom.

..all quote lines should start "> ", "> > ", etc, breaking your own
lines at 72 characters, and the quoted lines at 80 characters, to
allow a 4 level deep quoting.

..below is Bill Gates' placement of your quote of my message,
how do we move it to the top, _automatically_, in M$ Outlook?

> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Arnt Karlsen [mailto:arnt@c2i.net]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:05 AM
> > > To: gasification@crest.org
> > > Subject: Re: GAS-L: tests download patience,
> > >
> > > On Tuesday 8 January 2002 00:56, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:
> > > > I have Outlook to default to text only but occasionally have to
> > > > change it when sending a formatted message to clients and I can
> > > > forget to change it back.
> > >
> > > ..can anyone with M$ Outlook advice on how to set it up to do
> > > this automatically, ideally on a per mailing list basis? So we
> > > keep both clients, coworkers, usenet'ers etc, and gas listers
> > > happy? (I don't have M$ Outlook, or M$ Windows.)

--
..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/

From arnt at c2i.net Sat Jan 12 13:56:36 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ..swinging the 9-tailed on message quote style
In-Reply-To: <200201110027.08465@arnt.c2i.net>
Message-ID: <200201130049.49345@arnt.c2i.net>

On Saturday 12 January 2002 20:08, Greg and April wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Harmon Seaver"
> Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 11:42
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: ..swinging the 9-tailed on message quote style
>
> > Greg and April wrote:
> > > On one of the list that I'm on, that require a paticular format,
> > > the
>
> people
>
> > > are given instructions on how to set up their software.
> >
> > ???? Such as what? Turning off html in email is an extremely
> > easy thing to do in any mail reader, it's just a matter of choosing
> > to do it.
>
> If you know what your doing, not everyone does.

..which is _why_ we should have this guide available.

> > Everyone has that much access, to the reader preferences, even in a
> > corporate environment. And if you look at the headers of those who
> > persist in sending html email, you'll see that they're all outlook
> > or aol users, both of which can be easily modified.
>
> Again not everyone is tecnosavy enough to know what one setting does
> -vs- another setting, I know of one case on a list that used
> plaintext, that no matter what setting was used, the company had full
> control, and the output was html only, this case went on for about
> 4-6 weeks before the person is question finaly had to give up and
> quit the list, because a few people kept getting on his back about
> the html.

..see above.

> > The fact is that it's just plain rude and inconsiderate of
> > others to send email and/or attachments of any sort to a list, many
> > of the readers of which live in third world countries and have to
> > pay dearly for each byte the receive.
>
> Oh, you mean like how Yahoo attaches an ad to the e-mail of people
> who use them? I don't see how it's the falt of people when they have
> no control, over what a third party does to e-mail. Yes, they could
> stop using third party e-mail, but, then they may not have e-mail
> altogether.
>
> Greg H

..ads in e-mail is an un-polite no-no, that should be boycotted.
I'll add a wee section advicing on free ad-free e-mail services.

..a message massage server will solve this automatically, by stripping
off ads and html, then placing quotes exactly where they belong, in
many cases, '/dev/null'.

--
..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/

From gregandapril at earthlink.net Sat Jan 12 15:10:02 2002
From: gregandapril at earthlink.net (Greg and April)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020111105327.00993630@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <004201c19bcf$21822f40$c4560e3f@oemcomputer>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arnt Karlsen" <
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 16:00
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas

>
> ..actually, I prefer syngas here. Which we can make cheaper than
> methanol. ;-)
>
That is probably true, and easier to make as well, but, I don't see a simple
way of storing syngas for future use, I don't think that syngas has the
energy density for real storage efficeny, does it?

Greg H.

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

From gregandapril at earthlink.net Sat Jan 12 15:56:00 2002
From: gregandapril at earthlink.net (Greg and April)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Replies to list
Message-ID: <001c01c19bd5$89fbbb80$49540e3f@oemcomputer>

We have been talking about quote style with the
"..swinging the 9-tailed on message quote style" subject, I been wondering why
when I go to reply to the list, it sends the reply to the person who sent
the message instead of to the list. All the other list that I'm on the reply
goes to the list, not the person that sent it to the list. Is this a list thing,
or a software thing.

From CAVM at aol.com Sat Jan 12 16:02:23 2002
From: CAVM at aol.com (CAVM@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
Message-ID: <bd.1a330e72.2972451f@aol.com>

In a message dated 1/12/2002 7:12:54 PM Central Standard Time,
gregandapril@earthlink.net writes:

<< > ..actually, I prefer syngas here. Which we can make cheaper than
> methanol. ;-)
>
That is probably true, and easier to make as well, but, I don't see a simple
way of storing syngas for future use, I don't think that syngas has the
energy density for real storage efficeny, does it?

Gr >>

Greg, If syn gas from coal, or whatever source, can be used in place of
methanol, it would be a big hit in rural areas where we have ready access to
coal and other biomass. Can you give a Reader's Digest version of how this
might work?

Neal

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

From hseaver at cybershamanix.com Sat Jan 12 16:18:29 2002
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Replies to list
In-Reply-To: <001c01c19bd5$89fbbb80$49540e3f@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <3C40EEC7.76AEFF86@cybershamanix.com>

It's the way the list is set up, and there have been many complaints.
Do a group reply, which will send to the list *and* to the poster -- and
then you can delete the one to the poster.
And, BTW, why did you find it neccesary to send that message in
something other than plain text?

> Greg and April wrote:
>
> We have been talking about quote style with the "..swinging the
> 9-tailed on message quote style" subject, I been wondering why when I
> go to reply to the list, it sends the reply to the person who sent the
> message instead of to the list. All the other list that I'm on the
> reply goes to the list, not the person that sent it to the list. Is
> this a list thing, or a software thing.
>
>

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

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

From arnt at c2i.net Sat Jan 12 16:37:03 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020111105327.00993630@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <200201130340.24386@arnt.c2i.net>

On Sunday 13 January 2002 02:10, Greg and April wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arnt Karlsen" <
> Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 16:00
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
>
> > ..actually, I prefer syngas here. Which we can make cheaper than
> > methanol. ;-)
>
> That is probably true, and easier to make as well, but, I don't see a
> simple way of storing syngas for future use, I don't think that
> syngas has the energy density for real storage efficeny, does it?
>
> Greg H.

..nope. You loop-fire the syngas in the fuel cell to make electricity
and store that in the flywheels. If you want an otto-engine fuel, make
MBTE, or diesel oil for diesel engines, and lose 2/3-3/4 of the energy.

--
..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/

From gregandapril at earthlink.net Sat Jan 12 17:03:21 2002
From: gregandapril at earthlink.net (Greg and April)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Replies to list
In-Reply-To: <001c01c19bd5$89fbbb80$49540e3f@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <001301c19bde$f6b84140$fb520e3f@oemcomputer>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harmon Seaver" <>
To: "Greg and April" <gregandapril@earthlink.net>
Cc: "Gasification" <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 19:20
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Replies to list

> It's the way the list is set up, and there have been many complaints.
> Do a group reply, which will send to the list *and* to the poster -- and
> then you can delete the one to the poster.

Group reply?

> And, BTW, why did you find it neccesary to send that message in
> something other than plain text?
>
>

Not neccesary, changed my S.O.P. by mistake. I have my settings set on
"Reply in same format" and to send a message to the group, I normaly pick a
message from the group, hit 'Reply', deleat everything, and then put in what
I want. This time I just clicked on the group address.

Sorry, about the lack of plain text.

Greg H.

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

From snkm at btl.net Sat Jan 12 17:57:26 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20020112215901.00936510@wgs1.btl.net>

>At 03:44 AM 1/13/2002 +0100, you wrote:

Mr. Cat of nine tails -- notice the "you" in the "you wrote:" above.

>On Sunday 13 January 2002 02:10, Greg and April wrote:

Now -- notice how it is supposed to be done -- as in the example above.

I am guessing -- but think this message is from Arnt?? But hard to tell
when "you" only is in the field.

Where is that cat of nine tails when one really needs it??

(All about throwing stones when living in glass house)

On to the next part to this reply:

>..nope. You loop-fire the syngas in the fuel cell to make electricity
>and store that in the flywheels. If you want an otto-engine fuel, make
>MBTE, or diesel oil for diesel engines, and lose 2/3-3/4 of the energy.
>

OK -- now i see it is from Arnt (recognize his writing style) -- and also
-- notice his signature below.

Arnt -- we covered this in depth a short while back -- at least I posted
"in-depth" regarding this technology a short while back.

All planned fuel cell cars work on the basis of converting a "fuel" to
synthesis gas on board the car -- as part of the "drive" package.

The question here is what fuel to start with -- to gasify into synthesis gas.

Some say "methanol"

Some say "synthetic diesel"

Some say "ethanol"

Some say "gasoline"

Some say "compressed natural gas"

I suggested that using high pressure -- super critical water -- for
specialized "steam-reforming" the base fuel could be biomass.

I used the example of the super critical water reactor doing exactly that
with high moisture bagasse in a Hawaii research project.

Why?? Because it can be done so compactly!!

Knowing you -- probably got a design for a biomass combustion style
gasifier that can be fitted where present car's catalytic converters go
(which is how they are now doing it) to produce the "given" requirement of
50 kw power that has been agreed on as required for prime motivation of a
passenger car.

And not some monster combustion gasifier that you must tow on trailer
behind the vehicle -- that feeds synthesis gas to your fuel cell by pipe line!

If so -- please show us it??

The super critical water reformer would be the size of the presently
existing catalytic converter stuck on the bottom of a modern car -- but you
would still need the trunk full of sawdust to get anywhere.

And that is why the discussion is focused on liquid fuels --

To put a biomass slant on it.

Ethanol by distillation of food biomasses.

Methanol by reforming any biomass

Or -- synthetic diesel.

A "stationary" power plant is another deal all together different.

I realize you are suggesting "service" stations using prime movers powered
by fuel cells to charge flywheels to operate passenger vehicles.

I would be interested in knowing how far you could go -- at the "given"
power of 50 kw -- between "wind-ups"??

Also -- when you state efficiencies of synthesis gas in powering fuel cells.

Where goes the CO???

Mind you -- I also published to this list a while back a most interesting
concept of transforming C0 to H2 using a liquid tin bath. And suggested
that would solve the efficiency losses involved with using synthesis gas to
run a fuel cell.

Or am I missing something here -- and CO propels a fuel cell??

In power values -- what percentage of synthesis gas is H2 and what
percentage is CO -- and how do you get 90% efficiencies??

I believe Tom Reed posted that information in the past.

Plus -- just what are you doing with the large amount of partial combustion
heat that is produced with your gasifier which is zilch to increasing fuel
cell output?? Attaching and ORC device?? Heating the "service" station and
counting it also as "power" for your over all efficiencies???

Time to put meat to those claims Arnt --- check out the appended -- about
how at least some people are being realistic in this same approach -- note
the efficiency figures -- and tell me why you can do so much better using
synthesis gas from coal gasification -- and get "CAVM" so excited!!

Suggesting this can be done with a gasifier making synthesis gas from coal
to propel a fuel cell -- to charge a flywheel to get power to the back
wheels -- driving your vehicle down the road -- unless you use a liquid tim
metal C0 to H2 reformer and attach an OCR to recover heat -- your going to
get poor over all efficiencies!

Flywheels or no flywheels!

Peter/Belize

****************refs 1************

(Blurb from past postings on this subject -- re: heat recovery from fuel
cells)

What is notable is the way it generates power. Rather than burning fuel to
turn a generator, it electrochemically converts natural gas directly into
electrical current. It then uses heat produced by this process to run a
turbine, generating even more electricity. The result is a system of
unprecedented efficiency that produces little in the way of pollution.

Siemens Westinghouse calls it a solid oxide fuel cell/gas turbine hybrid.
Mark Williams of the National Energy Technology Laboratory calls it
"remarkable."

"As far as I know, there's no device that can match it," said Williams, who
heads fuel cell development at the lab's Strategic Center for Natural Gas.
"It's got incredible efficiency," converting almost 60 percent of the
energy in natural gas into electricity, compared with the 35 percent
typical of conventional power plants. "It produces half the carbon dioxide
[of a conventional plant] and has no regulated emissions."

*****************ref 2*****************

(Arnt's "claims")

..my allegation: we can keep 15 billion people driving for 400 years.
No need for WWIII, Noch Eine Endloesung, Ebola, Festung Europa,
AIDS, nukes, or Festung Amerika. And I, I get _stinking_ rich.

****************ref 3*****************

(CAVM gets excited!)

From: CAVM@aol.com
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 21:04:15 EST
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas

In a message dated 1/12/2002 7:12:54 PM Central Standard Time,
gregandapril@earthlink.net writes:

Neal

****************ref 4***************

(From past posting -- convering C0 to H2)

Ok -- just typing the details -- as explained from the Alchemix site --
which is a graphic only -- no way to copy and paste.

Pure hydrogen (H2) is produced in a high temperature environment when water
(steam) is exposed to molten tin.

The oxygen in steam bonds with the tin to form tin oxide thus freeing the
hydrogen gas from the water molecule.

High temperature causes this reaction to occur very rapidly.

2(H20) + Sn = SnO2 + 2(H2)

The ability to reform tin from tin oxide is essential to the economic
production of hydrogen.

The transformation is achieved by sparging carbon monoxide (CO) through the
molten tin oxide. Since oxygen atoms are more strongly attracted to the CO
molecule than to the tin oxide molecule, the oxygen is stripped away from
the tin oxide transforming it back into pure tin.

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

From gregandapril at earthlink.net Sat Jan 12 18:21:11 2002
From: gregandapril at earthlink.net (Greg and April)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Reader's Digest version of possable syn gas use (was: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas)
In-Reply-To: <bd.1a330e72.2972451f@aol.com>
Message-ID: <003101c19be9$d5fb8380$fb520e3f@oemcomputer>

----- Original Message -----
From: <CAVM@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 19:04
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas

>
> Greg, If syn gas from coal, or whatever source, can be used in place of
> methanol, it would be a big hit in rural areas where we have ready access
to
> coal and other biomass. Can you give a Reader's Digest version of how
this
> might work?
>
> Neal
>

I can try, most of the info. I have, comes from a few books I have, that
are:
1) Turn of the century, (yes, originals) printed around 1900.
2) Reprints of turn of the century books.

Here goes nothing-

At the turn of the century ( late 1800's, early 1900's ), many/most cities
( the bigger the city, the more likely) had someone, the city, private
person(s), or a company would make syn gas. The place would make syn gas was
called the gas works, the gas plant, or something simular.

They would make syn gas in a number of different ways (to list all the
different gasifier designs would make this anything but the Readers Digest
version asked for). They would then would pipe it around like we do natural
gas, for lighting, heat, power engines to run looms, power hammers, or other
things the we use electricity for now. The gas plants had someone running
them 24/7.

