November 2002 Gasification Archive

From Anonymous Tue Nov 26 17:17:33 2002
From: Anonymous (Anonymous)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:07 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <d3def62edc1ca927077776fd10bfb2cb@NO-ID-FOUND.mhonarc.org>

The maximum possible mass flow per 24-hours
was for densified wood pellets
Z=(24/18)*(0.5*0.57/0.43)*X = 0.88 X tons/24h
is for non-densified sawdust pellets
> Z=(24/18)*(0.5*0.17/0.83)*X = 0.14 X tons/24h
>
The adjusted coal flow per 24-hours
was for densified wood pellets
Y= X*(-0.14)/(-0.43) = 0.34 X tons/24h
is for non-densified sawdust pellets
Y= X*(-0.75)/(-0.83) = 0.90 X tons/24h

Total