This is where I get to the part that I have a problem with syn gas. Power
storage (perhaps someone else can help here). For home/farm use the best way
I can think of is:

1) Use syn gas to power a generator.
a) Then store the electricity in batteries, for your own use.
b) Sell the electricity to the power company by running the meter
backwards (net metering, I think it is called).
2) Automation of syn gas production. Then you could use syn gas like
natural gas (more or less).
3) Reforming syn gas to a high denisity fuel, like methanol.
4) Use the syn gas as it is being made to make Ethanol

To me, No. 3 look to be the best bet to at this time. I say this because
then you make it easy to store ( as compared to syn gas ) and you can also
use it for your car, fuel cell, chain saw, or what ever else you could use a
liquid fuel for.

If you want to avoid No. 3, No. 1 is probably your best bet.

No. 2 you are looking at putting out a lot of cash and/or time.

No. 4 has the problem of loseing efficency. You would be better off burning
the biomass right under the still.

Otherwise, you are left with starting a gasifier each time you needed power
or you need to set up an elaborate storage system (check out methane
digesters for ideas, they have the many of the same problems for storage),
and don't for get the possablity that things need to be adjusted just when
you need to be somewere else like asleep in a warm bed or running a still.

I hope this helps,
Greg H.

P.S. Thoughts and ideas about this piece are welcome.

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

From snkm at btl.net Sat Jan 12 18:23:02 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20020112222438.00934e80@wgs1.btl.net>

Just a little regarding Fuel cell technology -- kind of a Readers digest
version.

Get the big picture at:

http://www.benwiens.com/energy4.html

A very complete explaination of tham any various fuel cell configurations.

Following are short blurbs on just two types.

The "Solid Oxide Fuel Cell" which can use synthesis gas directly -- both
the H2 and the CO

The "DIRECT ALCOHOL FUEL CELL" -- which uses alcohols -- directly.

There are numerous other versions -- efficiencies are quite variable.

Peter Singfield / Belize

The Solid Oxide Fuel Cell is considered to be the most desirable fuel
cell for generating electricity from hydrocarbon fuels. This is because it
is simple, highly efficient, tolerant to impurities, and can at least
partially internally reform hydrocarbon fuels.
The SOFC runs at a red-hot temperature of 700-1000°C. Westinghouse has
worked at developing a tubular style of SOFC for many years which operates
at 1000°C. These long tubes have high electrical resistance but are simple
to seal. Many companies such as Global Thermoelectric are now working on a
planar SOFC composed of thin ceramic sheets which operate at 800°C or even
less. Thin sheets have low electrical resistance and possible high
efficiencies. Cheaper materials can be used at these lower temperatures.
Experts previously predicted that the SOFC was a long way to becoming
commercial reality. Many now believe that these lower temperatures may lead
to a quicker solution to these problems.
One of the big advantages of the SOFC over the MCFC is that the
electrolyte is a solid. This means that no pumps are required to circulate
hot electrolyte. Small planar SOFC of 1 kw could be constructed with very
thin sheets and result in a very compact package.
A big advantage of the SOFC is that both hydrogen and carbon monoxide
are used in the cell [3]. In the PEFC the carbon monoxide is a poison,
while in the SOFC it is a fuel. This means that the SOFC can readily and
safely use many common hydrocarbons fuels such as natural gas, diesel,
gasoline, alcohol and coal gas. In the PEFC an external reformer is
required to produce hydrogen gas while the SOFC can reform these fuels into
hydrogen and carbon monoxide inside the cell. This results in some of the
high temperature waste thermal-energy being recycled back into the fuel.
Because the chemical reactions in the SOFC are good at the high
operating temperatures, air compression is not required. Especially on
smaller systems this results in a simpler system, quiet operation and high
efficiencies. Exotic catalysts are not required either.
Many fuel cells such as the PEFC require an expensive liquid cooling
system but the SOFC requires none. In fact insulation must be used to
maintain the cell temperature on small systems. The cell is cooled
internally by the reforming action of the fuel and by the cool outside air
that is drawn into the fuel cell.
Because the SOFC does not produce any power below 650°C, a few minutes
of fuel burning is required to reach operating temperature. While the SOFC
is also being proposed as an automotive powerplant, this time delay is
considered to be a disadvantage. Because electric powerplants run
continuously, this time delay is not a problem. Still you may be interested
to know that the manager for bus development at Ballard, who develop PEFC,
is now working for Global, who develop SOFC. The SOFC may well be suited to
at least certain vehicles which run more continuously.
Because of the high temperatures of the SOFC, they may not be practical
for sizes much below 1,000 watts or when small to midsize portable
applications are involved.
Small SOFC will be about 50% efficient [4] from about 15%-100% power.
To achieve even greater efficiency, medium sized and larger SOFC are
generally combined with gas turbines. The fuel cells are pressurized and
the gas turbine produces electricity from the extra waste thermal-energy
produced by the fuel cell. The resulting efficiency of the medium SOFC
could be 60% and large one's up to 70%.
A SOFC suitable for producing 1-30 kW and using natural gas as it's
fuel is shown in Fig 5. On the anode side, natural gas is first ejected
into a reforming chamber where it draws waste thermal-energy from the stack
and is converted into hydrogen and carbon monoxide. It then flows into the
anode manifold where most of the hydrogen and carbon monoxide is oxidized
into water and carbon dioxide. This gas stream is then partly recycled to
the reforming chamber where the water is used in the reforming chamber. On
the cathode side, air is first blown into a heat exchanger where it reaches
nearly operating temperature. The air is brought up to the operating
temperature of 800°C by combustion of the remaining hydrogen and carbon
monoxide gas from the anode. The oxygen in the cathode manifold is
converted into an oxygen ion which travels back to the anode.

9. DIRECT ALCOHOL FUEL CELL (DAFC)
Several companies around the world are presently working on DAFC. Even
in 1999 there has been a marked shift away from developing the PEFC in
favor of the DAFC [5]. ]. In this type of fuel cell, either methyl DMFC or
ethyl DEFC alcohol is not reformed into hydrogen gas but is used directly
in a very simple type of fuel cell. Its operating temperature of 50-100°C
is low and so is ideal for tiny to midsize applications. It's electrolyte
is a polymer or a liquid alkaline. This type of fuel cell was largely
overlooked in the early 1990s because its efficiency was below 25%. Most
companies rather pursued the PEFC because of its higher efficiency and
power density. There has been tremendous progress made in the last 6 years.
Efficiencies of the DMFC are much higher and predicted efficiencies in the
future may be as high as 40% [6] for a DC automobile powerplant. Power
densities are over 20 times as high now as in the early 1990s. It is
expected that the DMFC will be more efficient than the PEFC for automobiles
that use methanol as fuel. Presently the power density of the DEFC is only
50% of the DMFC but hopefully this can be improved in the future.
Fuel crossing over from the anode to the cathode without producing
electricity is one problem that has restricted this technology from its
inception. One company, Energy Ventures Inc claimed in Dec1999 that it has
completely solved this cross-over problem. Another problem however is that
there are often chemical compounds formed during operation that poison the
catalyst.
There are already working DMFC prototypes used by the military for
powering electronic equipment in the field.

Fig 6 A small simple 30 kw Direct Methanol Fuel Cell

Figure 6 illustrates a type of DMFC that could be used in a 30 kw
system. Even smaller ones for use as battery replacements do away with the
air blower and the separate methanol water tank and pump. Such fuel cells
are not much different than batteries in construction.
Recently there has been much concern about the poisonous aspects of
methanol--methyl alcohol. As of 2001 methanol is "out" and ethanol is "in".
Already several companies are now working on DEFC. Presently the power
density is only 50% of the DMFC but hopefully this can be improved.

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

From tmiles at trmiles.com Sat Jan 12 20:02:34 2002
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Replies to list
In-Reply-To: <001c01c19bd5$89fbbb80$49540e3f@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <014601c19bf8$25e67720$6fb2a5d2@trmhp>

We configure the list to force members to check
whom they are addressing messages. That way we avoid creating
other problems. If we set the list to automatically address a reply to
the list and someone has an automatic reply feacture enabled then it
starts an endless loop of messages.

Regards,

Tom

Thomas R MilesTR Miles, Technical Consultants<A
href="mailto:tmiles@trmiles.com">tmiles@trmiles.com503-292-0107
<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=gregandapril@earthlink.net
href="mailto:gregandapril@earthlink.net">Greg and April
To: <A title=gasification@crest.org
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">Gasification
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 5:56
PM
Subject: GAS-L: Replies to list

We have been talking about quote style with the
"..swinging the 9-tailed on message quote style" subject, I been wondering why
when I go to reply to the list, it sends the reply to the person who sent
the message instead of to the list. All the other list that I'm on the reply
goes to the list, not the person that sent it to the list. Is this a list
thing, or a software thing.

From gregandapril at earthlink.net Sat Jan 12 21:20:53 2002
From: gregandapril at earthlink.net (Greg and April)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Replies to list
In-Reply-To: <001c01c19bd5$89fbbb80$49540e3f@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <000d01c19c02$f0837820$47520e3f@oemcomputer>

Odd, I've never seen anything like a endless message loop on any other list,
has this been a problem on this list?

Greg H.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Miles" <>
To: "Greg and April" <>
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 22:59
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Replies to list

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

From hseaver at cybershamanix.com Sun Jan 13 04:48:15 2002
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Replies to list
In-Reply-To: <001c01c19bd5$89fbbb80$49540e3f@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <3C419E84.B9E10005@cybershamanix.com>

I've seen it happen any number of times on other lists -- those
auto-reply bots seem to often go crazy when dealing with email lists and
send a reply to every message from the list, including replying to their
own replies.

Greg and April wrote:
>
> Odd, I've never seen anything like a endless message loop on any other list,
> has this been a problem on this list?
>
> Greg H.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Miles" <>
> To: "Greg and April" <>
> Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 22:59
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Replies to list
>
> We configure the list to force members to check whom they are addressing
> messages. That way we avoid creating other problems. If we set the list to
> automatically address a reply to the list and someone has an automatic reply
> feacture enabled then it starts an endless loop of messages.
>

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

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

From gregandapril at earthlink.net Sun Jan 13 07:55:17 2002
From: gregandapril at earthlink.net (Greg and April)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Replies to list
In-Reply-To: <001c01c19bd5$89fbbb80$49540e3f@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <000f01c19c5b$8ec64500$a8510e3f@oemcomputer>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@cybershamanix.com>
To: "Gasification" <>
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 07:49
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Replies to list

> I've seen it happen any number of times on other lists -- those
> auto-reply bots seem to often go crazy when dealing with email lists and
> send a reply to every message from the list, including replying to their
> own replies.
>
>
>
Weird, I go to look into how they manage it on other list.

Greg H.

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

From mark at ludlow.com Sun Jan 13 09:59:24 2002
From: mark at ludlow.com (Mark E. Ludlow)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ..swinging the 9-tailed on message quote style
Message-ID: <MNEAKGJGHKFJKJPBPKPOMEAGMFAB.mark@ludlow.com>

Possibly this topic has been, "flogged to death".

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

From arnt at c2i.net Sun Jan 13 15:36:00 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020112215901.00936510@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <200201140228.40260@arnt.c2i.net>

On Sunday 13 January 2002 04:59, Peter Singfield wrote:

<..snipped raw material for the e-mail set-up guide. ;-) >

> On to the next part to this reply:
> >..nope. You loop-fire the syngas in the fuel cell to make
> > electricity and store that in the flywheels. If you want an
> > otto-engine fuel, make MBTE, or diesel oil for diesel engines, and
> > lose 2/3-3/4 of the energy.
>
> OK -- now i see it is from Arnt (recognize his writing style) -- and
> also -- notice his signature below.
>
> Arnt -- we covered this in depth a short while back -- at least I
> posted "in-depth" regarding this technology a short while back.
>
> All planned fuel cell cars work on the basis of converting a "fuel"
> to synthesis gas on board the car -- as part of the "drive" package.
>
> The question here is what fuel to start with -- to gasify into
> synthesis gas.
>
> Some say "methanol"
>
> Some say "synthetic diesel"
>
> Some say "ethanol"
>
> Some say "gasoline"
>
> Some say "compressed natural gas"

..and I say "coal and MSW". ;-)

> I suggested that using high pressure -- super critical water -- for
> specialized "steam-reforming" the base fuel could be biomass.
>
> I used the example of the super critical water reactor doing exactly
> that with high moisture bagasse in a Hawaii research project.
>
> Why?? Because it can be done so compactly!!

...and _less_ efficiently. Engineering is compromizing, you can have
the fuel cells cheaply, compactly, efficiently, and, eventually. The
Otto engine took 120 years to perfect to todays standards.

..compare auto engine efficiencies with big heavy irons like the
Wartsila's, or, mmmmm, the Cat's. ;-)

> Knowing you -- probably got a design for a biomass combustion style
> gasifier that can be fitted where present car's catalytic converters

.. ;-)

> go (which is how they are now doing it) to produce the "given"
> requirement of 50 kw power that has been agreed on as required for
> prime motivation of a passenger car.
>
> And not some monster combustion gasifier that you must tow on trailer
> behind the vehicle -- that feeds synthesis gas to your fuel cell by
> pipe line!

...or monster fuel cell trailer? Leave both where they belong,
and plug in your future battery of flywheels, and peel off in 5 minutes.
The flywheels replace all the chemical batteries, which cannot supply
peel-off juice.

> A "stationary" power plant is another deal all together different.

..mmmmmm. ;-)

> I realize you are suggesting "service" stations using prime movers
> powered by fuel cells to charge flywheels to operate passenger
> vehicles.

..close, today's gas stations would charge the tomorrow's flywheels
instead of pumping today's gasoline. Also possible to do this thru
induction in your garage and/or parking lot. :-)

> I would be interested in knowing how far you could go -- at the
> "given" power of 50 kw -- between "wind-ups"??

..Jack Bitterly suggests around 500 miles, in a standard size auto.
Which matches the current gasoline fired auto. The peeling power is a
side effect of the set of flywheels being able to receive (and deliver)
the energy charge in said time.

..the set of flywheels plus motors, cables and controls should weigh in
about the same as the systems they replace. Bitterly's carbon
flywheels are paired and hung in electromagnetic bearings inside steel?
vacuum boxes, on charging, they are spun up to ca 120 000 rpm's.
Each pair of wheels can receive and deliver 25 kWe and store 37.5 kWh,
last time I checked.
A flywheel pair box is about 50 kgs and some 500x500x250 mm, afair.
A typical auto setup would be 12-20 sets of flywheels, and an hub motor
for each (road) wheel.

..at 25-35% efficiency, the gasoline and diesel engines _are_ obsolete.

> Also -- when you state efficiencies of synthesis gas in powering fuel
> cells.
>
> Where goes the CO???

..into the fuel cell.

> Mind you -- I also published to this list a while back a most
> interesting concept of transforming C0 to H2 using a liquid tin bath.
> And suggested that would solve the efficiency losses involved with
> using synthesis gas to run a fuel cell.
>
> Or am I missing something here -- and CO propels a fuel cell??

...along with the H². Methanol etc needs heating, to break up
into 2 H² and CO, _before_ combustion can take place.
We skip that stage, instead we feed the syngas into the fuel cell,
saving that break-up heat for the gasifier, to make more syngas.

> In power values -- what percentage of synthesis gas is H2 and what
> percentage is CO -- and how do you get 90% efficiencies??

..looping around 3.5 times. The gasifier feeds the fuel cell hot
syngas, the fuel cell feeds the gasifier, heat and CO² and H²O.
The fuel cells needs to yield at least 70% efficiency, to produce 90%
in a loop with a "93%" gasifier. Also some hi temp up and down heat
exhanging involved.

> I believe Tom Reed posted that information in the past.
>
> Plus -- just what are you doing with the large amount of partial
> combustion heat that is produced with your gasifier which is zilch to

..(p)reheating the gasifier thru the the fuel cell. ;-)

> increasing fuel cell output?? Attaching and ORC device?? Heating the
> "service" station and counting it also as "power" for your over all
> efficiencies???
>
> Time to put meat to those claims Arnt --- check out the appended --
> about how at least some people are being realistic in this same
> approach -- note the efficiency figures -- and tell me why you can do
> so much better using synthesis gas from coal gasification -- and get
> "CAVM" so excited!!

..simply put, the gasifier + fuel cell loop uses fuel cell heat to yank
out all coal energy as syngas, and then the produced hot syngas to make
electricity and heat. Since we don't get 90% conversion the first time
around, we try again, and again, and again. ;-)

..also, we dont waste heat converting, say, methanol, into syngas.

..and, why drop discussing dropping propeller mills into
the Florida Strait?
The warm what, 50 sq nm Gulf Stream moves at, what 3 knots? ;-)

> ****************refs 1************
>
> (Blurb from past postings on this subject -- re: heat recovery from
> fuel cells)
>
> What is notable is the way it generates power. Rather than burning
> fuel to turn a generator, it electrochemically converts natural gas

...or syngas and _more_ heat... ;-)

> directly into electrical current. It then uses heat produced by this
> process to run a turbine, generating even more electricity. The
> result is a system of unprecedented efficiency that produces little
> in the way of pollution.
>
> Siemens Westinghouse calls it a solid oxide fuel cell/gas turbine
> hybrid. Mark Williams of the National Energy Technology Laboratory
> calls it "remarkable."
>
> "As far as I know, there's no device that can match it," said
> Williams, who heads fuel cell development at the lab's Strategic
> Center for Natural Gas. "It's got incredible efficiency," converting
> almost 60 percent of the energy in natural gas into electricity,

...10 to 20 to 30 more %'s to go... ;-)

> compared with the 35 percent typical of conventional power plants.
> "It produces half the carbon dioxide [of a conventional plant] and
> has no regulated emissions."
>
> *****************ref 2*****************
>
> (Arnt's "claims")
>
> ..diverting todays coal thru a gasifier + fuel cell loop process,
> will top out at 93% efficiency without extra heat supply. Jack
> Bitterly's flywheels are now in use for spacecraft attitude control
> and has a 96% charge cycle efficiency, afaik. Search for '"Jack
> Bitterly" + american + flywheel'.
>
> ..my allegation: we can keep 15 billion people driving for 400 years.
> No need for WWIII, Noch Eine Endloesung, Ebola, Festung Europa,
> AIDS, nukes, or Festung Amerika. And I, I get _stinking_ rich.
>
> ****************ref 3*****************
>
> (CAVM gets excited!)
>
> From: CAVM@aol.com
> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 21:04:15 EST
> To: gasification@crest.org
> Subject: Re: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
>
> In a message dated 1/12/2002 7:12:54 PM Central Standard Time,
> gregandapril@earthlink.net writes:
>
> << > ..actually, I prefer syngas here. Which we can make cheaper
> than
>
> > methanol. ;-)
>
> That is probably true, and easier to make as well, but, I don't see
> a simple way of storing syngas for future use, I don't think that
> syngas has the energy density for real storage efficeny, does it?

..we store energy in the flywheels. ;-)

> Gr >>
>
> Greg, If syn gas from coal, or whatever source, can be used in place
> of methanol, it would be a big hit in rural areas where we have ready
> access to coal and other biomass. Can you give a Reader's Digest
> version of how this might work? the fuel cell

..Neal, you ask Greg to explain what I propose???
Greg, if you _do_ understand what I propose,
by all means keep going. ;-)

> Neal
>
> ****************ref 4***************
>
> (From past posting -- convering C0 to H2)
>
> Ok -- just typing the details -- as explained from the Alchemix site
> -- which is a graphic only -- no way to copy and paste.

..url?

> Pure hydrogen (H2) is produced in a high temperature environment when
> water (steam) is exposed to molten tin.

..fuel cell loop gasification does it in the good old carbon bed. ;-)

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with kind regards from Arnt...
...now named the Gasification List's Mr Cat of nine tails. ;-)
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/

From arnt at c2i.net Sun Jan 13 15:37:07 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ..raw material for the e-mail set-up guide. ;-)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020112215901.00936510@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <200201132130.53994@arnt.c2i.net>

On Sunday 13 January 2002 04:59, Peter Singfield wrote:
> >At 03:44 AM 1/13/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>
> Mr. Cat of nine tails -- notice the "you" in the "you wrote:" above.

..<...steamrolling more salt into the perpetrators skinned rear...>
Mmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaoooooow? ;-)

> >On Sunday 13 January 2002 02:10, Greg and April wrote:
>
> Now -- notice how it is supposed to be done -- as in the example
> above.

..<...blushing...>....mmmmmm.... ;-) Further tweaks would include
timezone ID such as "CET" or "UTC +0100" and, possibly a clickable
message ID such as <200201130340.24386@arnt.c2i.net>. ;-)

> I am guessing -- but think this message is from Arnt?? But hard to
> tell when "you" only is in the field.

..<...purring...>....mmmmmm. ;-) In my KMail client, I set both
the "Reply to sender" and the "Reply to all" phrase strings,
to "On %D, %F wrote: ". "%D" returns weekDay, Date, month,
year, hour and minute, and "%F" returns "From who's name". ;-)

> Where is that cat of nine tails when one really needs it??
>
> (All about throwing stones when living in glass house)

..<...purring...>....mmmmmm. ;-)

..thank you, Peter.
_Excellent_ raw material for the e-mail set-up guide. ;-)

> On to the next part to this reply:
> >..nope.

...in its proper thread. ;-)

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

From CAVM at aol.com Sun Jan 13 15:48:55 2002
From: CAVM at aol.com (CAVM@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
Message-ID: <82.15f670a5.29739379@aol.com>

That last one was waaaay too long with too many referrals to old posts. I
guess you engineering guys are related to the folks who wrote the tax code.
:-)

So, what we have here is a suggestion that syngas be made from coal and run
through a fuel cell to produce electricity to be stored by flywheels.

OK, the coal syngas idea was real big in Kentucky in the early 70's but
folded without a whimper for some reason with not even one plant being built
here. I got the idea that the amount of electrical energy needed to obtain
the gas made it prohibitive. Can syngas from coal be economically obtained
now? If it is a reforming via heat can we use coal or other biomass for the
heat instead of electrical energy?

The fuel cells are only just now coming out into the real world. They are
incomplete, expensive and not widely available.

The flywheel idea is just a table top model or maybe only on paper. I read
the article about it that was cited and it seems that it may one day be a
great invention but today it is theory.

Back to the coal syngas. Can it be made economically today? Can it be done
on less than a gargantuan scale?

Neal

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

From arnt at c2i.net Sun Jan 13 16:05:23 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ..swinging the 9-tailed on message quote style
In-Reply-To: <MNEAKGJGHKFJKJPBPKPOMEAGMFAB.mark@ludlow.com>
Message-ID: <200201140250.38306@arnt.c2i.net>

On Sunday 13 January 2002 21:02, Mark E. Ludlow wrote:
> Possibly this topic has been, "flogged to death".

.._very_ possible. So I drop the guide too?
--
..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/

From hseaver at cybershamanix.com Sun Jan 13 16:35:27 2002
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
In-Reply-To: <82.15f670a5.29739379@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3C424446.879B3DDE@cybershamanix.com>

CAVM@aol.com wrote:

> The flywheel idea is just a table top model or maybe only on paper. I read
> the article about it that was cited and it seems that it may one day be a
> great invention but today it is theory.

Ahh, no, the flywheel is not just an idea, or vaporware. It's in
production, you can buy them now. Just one company is:

http://www.beaconpower.com/products/products.htm

But try doing a google on flywheel + storage, you'll find many more.

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

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

From arnt at c2i.net Sun Jan 13 16:49:23 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
In-Reply-To: <82.15f670a5.29739379@aol.com>
Message-ID: <200201140317.25331@arnt.c2i.net>

On Monday 14 January 2002 02:50, CAVM@aol.com wrote:

> So, what we have here is a suggestion that syngas be made from coal
> and run through a fuel cell to produce electricity to be stored by
> flywheels.

..yes, and no, the _looping_ is essential.

> OK, the coal syngas idea was real big in Kentucky in the early 70's
> but folded without a whimper for some reason with not even one plant
> being built here. I got the idea that the amount of electrical
> energy needed to obtain the gas made it prohibitive. Can syngas from
> coal be economically obtained now? If it is a reforming via heat can

..yes, no.

> we use coal or other biomass for the heat instead of electrical
> energy?

..yes, yes. Picture that 70'ies electricity as replaced by fuel cell
exhaust heat.

> The fuel cells are only just now coming out into the real world.
> They are incomplete, expensive and not widely available.

...and needs to be _big_, and run _hot_.
Only viable type now, is the Solid Oxide.

> The flywheel idea is just a table top model or maybe only on paper.
> I read the article about it that was cited and it seems that it may
> one day be a great invention but today it is theory.

..last I heard, is one or a few satellites use them for attitude
control. Much more profitable than automotive use. Which can be
funded by the former.

> Back to the coal syngas. Can it be made economically today? Can it
> be done on less than a gargantuan scale?

..yes, yes. Like with diesels, you trade compactness for efficiency.
An auto can carry all and get 90% efficiency. In 150 years.
Leaving the coal and gasifier and fuel cell loop behind, 10-15 years.

--
..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/

From snkm at btl.net Sun Jan 13 17:29:29 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:52 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20020113212911.00928390@wgs1.btl.net>

At 08:37 PM 1/13/2002 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>CAVM@aol.com wrote:
>
>> The flywheel idea is just a table top model or maybe only on paper. I read
>> the article about it that was cited and it seems that it may one day be a
>> great invention but today it is theory.
>
>
> Ahh, no, the flywheel is not just an idea, or vaporware. It's in
>production, you can buy them now. Just one company is:
>
>http://www.beaconpower.com/products/products.htm
>
> But try doing a google on flywheel + storage, you'll find many more.
>
>
>
>--
>Harmon Seaver
>CyberShamanix
>http://www.cybershamanix.com

Harmon -- this hardly meets the claims that Arnt is "promoting" -- read on --

Peter / Belize

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

20C1000 Series Cable / Telecom Flywheel System
Beacon Power Corporation
234 Ballardvale Street Wilmington, MA 01887

Description
The Flywheel Energy Storage System (FESS) will provide standby power for
telecommunication and cable TV networks. The FESS consists of a flywheel
module and electronics module, and is designed to act as an energy
reservoir to provide a stable supply of power, either when utility power
lines are interrupted, or when voltage level falls below acceptable levels.

Output Power
1.0 kW maximum of continuous electrical power

Hold up Time
4 hours at 500W
(>4 hours for continuous electrical power < 500W)

Output Energy—Usable
2 kWHr

Output Voltage
36, 48, or 96 VDC nominal

Input Voltage
120/240 VAC, 50/60 Hz

Input Power
4 kW max

Discharge Mode
Automatic upon loss of utility power

Recharge Mode
Automatic switch back to recharge

Charge Time
Less than 3 hours from full stop

Recharge Time
2 hours or less recharge to full capacity

Dynamic Response
33 VDC to 42 VDC (36V); 44 VDC to 56 VDC (48V); 88 VDC to 112 VDC (96V)

Recharge Input Power
2.5 kW Maximum

Size—Flywheel Module
36" high x 27" diameter

Size—Electronics Module
32" high x 18" wide x 12" deep

Weight—Flywheel Module
850 lbs

Weight—Electronics Module
200 lbs

MTBF
100,000 Hours

Design Life
20 years (maintenance free)

Operating Ambient Temperature
-40ºF (-40ºC) to 150ºF (65ºC)

Acoustical Noise
< 55 dBA at 6 ft. (when installed in the ground)

Environmentally Induced Vibration
Meets Bellcore specification TA-NWT-000487, Section 4.19

Earthquake
Meets Bellcore specification GR-63-CORE, Section 4.4.1, Zones 1&2

Immersion
Flywheel module is capable of full immersion

Internal System Protection
The FESS has an internal safety system protection which will shut-down the
unit if one of the following parameters exceeds predetermined limits:

Speed
Vibration
Power in Float Mode
Output Voltage
Motor Temperature
Bearing Temperature
Electronics Temperature

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

From arnt at c2i.net Mon Jan 14 03:57:05 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020113212911.00928390@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <200201141233.48349@arnt.c2i.net>

On Monday 14 January 2002 04:31, Peter Singfield wrote:
> At 08:37 PM 1/13/2002 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> >CAVM@aol.com wrote:
> >> The flywheel idea is just a table top model or maybe only on
> >> paper. I read the article about it that was cited and it seems
> >> that it may one day be a great invention but today it is theory.
> >
> > Ahh, no, the flywheel is not just an idea, or vaporware. It's in
> >production, you can buy them now. Just one company is:
> >
> >http://www.beaconpower.com/products/products.htm
> >
> > But try doing a google on flywheel + storage, you'll find many
> > more.
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Harmon Seaver
> >CyberShamanix
> >http://www.cybershamanix.com
>
> Harmon -- this hardly meets the claims that Arnt is "promoting" --

..if you refer to Harmons ".signature", the norm says 4 sig lines, he
uses 3. Moderation is always nice.
And you don't _have_ to click his link.
The ".signature" _should_ advice "on who's behalf, says who (what)".
Here, Harmon speaks on behalf of his own business corporation.
For his own personal private opinions, he would leave out
"CyberShamanix" and link to his own personal pages, at, say
"http://www.cybershamanix.com/public/opinions/harmon/", using 2 lines,
and maybe 2 more lines for an optional comment aka a "fortune". ;-)

> read on --
>
> Peter / Belize
>
> **************appended****************

> Acoustical Noise
> < 55 dBA at 6 ft. (when installed in the ground)

..for magnetic bearings??? In a vacuum box???

> Internal System Protection

> Bearing Temperature

..magnetic bearings winding temperature?

..the cited data suggest a development stage similar to Renoir's gas
engine, it sold too, back in the pre-Otto days.

..remember, to get funding and get going, the best selling item is book
numbers moved out of the red. Renoir did that. Until Otto and Diesel
beat him. Beacon Power and Bitterly try. I failed. And you guys?

--
..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/

From dglickd at pipeline.com Mon Jan 14 04:06:37 2002
From: dglickd at pipeline.com (Dick Glick)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020113212911.00928390@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <001801c19d04$f6b8f0f0$0100a8c0@cframcomp>

Hello All -- Here are two more 'flywheel' manufacturers --
with some interesting applications in place. Dick

http://www.urenco.com/flycylinder/index.htm

<A
href="http://www.activepower.com/products/products_480vacsystems.html">http://www.activepower.com/products/products_480vacsystems.html

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <<A
href="mailto:snkm@btl.net">snkm@btl.net>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural
gas
At 08:37 PM 1/13/2002 -0600,
Harmon Seaver wrote:>CAVM@aol.com wrote:>>> The flywheel
idea is just a table top model or maybe only on paper. I read>>
the article about it that was cited and it seems that it may one day be
a>> great invention but today it is theory.>>>
Ahh, no, the flywheel is not just an idea, or vaporware. It's
in>production, you can buy them now. Just one company
is:>>http://www.beaconpower.com/products/products.htm>>
But try doing a google on flywheel + storage, you'll find many
more.>

From snkm at btl.net Mon Jan 14 07:32:08 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20020114113339.0092c100@wgs1.btl.net>

At 03:04 PM 1/14/2002 +0100, you wrote:

You has to refer to "Arnt"???

>..remember, to get funding and get going, the best selling item is book
>numbers moved out of the red. Renoir did that. Until Otto and Diesel
>beat him. Beacon Power and Bitterly try. I failed. And you guys?

Try this on for size when bashing the diesels --

"Volkswagen has a prototype compact 4 seater Diesel cycle automobile that
gets 100 mpg or 35 km/liter. This would be roughly 570 liters/year for
average drivers. In Canada this would result in $285/yr in fuel costs. At
present fuel costs, buying a car with incredible efficiency is not an issue
yet in North America."

Peter / Belize

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

From gregandapril at earthlink.net Mon Jan 14 07:53:20 2002
From: gregandapril at earthlink.net (Greg and April)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020114113339.0092c100@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <006f01c19d24$7289c6e0$814f0e3f@oemcomputer>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 10:34
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas

>
> "Volkswagen has a prototype compact 4 seater Diesel cycle automobile that
> gets 100 mpg or 35 km/liter. This would be roughly 570 liters/year for
> average drivers. In Canada this would result in $285/yr in fuel costs. At
> present fuel costs, buying a car with incredible efficiency is not an
issue
> yet in North America."
>
>
Bring it on, I'm ready.

Greg H.

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

From snkm at btl.net Mon Jan 14 09:15:34 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20020114131701.0092fe80@wgs1.btl.net>

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Peter Singfield" <>
>Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 10:34
>Subject: Re: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
>
>
>>
>> "Volkswagen has a prototype compact 4 seater Diesel cycle automobile that
>> gets 100 mpg or 35 km/liter. This would be roughly 570 liters/year for
>> average drivers. In Canada this would result in $285/yr in fuel costs. At
>> present fuel costs, buying a car with incredible efficiency is not an
>issue
>> yet in North America."
>>
>>
>Bring it on, I'm ready.
>
>Greg H.
>

Hi Greg;

You liked that one eh??

Here is another (appended).

These Chines Hybrid electric buses will get from 30 to 100 or more miles
per gallon of diesel -- depending how far apart the windmill-farm charging
stations are.

And carrying 40 and more people!

The modern countries have so far to go before they practice what they preach.

Peter / Belize

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

Hybrid electric bus

Commodity: Hybrid electric bus
Price: USD90700.00/pc China main port
Payment: by bank transfer
Specification:
Dimension (L*W*H): 9757*2480*3120mm
Gross weight: 9420kg
Seat capacity: 40
Max. Speed: 90km/h
Hill climbing ability (tan 0): 0.25
Range: 140 (400, floating charge) km
Turning Radius: 9.5m
Engine generator: 7.5kw
Motor: 120AC kW
Controller: IGBT vector
Battery: VRLA
Voltage: 288V
Charger: CC/CV

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

From gregandapril at earthlink.net Mon Jan 14 09:31:39 2002
From: gregandapril at earthlink.net (Greg and April)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020114131701.0092fe80@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <003501c19d32$2d5734a0$97510e3f@oemcomputer>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 12:17
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas

>
> Hi Greg;
>
> You liked that one eh??
>
> Here is another (appended).
>
> These Chines Hybrid electric buses will get from 30 to 100 or more miles
> per gallon of diesel -- depending how far apart the windmill-farm charging
> stations are.
>
> And carrying 40 and more people!
>
> The modern countries have so far to go before they practice what they
preach.
>
> Peter / Belize
>
>
The big thing is, I sick and tired of the gas price jumping $0.25 to $0.35
a gal. over night, for no known reason, then taking 2-3 weeks to slowly come
back down. This happens quite often round here. It isn't just one or two
stations, it's 95% of them in just a couple of hours.

Greg H.

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

From arnt at c2i.net Mon Jan 14 10:33:18 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020114131701.0092fe80@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <200201142127.08433@arnt.c2i.net>

On Monday 14 January 2002 20:17, Peter Singfield wrote:

> *******************appended*************
>
> Hybrid electric bus
>
> Commodity: Hybrid electric bus
> Price: USD90700.00/pc China main port
> Payment: by bank transfer
> Specification:
> Dimension (L*W*H): 9757*2480*3120mm
> Gross weight: 9420kg
> Seat capacity: 40
> Max. Speed: 90km/h
> Hill climbing ability (tan 0): 0.25
> Range: 140 (400, floating charge) km
> Turning Radius: 9.5m
> Engine generator: 7.5kw
> Motor: 120AC kW
> Controller: IGBT vector
> Battery: VRLA
> Voltage: 288V
> Charger: CC/CV

..link?

--
..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/

From snkm at btl.net Mon Jan 14 12:50:03 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20020114165120.00936210@wgs1.btl.net>

At 09:41 PM 1/14/2002 +0100, you wrote:

>..link?

No "link" -- direct quote from supplier in China to me personally here in
Belize.

Was getting some quotes on nice boat -- saw the listings for bus -- so
asked for that as well.

Peter / Belize

>On Monday 14 January 2002 20:17, Peter Singfield wrote:
>
>> *******************appended*************
>>
>> Hybrid electric bus
>>
>> Commodity: Hybrid electric bus
>> Price: USD90700.00/pc China main port
>> Payment: by bank transfer
>> Specification:
>> Dimension (L*W*H): 9757*2480*3120mm
>> Gross weight: 9420kg
>> Seat capacity: 40
>> Max. Speed: 90km/h
>> Hill climbing ability (tan 0): 0.25
>> Range: 140 (400, floating charge) km
>> Turning Radius: 9.5m
>> Engine generator: 7.5kw
>> Motor: 120AC kW
>> Controller: IGBT vector
>> Battery: VRLA
>> Voltage: 288V
>> Charger: CC/CV
>
>..link?
>
>--
>..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/
>
>

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

From joacim at ymex.net Tue Jan 15 14:24:52 2002
From: joacim at ymex.net (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
In-Reply-To: <200201140228.40260@arnt.c2i.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10201151310380.663-100000@localhost>

On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Arnt Karlsen wrote:

...
> ..at 25-35% efficiency, the gasoline and diesel engines _are_ obsolete.

Ehum. Not comparable. A flywheel is a storage of (close to?) 100% pure work.
Ottos and diesels are heat motors. Heat is never 100% work, you know. ;)

Beats a chemical battery though?

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

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Sun Jan 20 15:38:20 2002
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Producer gas instead of syn-gas for power and transport
Message-ID: <160.76aa9a7.297ccb3e@cs.com>

Nice try and it is important to study history. However, it is also important to study chemistry, so here are some caveats:

1) Synthesis gas is a mixture of CO and H2 ONLY. Methane is a pain and nitrogen is death.

2) The towngas that was ubiquitous in 1930 was made with air, so contained substantial nitrogen. Won't work for synthesis gas.

However, during WW II > a million vehicles ran on tiny towngas producers fitted to their cars. Today we can

1) Make power the same way but easier with modern technology

2) With pellets and "tar-free gasifiers" even use it conveniently for transport - with modern technology.

~~~
We have demonstrated the power generation capability in the Philippines and California at CPC (See www.gocpc.com).

The BEF is now ready to demonstrate a MODERN (tarfree, turnkey, closed loop) gasifier for transport when someone comes up with the will and the money.

Yours truly, TOM REED THE BEF GASWORKS

In a message dated 1/12/02 9:23:18 PM Mountain Standard Time, gregandapril@earthlink.net writes:

> Greg, If syn gas from coal, or whatever source, can be used in place of
> methanol, it would be a big hit in rural areas where we have ready access
to
> coal and other biomass. Can you give a Reader's Digest version of how
this
> might work?
>
> Neal
>

I can try, most of the info. I have, comes from a few books I have, that
are:
1) Turn of the century, (yes, originals) printed around 1900.
2) Reprints of turn of the century books.

Here goes nothing-

This is where I get to the part that I have a problem with syn gas. Power
storage (perhaps someone else can help here). For home/farm use the best way
I can think of is:

If you want to avoid No. 3, No. 1 is probably your best bet.

No. 2 you are looking at putting out a lot of cash and/or time.

No. 4 has the problem of loseing efficency. You would be better off burning
the biomass right under the still.

I hope this helps,
Greg H.

P.S. Thoughts and ideas about this piece are welcome.

From Carefreeland at aol.com Tue Jan 22 06:29:01 2002
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:53 2004
Subject: Fwd: Trade names, patents
Message-ID: <25.21bc53ed.297ebc1d@aol.com>

To: crispin@newdawn.sz, stoves@crest.org, wastewatts@yahoogroups.com,gasification@crest.org
Subject: Re: Trade names, patents
From: Carefreeland@aol.com
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 19:39:56 EST
Full-name: Carefreeland
In a message dated 1/21/02 4:28:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, crispin@newdawn.sz writes:
>> = Daniels response to stoves conversation

Daniel asks:
>What does the system in place reward these brave souls with?

>> This would be the brave, tireless, inventors, on who's ideas and time, the civilized world and future completely depends.

Not much, really. We little people have to develop a 'shareware' method of
cooperation: use my invention and if you like it, gimme $10

>> I rest my case Crispin. ;-) So we "poor little guys" must not only buy unregistered, untraceable, AK-47's with scopes for our own patent protection, we must use them to protect our fellow comrades as well, or.....

Dean feels:

>...that invention which serves humanity is its own reward.

That pretty much describes me but my wife objects saying that I give away
TOO much assistance and information to ever get rich.

>> My wife feels the same about my "helping out humanity", so maybe I'll just let her buy the AK-47 to defend and hunt dinner for the kids. I can spot the targets and she probably can shoot better than me anyhow. ;-) Just in case anyone gets any funny ideas.
I will continue to help, unfortunately just more carefully, learning everything I can about the system.
My piledriver driven point, is that this system is clearly not doing what it was intended to do except for the persons/Corporations with say a quarter million US dollars or more to defend for years, their supposed "legal rights." Yet it lets anybody WITH those assets, DESTROY financially, any "Little" inventor that might get "out of line" and dare say they actually invented something of value. Therefore, they feel they have a right to pay off their bills incurred while struggling developing it.
I would not be bringing this up, if I did not witness this happening case after case. Sadly, this destroys the incentive to try to patent or even invent. Ignorance of the complex system is most often the pitfall, and perpetrators of this violence count on this ignorance. They, like terrorists, deserve the worst.
I feel we as small, poor, inventors should be protesting loudly because in my mind, "This law encourages the very violence that it was intended to stop" so many years ago. Violence comes in many forms.
I am against all violence, but this is a violent law.
My own opinion is that I will not patent any idea that I am not ready to die DEFENDING as my family's property. The current law forces me to take this approach. Let's PLEASE reconsider this problem on a global basis, or trash the whole system as obsolete. Should we have a TV show called "Patent court"? Just to open the debate?
If we don't do something, I predict that violent laws will encourage more violence.
Daniel Dimiduk
In a nutshell
Crispin

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/current/
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Stoves.html

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>

For information about CHAMBERS STOVES
http://www.ikweb.com/enuff/public_html/Chamber.htm

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Jan 22 06:32:02 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
In-Reply-To: <200201140228.40260@arnt.c2i.net>
Message-ID: <20020122112225.O15579@mona.lan>

On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:44:37 +0100 (GMT-1)
Joacim Persson <joacim@ymex.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>
> ...
> > ..at 25-35% efficiency, the gasoline and diesel engines _are_
> > obsolete.
>
> Ehum. Not comparable. A flywheel is a storage of (close to?) 100% pure
> work.
> Ottos and diesels are heat motors. Heat is never 100% work, you know.
> ;)

.correct. ;-) Here is where I should referred to "fossil fuel based
driveline systems", and taken the full chain from the oil well, crude
transport, refinery etc thru gas station, to tanking, and the driving.

.and then compare it with the ditto coal mining etc thru "my" gas
cell loop, to gas stations charging Jack Bitterly's flywheel autos.

> Beats a chemical battery though?

.baseline charge cycle efficiency to beat: 96%. ;-)

--
.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/

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Jan 22 06:33:54 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: ..has the gas list been shut or shot down??? and Gas-List bounces]
In-Reply-To: <20020119052148.59735eb8.arnt@c2i.net>
Message-ID: <20020122111455.G15579@mona.lan>

Hi all,

.has the gas list server been shut or shot down???

.last message in: "Gasification Archive for January 2002"
http://solstice.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200201/

..is posted on Tue, 15 Jan 2002 13:44:37 +0100 (GMT-1)
by Joacim Persson <joacim@ymex.net>, message-ID:
<Pine.LNX.4.10.10201151310380.663-100000@localhost> ???

.btw, "Current" Gasification Archive" points to:
http://solstice.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200101/
..a year ago. ;-)

.finally, I get bounces:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 21:19:42 +0000 (WET) MAILER-DAEMON@mercurio.ulpgc.es
(Mail Delivery System) wrote in
<20020112211942.4F7C11A9B6@mercurio.ulpgc.es>:

> This is the Postfix program at host mercurio.ulpgc.es.
>
> I'm sorry to have to inform you that the message returned
> below could not be delivered to one or more destinations.
>
> For further assistance, please contact <postmaster@mercurio.ulpgc.es>

.yes, I tried that. No, it didnt work. Because the admin paid to...

"further assistance, please contact <postmaster@mercurio.ulpgc.es>"
..does not respond.

> If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
> delete your own text from the message returned below.
>
> The Postfix program
>
> <semai@fotonica.ulpgc.es>: connect to
teror.fotonica.ulpgc.es[193.145.141.161]:
> Connection timed out
>

From sigma at ix.netcom.com Tue Jan 22 06:44:09 2002
From: sigma at ix.netcom.com (sigma)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: conversion formulas
Message-ID: <018f01c1a2d7$fe69cee0$760256d1@ix.netcom.com>

Dr. Karve:
We haven't corresponded for some time, so I will say Hello and best wishes.

I am responding to your need for conversion formulas. I take the easy way,
and
for convenient conversions I go to: http://www.convertit.com/Go/ConvertIt/
It is the best site I have found for this purpose. It just about converts
any measure
to any desired. I hope this helps.

Regards,
Len

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

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

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

From kssustain at provide.net Tue Jan 22 09:37:29 2002
From: kssustain at provide.net (Kermit Schlansker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Car fuel economy
Message-ID: <001601c1a37c$66473760$c95a56d8@default>

Dear Wes,

I don't know how to get an answer to this question. The only economic way of getting hydrogen now is to make it from natural gas. The article in Pop Science about the Coleman fuel cell unit said $100 for 10 hrs of operation at 1.2 kw. This is almost $10/kwhr. There is no possibility of replacing gasoline with anything but natural gas and increased consumption of this will bring disaster sooner. There is nothing that can possibly replace oil and gas. A partial replacement, enough for tractors, trains, and trucks would be Methanol made from wood or coal. Unfortunately no one has the brains to mass plant the trees. We can grow 10% to 20% of our present yrly consumption and probably could store 50 % if we did not cut. If we spend enough money, we can probably get 10% each of present consumption from solar and wind.
The only way to give the kids a chance is by making massive investments in energy including solar, wind, biomass, coal, and nuclear. Then we have to cut consumption per capita by more than 50%. This should stop a dieoff for 200 years and would give some time to find more answers and cut the population some. Conservation is the most important thing and that can only be achieved by the planned self sufficient community and the apartment house. Snuggle up to stay warm.

Kermit Schlansker
-----Original Message-----
From: Wes Vivian <viva-wes@mediaone.net>
To: Kermit Schlansker <kssustain@provide.net>
Date: Monday, January 21, 2002 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: Car fuel economy

Kermit,

Re hydrogen-fed fuel cells: From what source can I get a reliable assessment of prospective energy cost and dollar cost to produce annual quantities of hydrogen 'fuel' sufficient to replace gasoline worldwide??

Wes Vivian

From jerry5335 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 17:20:05 2002
From: jerry5335 at yahoo.com (jerry dycus)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10201151310380.663-100000@localhost>
Message-ID: <20020123032147.32025.qmail@web14008.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi Joacim and All,
--- Joacim Persson <joacim@ymex.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>
> ...
> > ..at 25-35% efficiency, the gasoline and diesel
> engines _are_ obsolete.
While these can develop this kind of eff in
steady state running in a car the eff is more like 7%
of the fuel's energy actually drives the rear wheels.
A good EV can get up to 20% eff from the power
plant fuel to the road.

>
> Ehum. Not comparable. A flywheel is a storage of
> (close to?) 100% pure work.
> Ottos and diesels are heat motors. Heat is never
> 100% work, you know. ;)
But where does the flywheels energy come from?
What eff was it made at? While flywheels sound good
they have many problems in a car.
>
> Beats a chemical battery though?
Not in eff or cost. A lead/acid battery can charge

elect in /elect out at 95/ 97% eff and with a rundown
of 4 months while the flywheel will lose all it's
energy in 2 or 3 days and would be lucky to get 92%
eff not counting where the electricity comes from to
charge both.
jerry dycus
> Joacim

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/

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

From kssustain at provide.net Thu Jan 24 06:13:34 2002
From: kssustain at provide.net (Kermit Schlansker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fw: [energyresources] Low Heat solar tracker - addendum
Message-ID: <005e01c1a4f2$602d31a0$305a56d8@default>

>Dear Perry,
>
> You complained off list that I did not answer your question. I
>prefer to answer on list because any post that conveys useful information
>should be published. There may be people on the lists who do not understand
Rankine systems. The use of waste heat applies to solar power, gasification,
and IC engine tailpipes.
> One reason I didn't answer is that I am a 77 year old klutz and
>never do what I want to. The other answer is that your system didn't make
>sense to me.
> I do not understand why anything must wobble if you are using an
air
>motor as an expander. You just keep the sun's rays enhanced by mirrors and
a
>tracker on the boiler. Then the fluid vaporizes, goes through the expander
>and generates power. The essential parts of a Rankine cycle are a boiler,
>expander connected to load, a high pressure liquid pump, and a condenser.
>The technology is well known.
> Various kinds of expanders include rotary piston steam engines,
>free piston compressors, vane motors, serial radial turbines, scrolls, and
>multiple axial turbines. If you are describing a heat off and on system
that probably would be low efficiency.
> The efficiency limit of a Rankine cycle is given by the equation
>(Thigh-Tlow)/Thigh, where Rankine or Kelvin units must be used. For a
boiler
>temp of 250deg F and a condenser temp of 90 degF. the limit efficiency is
>22 %. The good engineer tries to approach this limit and to get a higher
>temperature range.
> Obviously there is more energy at higher temperatures but my
>original question related to the practicality of a cheap, efficent multiple
>axial blade turbine made from aluminum, plastics or other cheap materials.
>They do wonders these days on making cheap, complicated toys from plastics.
>If efficient, such a turbine would be valuable for using waste heat or
>compressed gases, from many processes. It also would make a good
refrigerant compressor. It is better to use lower pressure refrigerants if
possible because they are easier to contain. Turbines handle large volumes
at low pressures better than pistons.
> Using a thermodynamic chart for butane as expandant, I came up with
the folowing numbers: boiler temp 250F, condenser temp 90F. Phigh 350 psi,
Plow 50 psi. Boiler density 5 lbs/cuft, condenser density.55 lbs/cuft
>Efficiency, 18%. This is better than a solar voltaic and mirrors should be
cheaper than voltaics.. Pentane would be a good expandant for a higher
temperature
> On another note, someone on the solar list, I believe David Wells, is
trying to use a scroll compressor as an expander. I don't think this is a
good idea because the scroll probably has a thermal short circuit. The
Unaflow steam engine principle is that cool exit steam does not go through
the head but rather through a side port. This enables the head to stay
warmer than the exit end and is more efficient. In both the long stroke
piston, and the axial multiple stage turbine, the gozintus is thermally
separated from the gozoutous.

If I were going to try to make an experimental expander, I probaly
would try to use the crank and block from an old IC engine. In a bigger
system the VW bug block would be good because the cylinders are separable.
In a smaller system you could use a lawnmower engine by mounting a new steam
cylinder on top of the old one.

Kermit Schlansker
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Perry Arnett <pjarnett@pdqnet.net>
>To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com <energyresources@yahoogroups.com>
>Date: Monday, January 14, 2002 12:47 PM
>Subject: Re: [energyresources] Low Heat solar tracker - addendum
>
>
>>the first application might probably be its use as a solar water pump
>(there are others) i.e.
>>
>>connect the output to a wobble plate and a down hole pump, and even if the
>quantity drawn was only 1/2 a cup per stroke, in a
>>month, day after day, one could fill a cistern from which one could draw
>water in a controlled manner. only works during the
>>day, when the sun is shining, but so what?
>>
>>for Newton, and Tulkin and others, I AM pro-solar - only because I am
>pro-ANYthing 'that works'.
>>
>>this will work
>>
>>so - now that I've given away the technology free - all those who are
>clamoring for 'solutions' - any takers?
>>
>>Perry in Utah
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Perry Arnett" <pjarnett@pdqnet.net>
>>To: <energyresources@yahoogroups.com>
>>Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 09:08
>>Subject: Re: [energyresources] Heat
>>
>>
>>> > which suggests that an 'engine' that uses solar heat to create
>mechanical motion CAN be justified, even if not very
>>> > powerful', - if the heat source is free and the operating cost is
>'almost' free.
>>> >
>>> > [I'm ready to divulge but I hear no takers...yet]
>>> >
>>> > Perry in Utah
>>>
>>>
>>> Kermit -
>>>
>>> to put this to bed, consider this :
>>>
>>> take a freon charged solar tracker
>>>
>>> run the freon lines to a double acting hydraulic cylinder connected to
>either a linear air motor or a rotary air motor
>>>
>>> purposefully 'de-tune' the tracker shades so that rather than smoothly
>tracking the sun across the sky (as is the normal
>>case),
>>> it oscillates in a repetetitive, controlled, but back-and-forth manner;
>these oscillations can be large or small as one might
>>> find works the best for the purpose
>>>
>>> i.e. purposefully cause the tracker to 'hunt' for the sun rather than
>lock on and follow smoothly
>>>
>>> the action of 'hunting' will cause the tracker to generate 'surplus'
>mechanical motion, motion normally unwanted in solar
>>> trackers, but in THIS specific case, purposefully engineered to satify
>Kermits request, this motion is desired.
>>>
>>> how 'efficient'? quite, once constructed
>>>
>>> how powerful? determined only by the size of the freon reservoirs, the
>operating pressure, the size of the hydraulic
>>cylinders
>>> and the rotary air motor
>>>
>>> how long lasting? VERY, once built
>>>
>>> operating cost? VERY low
>>>
>>> how useful? you imagine all the things you can do with a source of VERY
>low cost motion generated from a "low temp heat
>>> source"...
>>>
>>> how costly ? I can do a demo model for ~$2500
>>>
>>> now - any takers?
>>>
>>> Perry in Utah
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
>>> Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net
>>>
>>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
>>Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@bellatlantic.net
>>
>>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>
>

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

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Jan 25 16:22:32 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
Message-ID: <200201260319.11360@arnt.c2i.net>

On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:21:47 -0800 (PST)
jerry dycus <jerry5335@yahoo.com> wrote in
<20020123032147.32025.qmail@web14008.mail.yahoo.com>:

> Hi Joacim and All,
> --- Joacim Persson <joacim@ymex.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > > ..at 25-35% efficiency, the gasoline and diesel
> > engines _are_ obsolete.
> While these can develop this kind of eff in
> steady state running in a car the eff is more like 7%
> of the fuel's energy actually drives the rear wheels.
> A good EV can get up to 20% eff from the power
> plant fuel to the road.

..with todays power plants, agreed.

> >
> > Ehum. Not comparable. A flywheel is a storage of
> > (close to?) 100% pure work.
> > Ottos and diesels are heat motors. Heat is never
> > 100% work, you know. ;)
> But where does the flywheels energy come from?

..from "my" coal + MSW fired gasifier fuel cell loop,
eventually at 93%.

> What eff was it made at? While flywheels sound good
> they have many problems in a car.
> >
> > Beats a chemical battery though?
> Not in eff or cost. A lead/acid battery can charge
>
> elect in /elect out at 95/ 97% eff and with a rundown

..what??? Usually I hear around 60-70%.

> of 4 months while the flywheel will lose all it's
> energy in 2 or 3 days and would be lucky to get 92%
> eff not counting where the electricity comes from to

..I use Jack Bitterly's flywheels as my baseline. 96%.

> charge both.

..combining these with a superconducting grid, and a flywheel
"gas" station, -> .93 * .96 * .96 = .857
This of course disregards mining and (coal and MSW) transport losses.

--
..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/

From vanderdrift at ecn.nl Sun Jan 27 22:04:07 2002
From: vanderdrift at ecn.nl (Drift, A. van der)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: maximum pressure
Message-ID: <92D6AAE888CED411A16A00508BB0B827261419@ecntex.ecn.nl>

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/

From jerry5335 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 28 06:59:15 2002
From: jerry5335 at yahoo.com (jerry dycus)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
In-Reply-To: <200201260319.11360@arnt.c2i.net>
Message-ID: <20020128170046.1865.qmail@web14008.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi Arnt and All,
--- Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:21:47 -0800 (PST)
> jerry dycus <jerry5335@yahoo.com> wrote in

> > Hi Joacim and All,
> > --- Joacim Persson <joacim@ymex.net> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > > > ..at 25-35% efficiency, the gasoline and
> diesel
> > > engines _are_ obsolete.

> > While these can develop this kind of eff in
> > steady state running in a car the eff is more like
> 7%
> > of the fuel's energy actually drives the rear
> wheels.
> > A good EV can get up to 20% eff from the
> power
> > plant fuel to the road.
>
> ..with todays power plants, agreed.
With the TECO coal gasifier power plant that I
get my power from it's probably 25/28% because it's
60% eff by using the gas to power a gas turbine then
using it's exhauts to run a steam boiler to make more
electricity.
I'm trying to get them to burn some biomass with
the coal but they are coal people and TECO owns it's
coal mines too.
They are going to experiment with 10% biomass in
a DOE experiment soon and I will try to get them to
keep doing it after the tests are done.
I've talked to them about introducing steam
into the gasifier bed to convert the leftover carbon
to make more H2 and CO fuel, but haven't been able
talk them into it yet. I think if they did eff might
rise another 5%.

>
> > >
> > > Ehum. Not comparable. A flywheel is a storage of
> > > (close to?) 100% pure work.
> > > Ottos and diesels are heat motors. Heat is never
> > > 100% work, you know. ;)
> > But where does the flywheels energy come
> from?
>
> ..from "my" coal + MSW fired gasifier fuel cell
> loop,
> eventually at 93%.
How? If you convert coal/MSW to H2 it's about 50%
eff then the fuel cell is about 50% eff you are down
to 25% or less and you haven't driven the car yet.

Also you have to use energy to store the H2 or
electricity losing more energy, then the electric
drive system , electric in to ground, is between 70 to
85% eff.

>
> > What eff was it made at? While flywheels sound
> good
> > they have many problems in a car.
> > >
> > > Beats a chemical battery though?
> > Not in eff or cost. A lead/acid battery can
> charge
> >
> > elect in /elect out at 95/ 97% eff and with a
> rundown
>
> ..what??? Usually I hear around 60-70%.
While true for NiMH batts, lead acid batts with
good chargers do quite well as above, nicads are about
93% eff due to self discharge.
My prefered battery for EV use is Ni-cads. They
have a good power/weight ratio, long life of 50,000 to
100,000 miles and will give my scratch built ev a 150
mile plus range.
While Li-ion are lossy they are about 80% eff, but
will give my ev a 250+ mile range when their cost
comes down.
>
> > of 4 months while the flywheel will lose all it's
> > energy in 2 or 3 days and would be lucky to get
> 92%
> > eff not counting where the electricity comes from
> to
>
> ..I use Jack Bitterly's flywheels as my baseline.
> 96%.
Does he include how much energy is lost to
friction while it's waiting to be used? Even good
flywheels will lose 1% per hr of running, most much
more.
Does he include the controller losses which would
be at least 5% besides the flywheels motor/gen losses.
>
> ..combining these with a superconducting grid, and a
> flywheel
> "gas" station, -> .93 * .96 * .96 = .857
> This of course disregards mining and (coal and MSW)
> transport losses.
And many other energy drains. A lead/acid
battery pack would be as/more eff at less cost.
It can and should be done but the eff are much
lower than you say. Why I'm on this list is to power
my EV from biomass. In Fla we have a lot free.
jerry dycus
>
>
> --
> ..med vennlig hilsen = with kind regards from
> Arnt... ;-)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com

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

From JackProot at aol.com Mon Jan 28 18:02:34 2002
From: JackProot at aol.com (JackProot@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: maximum pressure
Message-ID: <15d.8091726.29877931@aol.com>

In a message dated 02-01-28 03:06:06 EST, vanderdrift@ecn.nl writes:

<< 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? >>

When the pressure increases, the reactions are displaced towards a smaller
final volume. For instance CO + 1/2O2 = CO2 will shift to the right.
As O2 is introduced with the purpose of making CO, the generator soon
runs short of oxygen and elemental carbon is the main by-product.
(In my simple thermodynamic model at least, maybe tar in a real
world kettle !)
Gasification will be very poor under high pressure, the gas produced
containing a lot of CO2 and H2O, and very little CO and H2.
This effect increases with the pressure and decreases when the
temperature rises. (It appears at 5 bar and 750°C or 500 bar and 1200°)
But why make your life more complicated ? I fail to see the interest of
working under pressure.

Best regards.

Jacques

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

From luizmagri at yahoo.com Tue Jan 29 13:27:52 2002
From: luizmagri at yahoo.com (Luiz Alberto Magri)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: maximum pressure
In-Reply-To: <15d.8091726.29877931@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20020129232922.16171.qmail@web11707.mail.yahoo.com>

Jacques,

I understand you are going to work under pressure in
some IGCC technologies, where bleeding air from the
gas turbine compressor will be used for gasification
and then enter the high pressure combustion chamber
requiring only a small pressure increse.

Cheers,

Luiz Magri - Rio de Janeiro

--- JackProot@aol.com wrote:
> But why make your life more complicated ? I fail to
> see the interest of
> working under pressure.
>
> Best regards.
>
> Jacques
>
> -
> Gasification List Archives:
>
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
> www.webpan.com/BEF
> 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/
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com

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

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Jan 29 16:11:55 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:53 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
Message-ID: <200201300315.56591@arnt.c2i.net>

On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:00:46 -0800 (PST)
jerry dycus <jerry5335@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi Arnt and All,
> --- Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:21:47 -0800 (PST)
> > jerry dycus <jerry5335@yahoo.com> wrote in
>
> > > Hi Joacim and All,
> > > --- Joacim Persson <joacim@ymex.net> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > > > ..at 25-35% efficiency, the gasoline and
> > diesel
> > > > engines _are_ obsolete.
>
>
> > > While these can develop this kind of eff in
> > > steady state running in a car the eff is more like
> > 7%
> > > of the fuel's energy actually drives the rear
> > wheels.
> > > A good EV can get up to 20% eff from the
> > power
> > > plant fuel to the road.
> >
> > ..with todays power plants, agreed.
> With the TECO coal gasifier power plant that I
> get my power from it's probably 25/28% because it's
> 60% eff by using the gas to power a gas turbine then
> using it's exhauts to run a steam boiler to make more
> electricity.
> I'm trying to get them to burn some biomass with
> the coal but they are coal people and TECO owns it's
> coal mines too.

..the _big_ money is in coal.

> They are going to experiment with 10% biomass in
> a DOE experiment soon and I will try to get them to
> keep doing it after the tests are done.
> I've talked to them about introducing steam
> into the gasifier bed to convert the leftover carbon
> to make more H2 and CO fuel, but haven't been able
> talk them into it yet. I think if they did eff might
> rise another 5%.

..cool. Prove it. ;-)

> > > > Ehum. Not comparable. A flywheel is a storage of
> > > > (close to?) 100% pure work.
> > > > Ottos and diesels are heat motors. Heat is never
> > > > 100% work, you know. ;)
> > > But where does the flywheels energy come
> > from?
> >
> > ..from "my" coal + MSW fired gasifier fuel cell
> > loop,
> > eventually at 93%.
> How? If you convert coal/MSW to H2 it's about 50%
> eff then the fuel cell is about 50% eff you are down
> to 25% or less and you haven't driven the car yet.

..today, yes. The other half is doing the same with the CO.
_Tomorrows_ coal + MSW fired gasifier fuel cell loop uses
fuel cell exhaust heat to drive most of the gasification.
Which is why it must loop. I estimate about 3.5 - 4 times.

> Also you have to use energy to store the H2 or
> electricity losing more energy, then the electric
> drive system , electric in to ground, is between 70 to
> 85% eff.

..no, the idea is to store the energy either upstream,
as coal, or, downstream, in the flywheels.
Flywheels also soak up shock loads such as grid transients.

..and, you don't want to store poisonous H² + CO gas, at all.

> > > What eff was it made at? While flywheels sound
> > good
> > > they have many problems in a car.
> > > >
> > > > Beats a chemical battery though?
> > > Not in eff or cost. A lead/acid battery can
> > charge
> > >
> > > elect in /elect out at 95/ 97% eff and with a
> > rundown
> >
> > ..what??? Usually I hear around 60-70%.
> While true for NiMH batts, lead acid batts with
> good chargers do quite well as above, nicads are about
> 93% eff due to self discharge.

..my experience is automotive starting batteries only, where I have
experienced an average 50 full charge cycle life. I am also aware
that submarines has used lead cells since before WWI, however these
50 cycles also match a reasonable submarine combat life expectancy.

> My prefered battery for EV use is Ni-cads. They
> have a good power/weight ratio, long life of 50,000 to
> 100,000 miles and will give my scratch built ev a 150
> mile plus range.

..neat. Scratch built ev??? Url?

..my experience is good NiCd cells do around 60%. Scaling up
could add some, but cadmium is a future no-no heavy metal, which
is phased out in favor of metal hydrides, which initially, doubled
cell performance, as in 1100 mAh against 500 mAh in AA size cells.

> While Li-ion are lossy they are about 80% eff, but
> will give my ev a 250+ mile range when their cost
> comes down.
> >
> > > of 4 months while the flywheel will lose all it's
> > > energy in 2 or 3 days and would be lucky to get
> > 92%
> > > eff not counting where the electricity comes from
> > to
> >
> > ..I use Jack Bitterly's flywheels as my baseline.
> > 96%.
> Does he include how much energy is lost to
> friction while it's waiting to be used? Even good
> flywheels will lose 1% per hr of running, most much
> more.
> Does he include the controller losses which would
> be at least 5% besides the flywheels motor/gen losses.

..afaik, yes and yes. Friction should also be air/gas
friction in the vacuum box, and magnetic bearing losses.
His "black box" charge cycle efficiency is 96%.

> > ..combining these with a superconducting grid, and a
> > flywheel
> > "gas" station, -> .93 * .96 * .96 = .857
> > This of course disregards mining and (coal and MSW)
> > transport losses.
> And many other energy drains. A lead/acid
> battery pack would be as/more eff at less cost.

..which is why we go for flywheels.
See above on submarines. ;-)

> It can and should be done but the eff are much
> lower than you say. Why I'm on this list is to power
> my EV from biomass. In Fla we have a lot free.
> jerry dycus

--
..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/

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Jan 29 16:12:57 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas
Message-ID: <200201300311.16273@arnt.c2i.net>

On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:00:46 -0800 (PST)
jerry dycus <jerry5335@yahoo.com> wrote:

..the _big_ money is in coal.

> Also you have to use energy to store the H2 or
> electricity losing more energy, then the electric
> drive system , electric in to ground, is between 70 to
> 85% eff.

..no, the idea is to store the energy either upstream,
as coal, or, downstream, in the flywheels.
Flywheels also soak up shock loads such as grid transients.

..and, you don't want to store poisonous H² + CO gas, at all.

> My prefered battery for EV use is Ni-cads. They
> have a good power/weight ratio, long life of 50,000 to
> 100,000 miles and will give my scratch built ev a 150
> mile plus range.

..neat. Scratch built ev??? Url?

..afaik, yes and yes. Friction should also be air/gas
friction in the vacuum box, and magnetic bearing losses.
His "black box" charge cycle efficiency is 96%.

..which is why we go for flywheels.
See above on submarines. ;-)

> It can and should be done but the eff are much
> lower than you say. Why I'm on this list is to power
> my EV from biomass. In Fla we have a lot free.
> jerry dycus

--
..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/

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Jan 29 16:14:39 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: My first look at patent office
Message-ID: <200201300314.12496@arnt.c2i.net>

On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:08:17 EST
Carefreeland@aol.com wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> Last night and this morning I had my first good look at the
patent
> office site. I unfortunately don't know how to download software to
open the
> tiff files they have, so I can only see a glimpse.

..if you don't have Gnu/Linux or Mac, check out 'irfanview':

http://www.irfanview.com/

> On the flip side, if I were to have enough money and time to
spend

.."my" 'looping gasifier + fuel cell cycle' was born out of an intended
stupid question in the "Merlin and the apprentice"-style discussion of
high temperature carbon bed chemistry, to me from one of my funders.

..at that stage we had agreed that all patents should belong to persons,
rather than companies, due to Norwegian law, which here compares not too
favorably with Russian law. We also at that stage, estimated my patent
value at 4 to 20 times the Norwegian continental shelf.
(Norway is # 4 after Saudi Arabia, Quwait and Russia, on petroleum.)
Swedish Svedlund filed it in 1932, but never used it. So, it flopped.

..on hearing this "stupid question", I offered to swap patents.
And was, wisely, turned down. ;-)

..the loop cycle patent search gave a few chills, we found a couple of
now expired patents, which had not proven successful, and which would
expire in 1998 and 1999. Instead of ignoring these 2 patents and do
"our own thing" and risk having these 2 surface later, we built our
patent
on prior art, these 2 patents, explain in detail why and how they fail,
when we explain _exactly_ how to fix it, and patent exactly _that_.

...as in: "you want more than 90% electricity out of coal or biomass,
you do it my way". ;-)

> Oh well, onward, with a better understanding of the politics of
life as
> usual,
>
> Daniel Dimiduk

--
..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/

From Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz Tue Jan 29 22:49:06 2002
From: Dean-Anne.Corson at xtra.co.nz (Dean and Anne)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pyrolysis reactor specs
Message-ID: <002701c1a96a$429b8340$35e536d2@homej>

Dear Colleges - has anyone in their travels come across data on diameter and
particle size of biomass and it's effects on batch pyrolysis. I am assuming
the low heat transfer coefficient of charcoal produced at the reactor
surface will have a large impact on heat transfer as the reactor diameter
increases and particle size will also interfere with convection and heat
transfer as experienced with batch charcoal production of sawdust. To what
effect or impact both these parameters have do not appear to be well
documented.

Any comment on this topic will be most grateful.

Warmest Regards

Dean C Corson

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

From snkm at btl.net Wed Jan 30 03:30:05 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification terminology
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20020130073033.00968370@wgs1.btl.net>

Dear Harry, Tom and All:

Regarding your statement:

>The above endothermic reaction results in real processes
>being rather inefficient, usually about 50%.

How so?? The energy required to fuel this endothermic reaction is
"invested" in a higher btu value product.

If you check out the values carefully -- there is no theoretical loss.

Now -- please stop and think about this -- how could there be??

(Unless you have a micro-black hole laying around)

The converse of a perpetual motion machine??

The loss in efficiencies is do to poor process design.

As example -- if you used electric resistance heating to fuel the
conversion -- well over 95% (probably over 99%) of the energy in -- will be
accounted for in the increased btu value of the gas product out.

(A simple experiment to perform -- why don't you try it??)

Actually -- this subject has been covered to great depth on this same list
in the recent past.

Hint -- notice how the car makers are using catalytic converters to fuel
their reforming reaction. That is as close as one can get to resistance
electrical heating in thermodynamic investment technology -- no flue gases!
(or extremely little comparatively)

You can't simply make energy disappear -- or get lost.

In the "old" reforming gasifiers -- it was flying to the skies up the stack
-- with maybe a little percentage recovered from that "waste" heat to power
a steam turbine and extract power.

I can't help but notice the fixation of this list on WWII gasifiers and the
complete ignorance of the new wave gasifiers (yes "GASIFIERS") being
researched and introduced for automotive purposes.

That is the fuel cells cars ----

It is ok to have historical interest -- or historical perspective -- but
this list is about gasification technology.

How can it continually ignore progress in this field of endeavor??

Fuel cell technology is well married to reformation gasification. Why
ignore this facet of technology??

There is no scientific reason that present car fuel system technology can
not be adapted to run on coal or biomass. In a more efficient manner --
more compact -- and producing much more power -- than WW II partial
combustion gasifiers.

We simply have to be able to relate to what we observe -- not ignore what
our ears and eyes are telling us -- because of a mental confusion -- that
is limited to not seeing beyond WWII technology.

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

At 11:02 PM 1/29/2002 EST, you wrote:
>>>>
Dear Harry and All:

Harry's example below of the water gas reaction with carbon (coal) is
certainly one example of gasification. Since coal is 70-90% fixed carbon,
many people think that is the only "gasification" reaction.

However, biomass is only 20-30% fixed carbon, so the million gasifiers of
WWII were primarily pyrolytic and only secondarily carbon reactions.....

So our gasification umbrella is quite large...

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF GASWORKS

In a message dated 1/28/02 4:24:13 AM Mountain Standard Time,
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.

<><><>

On another topic, we need to keep asking the proponents of fuel cells where
their H2 comes from. The above endothermic reaction results in real
processes being rather inefficient, usually about 50%. Methane reforming
is endothermic too.

CH4 + H2O ---> 3H2 + CO

Harry

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

From jerry5335 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 14:07:34 2002
From: jerry5335 at yahoo.com (jerry dycus)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification terminology
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020130073033.00968370@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <20020131000902.50147.qmail@web14004.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi Peter and All,
--- Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net> wrote:
>
> Dear Harry, Tom and All:
>
> Regarding your statement:
>
> >The above endothermic reaction results in real
> processes
> >being rather inefficient, usually about 50%.
>
> How so?? The energy required to fuel this
> endothermic reaction is
> "invested" in a higher btu value product.
All except the heat and energy going out with the
CO2, 2 atoms that account for most of the atomic
weight of the fuel. I'm guessing that this would be at
least 20%, maybe 40%. Does anyone know how to quantify
this loss?
And the heat that leaves from the process vessels
walls. While you can slow this down you can't
eliminate it because the vessel will either burn up,
crack or melt. Probably between 5 and 15%.
Of course with your organic working fluid uniflow
engine you can recover 1/2 of this waste at more
expense,labor.
>
> If you check out the values carefully -- there is no
> theoretical loss.
>
> Now -- please stop and think about this -- how could
> there be??
I did, see above.
>
> (Unless you have a micro-black hole laying around)
>
> The converse of a perpetual motion machine??
>
> The loss in efficiencies is do to poor process
> design.
>
> As example -- if you used electric resistance
> heating to fuel the
> conversion -- well over 95% (probably over 99%) of
> the energy in -- will be
> accounted for in the increased btu value of the gas
> product out.
You have to measure from the original fuel, say
biomass to electricity normanally 35% or less to start
with then times the electric to heat eff to get true
eff.
I don't dispute a better, higher btu value
product, the eff you state is a might high.
>

> You can't simply make energy disappear -- or get
> lost.
No, it just moves around. And every time you
convert it you lose some, even if only a little.

> I can't help but notice the fixation of this list on
> WWII gasifiers and the
> complete ignorance of the new wave gasifiers (yes
> "GASIFIERS") being
> researched and introduced for automotive purposes.
I have a neat design of a reformer of gasoline to
H2 to run the engine of a car without pollution from a
1963 Popular Mechanics. It uses the high heat of the
exhaust to crack the gasoline into H2. I'll have to
find it and send it to someone to put up.
>
> That is the fuel cells cars ----
So far fuel cell cars using reformers have only
made about 35% eff. I can get that or better out of a
constant speed ICE charging batteries in an EV when
you need over 100 mile range.
Besides the fuel cell eff losses you have a lot
of pumping losses putting fuel and air into the cells
, heat lost to N from the air, power to run the
reformer, ect. It's not just the fuel cell, it's all
the stuff needed to run it.
>
> It is ok to have historical interest -- or
> historical perspective -- but
> this list is about gasification technology.

>
> Fuel cell technology is well married to reformation
> gasification. Why
> ignore this facet of technology??
We shouldn't.
>
> There is no scientific reason that present car fuel
> system technology can
> not be adapted to run on coal or biomass. In a more
> efficient manner --
> more compact -- and producing much more power --
> than WW II partial
> combustion gasifiers.
They will when gasoline gets too high in about
10 years on ICE engines.
As for using these with fuel cells verses ICE's
the ICE will tolerate the impurities from these
sources a lot better. Also CO, particulates, ect are
known to poison the reformers molecular filters, and
catalyst. Fuel cells are fragile.

> Also -- you can straight convert excess CO from the
> above to H2 using the
> tin liquid metal bath -- with extremely high
> efficiencies.
While this sounds good how long has a plant
using this process been running?

>
> If they can do all this in a car -- certainly they
> can do it in a coal
> fueled power plant??
While they can be done in a stationary plant
will be hard to cram the fuel cell, reformer,
biomass/coal storage and handling and electric drive
train into a car and have room left to sit.
Rather than wait for the fuel cells{fool cells}
to come out, a better bet would be to feed the
reformers H2, CO plus into a high compression,
optimized ICE and get the same benefits now at a much
lower cost.
I think your uniflow engine with another one
feeding off the first one's exhaust would be more eff
than a fuel cell if it was really optimized.
jerry dycus
>
>
>
> Peter Singfield / Belize
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com

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

From brunom1 at yucom.be Wed Jan 30 16:52:39 2002
From: brunom1 at yucom.be (Bruno M.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Peter Einstein Singfield was Re: Gasification terminology
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020130073033.00968370@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020131025915.00a220c0@pop3.yucom.be>

> 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/

From claush at et.dtu.dk Thu Jan 31 00:16:37 2002
From: claush at et.dtu.dk (Claus Hindsgaul)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pyrolysis reactor specs
In-Reply-To: <002701c1a96a$429b8340$35e536d2@homej>
Message-ID: <1012472291.1402.27.camel@ip7071120>

ons, 2002-01-30 kl. 09:43 skrev Dean and Anne:
> Dear Colleges - has anyone in their travels come across data on diameter and
> particle size of biomass and it's effects on batch pyrolysis. I am assuming

For what it is worth...

In 1995-96 extensive research in these topics were done at the Biomass
Gasification Group at the Danish Technical University. Unfortunatly the
results are written in Danish language.

***Analyse af en pyrolyseenhed. ("Analysis of pyrolysis unit").
Master Thesis by Susanne Dahl, Lars Dyndgaard Fenger deploing heat
transfer modelling and laboratory experiments to determine heat streams
of different types in a screw feeder type pyrolysis unit (part of the
two stage gasification process).

***Tørring af flis i transportsnegl (Drying wood chips in a screw
feeder)
by Thorvald Uhrskov Ullum, Søren Thaaning Pedersen, Stig
Møller Andersen

Current research try to develop a model to describe the processes inside
single wood chips and straw during pyrolysis and gasification.

If happen to know a Scandinavian who can help you read our wierd
language, I will be happy to mail you the reports.

Any input on the above topics is, of course, very welcome.

Sincerely,
Claus Hindsgaul

--
Research Assistant M. Sc. Claus Hindsgaul
MEK, DTU, Building 120 - DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark
Phone: (+45) 4525 4174 - FAX: (+45) 4593 5761
claush@mek.dtu.dk, http://www.et.dtu.dk/Halmfortet

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

From jerry5335 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 02:08:22 2002
From: jerry5335 at yahoo.com (jerry dycus)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: OT, Flywheel battery eff, was Re: GAS-L: Fuel Cells
In-Reply-To: <200201300315.56591@arnt.c2i.net>
Message-ID: <20020131120949.2327.qmail@web14005.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi Arnt and All,
--- Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:00:46 -0800 (PST)
> jerry dycus <jerry5335@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > A good EV can get up to 20% eff from the
> > > power
> > > > plant fuel to the road.
> > >
> > > ..with todays power plants, agreed.
> > With the TECO coal gasifier power plant
> that I
> > get my power from it's probably 25/28% because
> it's
> > 60% eff by using the gas to power a gas turbine
> then
> > using it's exhauts to run a steam boiler to make
> more
> > electricity.
> > I'm trying to get them to burn some biomass
> with
> > the coal but they are coal people and TECO owns
> it's
> > coal mines too.
>
> ..the _big_ money is in coal.
SO true!!
>
> > They are going to experiment with 10%
> biomass in
> > a DOE experiment soon and I will try to get them
> to
> > keep doing it after the tests are done.
> > I've talked to them about introducing
> steam
> > into the gasifier bed to convert the leftover
> carbon
> > to make more H2 and CO fuel, but haven't been able
> > talk them into it yet. I think if they did eff
> might
> > rise another 5%.
>
> ..cool. Prove it. ;-)
I'm going by what comes from my Mark's Manual
from the 20's. The reaction is called water gas and
adds extra fuel in the form of H2 and CO from the
steam/carbon plus heat.
Since the carbon and it's heat are about to be
wasted, dumped in the ash pit, this is extra fuel at
the cost of some steam made from the waste heat of the
turbines exhaust.
>
> > > > > Ehum. Not comparable. A flywheel is a
> storage of
> > > > > (close to?) 100% pure work.
> > > > > Ottos and diesels are heat motors. Heat is
> never
> > > > > 100% work, you know. ;)
> > > > But where does the flywheels energy come
> > > from?
> > >
> > > ..from "my" coal + MSW fired gasifier fuel cell
> > > loop,
> > > eventually at 93%.
> > How? If you convert coal/MSW to H2 it's about
> 50%
> > eff then the fuel cell is about 50% eff you are
> down
> > to 25% or less and you haven't driven the car yet.
>
>
> ..today, yes. The other half is doing the same with
> the CO.
> _Tomorrows_ coal + MSW fired gasifier fuel cell loop
> uses
> fuel cell exhaust heat to drive most of the
> gasification.
> Which is why it must loop. I estimate about 3.5 - 4
> times.
I hear a rule of thumb is that it takes about 10%
of the biomass'/coal's energy to gasify it. That means
10% is as much as you can save, not 3 or 4 times as
much.
One way they are using the fuel cell heat is to
replace the fuel burners in a gas turbine with the
fuel cell's waste heat to power the turbine. This
could make fuel cell/turbine combo 75% eff. The navy
is testing it now. So use your loop to run a Rakine
heat engine or process heat.

>
> > Also you have to use energy to store the H2 or
> > electricity losing more energy, then the electric
> > drive system , electric in to ground, is between
> 70 to
> > 85% eff.
>
> ..no, the idea is to store the energy either
> upstream,
> as coal, or, downstream, in the flywheels.
> Flywheels also soak up shock loads such as grid
> transients.
For stationary this might work but the principal's
have been known for years and no sucessful units are
running. The rotating mass of the generators do this
function some from their flywheel effect.
>
> ..and, you don't want to store poisonous H² + CO
> gas, at all.
>
> > > > What eff was it made at? While flywheels sound
> > > good
> > > > they have many problems in a car.
> > > > >
> > > > > Beats a chemical battery though?
> > > > Not in eff or cost. A lead/acid battery
> can
> > > charge
> > > >
> > > > elect in /elect out at 95/ 97% eff and with a
> > > rundown
> > >
> > > ..what??? Usually I hear around 60-70%.
> > While true for NiMH batts, lead acid batts
> with
> > good chargers do quite well as above, nicads are
> about
> > 93% eff due to self discharge.
>
> ..my experience is automotive starting batteries
> only, where I have
> experienced an average 50 full charge cycle life. I
> am also aware
> that submarines has used lead cells since before
> WWI, however these
> 50 cycles also match a reasonable submarine combat
> life expectancy.
While this is true of car starting batts deep
cycled, good deep cycle batts go 1000 to 5000 cycles
depending on how you treet them.
A diesel/electric sub on a war footing would go
2 cycles a day and their batts are good for about
5000+ cycles because of many reasons like light
discharge loading, pure lead, ect.
>
> > My prefered battery for EV use is Ni-cads. They
> > have a good power/weight ratio, long life of
> 50,000 to
> > 100,000 miles and will give my scratch built ev a
> 150
> > mile plus range.
>
> ..neat. Scratch built ev??? Url?
Put Freedom EV into yahoo and it should come
up.
>
> ..my experience is good NiCd cells do around 60%.
> Scaling up
> could add some, but cadmium is a future no-no heavy
> metal, which
> is phased out in favor of metal hydrides, which
> initially, doubled
> cell performance, as in 1100 mAh against 500 mAh in
> AA size cells.
We are talking about different ni-cads. I'm
talking about flooded ni-cads in 100 amp/hr sizes.
Ni-cads last much longer cycle wise and are
much more tolerent of abuse than NiMH batts in EV's.
They cost 1/5 and last 3000 to 5000 cycles. Cadmium
isn't a problem as they are rebuilible or recycled.
I hope you recycle your's.
>
> > > > of 4 months while the flywheel will lose all
> it's
> > > > energy in 2 or 3 days and would be lucky to
> get
> > > 92%
> > > > eff not counting where the electricity comes
> from

> > > ..I use Jack Bitterly's flywheels as my
> baseline.
> > > 96%.
> > Does he include how much energy is lost to
> > friction while it's waiting to be used? Even good
> > flywheels will lose 1% per hr of running, most
> much
> > more.
> > Does he include the controller losses which
> would
> > be at least 5% besides the flywheels motor/gen
> losses.
>
> ..afaik, yes and yes. Friction should also be
> air/gas
> friction in the vacuum box, and magnetic bearing
> losses.
> His "black box" charge cycle efficiency is 96%.
From what I know of motors, controllers and
friction this is impossible. Eff in the real world
would be lucky to be 90%, more like 80/85% if you have
a lot of thru-put. If it has to sit around waiting to
be used the eff goes way down from friction losses.
jerry dycus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com

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

From CAVM at aol.com Thu Jan 31 03:42:52 2002
From: CAVM at aol.com (CAVM@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: OT, Flywheel battery eff, was Re: GAS-L: Fuel Cells
Message-ID: <18c.2a96525.298aa42d@aol.com>

Jerry I am very interested in this feature of the system. What turbine can
take heat, even waste heat, and convert it to power? I don't mean
theoretically, I am interested in available technology if it exists.

Thanks

Neal Van Milligen
CAVM@AOL.com

jerry5335@yahoo.com writes:

<< One way they are using the fuel cell heat is to
replace the fuel burners in a gas turbine with the
fuel cell's waste heat to power the turbine. This
could make fuel cell/turbine combo 75% eff. The navy
is testing it now. So use your loop to run a Rakine
heat engine or process heat.
>>

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

From Reedtb2 at cs.com Thu Jan 31 04:51:50 2002
From: Reedtb2 at cs.com (Reedtb2@cs.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification terminology
Message-ID: <134.89b8a93.298ab403@cs.com>

I think the comment about 50% efficiency refered to the watergas process which operates at a high enough temperature so that good insulation and materials may be needed. However, most gasification occurs below about 900 C and can be > 90% "Hot Gas" efficient. If you must cool the gas down to remove tars and water this can drop to 60% efficient, which puts emphasis on "tarfree" gasification.

TOM REED

In a message dated 1/30/02 5:09:22 PM Mountain Standard Time, jerry5335@yahoo.com writes:

Subj:Re: GAS-L: Gasification terminology
Date:1/30/02 5:09:22 PM Mountain Standard Time
From: jerry5335@yahoo.com (jerry dycus)
To: snkm@btl.net (Peter Singfield), gasification@crest.org

> You can't simply make energy disappear -- or get
> lost.
No, it just moves around. And every time you
convert it you lose some, even if only a little.

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Jan 31 09:27:07 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: OT, Flywheel battery eff, was Re: GAS-L: Fuel Cells
In-Reply-To: <20020131120949.2327.qmail@web14005.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <200201311949.06354@arnt.c2i.net>

On Thursday 31 January 2002 13:09, jerry dycus wrote:
> Hi Arnt and All,
>
> --- Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:00:46 -0800 (PST)
> >
> > jerry dycus <jerry5335@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > A good EV can get up to 20% eff from the
> > > >
> > > > power
> > > >
> > > > > plant fuel to the road.
> > > >
> > > > ..with todays power plants, agreed.
> > >
> > > With the TECO coal gasifier power plant
> >
> > that I
> >
> > > get my power from it's probably 25/28% because
> >
> > it's
> >
> > > 60% eff by using the gas to power a gas turbine
> >
> > then
> >
> > > using it's exhauts to run a steam boiler to make
> >
> > more
> >
> > > electricity.
> > > I'm trying to get them to burn some biomass
> >
> > with
> >
> > > the coal but they are coal people and TECO owns
> >
> > it's
> >
> > > coal mines too.
> >
> > ..the _big_ money is in coal.
>
> SO true!!
>
> > > They are going to experiment with 10%
> >
> > biomass in
> >
> > > a DOE experiment soon and I will try to get them
> >
> > to
> >
> > > keep doing it after the tests are done.
> > > I've talked to them about introducing
> >
> > steam
> >
> > > into the gasifier bed to convert the leftover
> >
> > carbon
> >
> > > to make more H2 and CO fuel, but haven't been able
> > > talk them into it yet. I think if they did eff
> >
> > might
> >
> > > rise another 5%.
> >
> > ..cool. Prove it. ;-)
>
> I'm going by what comes from my Mark's Manual
> from the 20's. The reaction is called water gas and
> adds extra fuel in the form of H2 and CO from the
> steam/carbon plus heat.
> Since the carbon and it's heat are about to be
> wasted, dumped in the ash pit, this is extra fuel at
> the cost of some steam made from the waste heat of the
> turbines exhaust.
>
> > > > > > Ehum. Not comparable. A flywheel is a
> >
> > storage of
> >
> > > > > > (close to?) 100% pure work.
> > > > > > Ottos and diesels are heat motors. Heat is
> >
> > never
> >
> > > > > > 100% work, you know. ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > But where does the flywheels energy come
> > > >
> > > > from?
> > > >
> > > > ..from "my" coal + MSW fired gasifier fuel cell
> > > > loop,
> > > > eventually at 93%.
> > >
> > > How? If you convert coal/MSW to H2 it's about
> >
> > 50%
> >
> > > eff then the fuel cell is about 50% eff you are
> >
> > down
> >
> > > to 25% or less and you haven't driven the car yet.
> >
> > ..today, yes. The other half is doing the same with
> > the CO.
> > _Tomorrows_ coal + MSW fired gasifier fuel cell loop
> > uses
> > fuel cell exhaust heat to drive most of the
> > gasification.
> > Which is why it must loop. I estimate about 3.5 - 4
> > times.
>
> I hear a rule of thumb is that it takes about 10%
> of the biomass'/coal's energy to gasify it. That means
> 10% is as much as you can save, not 3 or 4 times as
> much.

.."Gengas" states 8%. Now, this heat does not have to
come _from_ the coal. It only needs to _get_there_.
Which is _why_ we loop back the fuel cell heat.
Since nothing works 100%, we try again 3.5 - 4 times. ;-)

> One way they are using the fuel cell heat is to
> replace the fuel burners in a gas turbine with the
> fuel cell's waste heat to power the turbine. This
> could make fuel cell/turbine combo 75% eff. The navy
> is testing it now. So use your loop to run a Rakine
> heat engine or process heat.

..and you forget the gasifier here.

..losing heat boiling the water and not being able to
reduce the fuel cell exhaust, that concept would fail.

> > > Also you have to use energy to store the H2 or
> > > electricity losing more energy, then the electric
> > > drive system , electric in to ground, is between
> >
> > 70 to
> >
> > > 85% eff.
> >
> > ..no, the idea is to store the energy either
> > upstream,
> > as coal, or, downstream, in the flywheels.
> > Flywheels also soak up shock loads such as grid
> > transients.
>
> For stationary this might work but the principal's
> have been known for years and no sucessful units are
> running. The rotating mass of the generators do this
> function some from their flywheel effect.

..yep.

> > ..and, you don't want to store poisonous H² + CO
> > gas, at all.
> >
> > > > > What eff was it made at? While flywheels sound
> > > >
> > > > good
> > > >
> > > > > they have many problems in a car.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Beats a chemical battery though?
> > > > >
> > > > > Not in eff or cost. A lead/acid battery
> >
> > can
> >
> > > > charge
> > > >
> > > > > elect in /elect out at 95/ 97% eff and with a
> > > >
> > > > rundown
> > > >
> > > > ..what??? Usually I hear around 60-70%.
> > >
> > > While true for NiMH batts, lead acid batts
> >
> > with
> >
> > > good chargers do quite well as above, nicads are
> >
> > about
> >
> > > 93% eff due to self discharge.
> >
> > ..my experience is automotive starting batteries
> > only, where I have
> > experienced an average 50 full charge cycle life. I
> > am also aware
> > that submarines has used lead cells since before
> > WWI, however these
> > 50 cycles also match a reasonable submarine combat
> > life expectancy.
>
> While this is true of car starting batts deep
> cycled, good deep cycle batts go 1000 to 5000 cycles
> depending on how you treet them.
> A diesel/electric sub on a war footing would go
> 2 cycles a day and their batts are good for about
> 5000+ cycles because of many reasons like light
> discharge loading, pure lead, ect.

..assuming no combat damage etc, agreed.
1.4 years is reasonable, 7 sounds very optimistic.

> > > My prefered battery for EV use is Ni-cads. They
> > > have a good power/weight ratio, long life of
> >
> > 50,000 to
> >
> > > 100,000 miles and will give my scratch built ev a
> >
> > 150
> >
> > > mile plus range.
> >
> > ..neat. Scratch built ev??? Url?
>
> Put Freedom EV into yahoo and it should come
> up.
>
> > ..my experience is good NiCd cells do around 60%.
> > Scaling up
> > could add some, but cadmium is a future no-no heavy
> > metal, which
> > is phased out in favor of metal hydrides, which
> > initially, doubled
> > cell performance, as in 1100 mAh against 500 mAh in
> > AA size cells.
>
> We are talking about different ni-cads. I'm
> talking about flooded ni-cads in 100 amp/hr sizes.
> Ni-cads last much longer cycle wise and are
> much more tolerent of abuse than NiMH batts in EV's.
> They cost 1/5 and last 3000 to 5000 cycles. Cadmium
> isn't a problem as they are rebuilible or recycled.
> I hope you recycle your's.

..read up on Cadmium and heavy metal policies, Cadmium has no future.
I agree NiCd is much more mature, so it should beat the early metal
hydrides.

> > > > > of 4 months while the flywheel will lose all
> >
> > it's
> >
> > > > > energy in 2 or 3 days and would be lucky to
> >
> > get
> >
> > > > 92%
> > > >
> > > > > eff not counting where the electricity comes
> >
> > from
> >
> > > > ..I use Jack Bitterly's flywheels as my
> >
> > baseline.
> >
> > > > 96%.
> > >
> > > Does he include how much energy is lost to
> > > friction while it's waiting to be used? Even good
> > > flywheels will lose 1% per hr of running, most
> >
> > much
> >
> > > more.
> > > Does he include the controller losses which
> >
> > would
> >
> > > be at least 5% besides the flywheels motor/gen
> >
> > losses.
> >
> > ..afaik, yes and yes. Friction should also be
> > air/gas
> > friction in the vacuum box, and magnetic bearing
> > losses.
> > His "black box" charge cycle efficiency is 96%.
>
> From what I know of motors, controllers and
> friction this is impossible. Eff in the real world
> would be lucky to be 90%, more like 80/85% if you have
> a lot of thru-put. If it has to sit around waiting to
> be used the eff goes way down from friction losses.
> jerry dycus

..well, that's Jack's headache, not mine. ;-)
I use his flywheels as a baseline until they've been beat.

..and, this too, I heard, is impossible: ;-)
http://solstice.crest.org/discussion/gasification/199903/msg00055.html

--
..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/

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Jan 31 09:35:20 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pyrolysis reactor specs
In-Reply-To: <002701c1a96a$429b8340$35e536d2@homej>
Message-ID: <200201311940.48573@arnt.c2i.net>

On Thursday 31 January 2002 11:18, Claus Hindsgaul wrote:
> ons, 2002-01-30 kl. 09:43 skrev Dean and Anne:
> > Dear Colleges - has anyone in their travels come across data on
> > diameter and particle size of biomass and it's effects on batch
> > pyrolysis. I am assuming
>
> For what it is worth...
>
> In 1995-96 extensive research in these topics were done at the
> Biomass Gasification Group at the Danish Technical University.
> Unfortunatly the results are written in Danish language.
>
>
> ***Analyse af en pyrolyseenhed. ("Analysis of pyrolysis unit").
> Master Thesis by Susanne Dahl, Lars Dyndgaard Fenger deploing heat
> transfer modelling and laboratory experiments to determine heat
> streams of different types in a screw feeder type pyrolysis unit
> (part of the two stage gasification process).
>
> ***Tørring af flis i transportsnegl (Drying wood chips in a screw
> feeder)
> by Thorvald Uhrskov Ullum, Søren Thaaning Pedersen, Stig
> Møller Andersen
>
>
> Current research try to develop a model to describe the processes
> inside single wood chips and straw during pyrolysis and gasification.
>
> If happen to know a Scandinavian who can help you read our wierd
> language, I will be happy to mail you the reports.
>
> Any input on the above topics is, of course, very welcome.
>
> Sincerely,
> Claus Hindsgaul

..post linkene, Claus. ;-)
Danish -> English:
http://www.tranexp.com:2000/InterTran?

--
..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/

From kssustain at provide.net Thu Jan 31 13:28:47 2002
From: kssustain at provide.net (Kermit Schlansker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: [SOLAR] Fw: [energyresources] Low Heat solar tracker - addendum
Message-ID: <001e01c1aaaf$58838ea0$495a56d8@default>

This discussion is about Rankine cycles and solar energy. However
the same material applies to using waste heat from cooling gases in a
gasifier.
Butane is not only a good expandant, it is also a good refrigerant.
I have been collecting thermodynamic curves for years and have curves on
butane, propane, pentane, ammonia, CO2, most of the old refrigerants, SO2,
air, steam, and several others. A refrigeration chart is also the chart to
use for estimating power and a good refrigerant is always a good expandant.
I picked butane because it was in the right pressure range and is not as bad
as the freons as a greenhouse gas. A heavier vapor would give slower speeds
in a radial single stage expander.
I don't have a scanner set up so I can't send a chart. This may
change. My computation was made in about 10 minutes so accuracy was not a
goal. I redid this and got a poorer number. expansion at constant entropy,
enthalpy, h out 340-312= 28 btus. The heat input at 350 psi to 250 deg f=
342--165=177. Ratio =.eff=16%. Condenser pressure=50 psi at 90f. I did not
compute pumping power. However usually it is small compared to output.The
efficiency in a system would be considerably lower. According to the chart
the butane is at the saturation line both at start and finish. Frequently at
the low end the fluid is way out in the vapor region so you have to exchange
heat between the condensing vapor and the pressurized liquid in order to get
efficiency.
I know nothing about scroll compressors but I think they are
chunky, rather than long and skinny. In refrigeration loss of heat is not so
important because you want to cool during compression. In contrast, the
piston and the multi stage axial turbine expander, which are historically
the best have the hot end well separated from the cold end. I believe that
bigger cylinders are better and that long skinny cylinders are better. This
means slow speed operation which is not good because gears are needed to
drive an alternator. These remarks probably also apply to IC engines.
The serial axial turbine expander would be good if you could build a
small one at a low price..My recommendation for a small Rankine expander
would probably be a piston expander with side port with a high speed radial
turbine in the exhaust to catch some more energy. The turbine of course has
to be geared down. Look at old thermo textbooks that show steam engines.
There is an expensive but excellent book, Solar Energy Handbook" by
Kreider and Kreith which not only discusses expanders a little but has a lot
more good stuff.
I have a book called "Thermodynamic properties in SI. (What does SI
mean) by WC Reynolds " which I purchased myself at the Stanford book store.
Inside the book it says " To order this book by mail send $12 to
Thermodynamic Properties, Dept of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford
University, Stanford CA 94305-3030T" The price may be higher now or the book
may be out of print. It is in metric units which I don't like but has good
charts for several refrigerants, including butane.

Kermit Schlansker
-----Original Message-----
From: Perisho, Randal [COPE/LEB] <RJPerisho@Copeland-Corp.com>
To: 'kssustain@provide.net' <kssustain@provide.net>
Date: Thursday, January 31, 2002 10:43 AM
Subject: RE: [SOLAR] Fw: [energyresources] Low Heat solar tracker - addendum

>I do not have a butane chart than goes to 350F so I can't easily check your
>numbers. Some questions I would ask are:
>
>Did you use the change in enthalpy to estimate the work done?
>The initial enthalpy is the saturated vapor at high pressure. Easy
>The final enthalpy is derived. Pressure is same as condensor, but you
>assume the entropy is constant. This will tell you the saturation % the
mix
>is at. Maybe 50% in your example. Then you can use the formula h = hf + %
>x hfg. Right?
>2. Did you assume the entropy was constant during expansion to derive the
>final enthalpy at the low pressure?
>
>3. The change in enthalpy will tell you the work per pound mass flow, but
I
>have been told by several people that most expanders only get 60% to 80% of
>this energy. I need to find out if this is because of all inefficiencies in
>the motor and mechanical or just from the expander.
>4. Did you include the pump work as a loss?
>
>Then to get efficiency, we take the net work divided by the total heat
>given to the system.
>Did you use all the heat as the divisor including that rejected in the
>condenser?
>
>I would be delighted if the cycle gave an 18% efficiency, but I admit I am
>very surprised. Would you mind faxing the details to 417-588-8724? I am
>trying to model the effect of using the scroll as an expander since we make
>them. Maybe butane would be better than a refrigerant. I do not
understand
>the thermal short circuit you describe. The inlet and outlet are at
>different locations and the scroll functions similar to a turbine but at
>limited pressure ratio.
>
>As I do these calculations for a scroll with a pressure ratio of 3 to 4, I
>can only get a 5% efficiency at 270 psi inlet and 90 psi outlet. It's a
>bummer.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kermit Schlansker [mailto:kssustain@provide.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 6:48 PM
>To: solar-concentrator@cichlid.com
>Subject: Re: [SOLAR] Fw: [energyresources] Low Heat solar tracker -
>addendum
>
>
> You are mixed up. The numbers that I showed were taken from a
>thermodynamic chart for butane. The 18% efficiency agreed loosely with the
>Carnot efficiency. The actual efficiency would of course be lower because
of
>mechanical and heat exchanger inefficiencies. It is possible that I made a
>mistake but the procedure is straightforward and I have done it many times.
> I am wondering what the temperature is that these PV cells can
>operate at. If high enough you could also generate power from a Rankine
>cycle.
>
> Kermit Schlansker
>
> Using a thermodynamic chart for butane as expandant, I came up with
>>the folowing numbers: boiler temp 250F, condenser temp 90F. Phigh 350 psi,
>>Plow 50 psi. Boiler density 5 lbs/cuft, condenser density.55 lbs/cuft
>>>Efficiency, 18%.

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

From claush at et.dtu.dk Thu Jan 31 23:15:01 2002
From: claush at et.dtu.dk (Claus Hindsgaul)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:54 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Pyrolysis reactor specs
In-Reply-To: <002701c1a96a$429b8340$35e536d2@homej>
Message-ID: <1012555000.2055.11.camel@ip7071120>

tor, 2002-01-31 kl. 20:38 skrev Arnt Karlsen:
>
> ..post linkene, Claus. ;-)
> Danish -> English:
> http://www.tranexp.com:2000/InterTran?

Sorry, these reports are not available as pdf (too old), only our more
recent publications are (follow the link below).

Claus

--
Research Assistant M. Sc. Claus Hindsgaul
MEK, DTU, Building 120 - DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark
Phone: (+45) 4525 4174 - FAX: (+45) 4593 5761
claush@mek.dtu.dk, http://www.et.dtu.dk/Halmfortet

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

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

January 2002 Gasification Archive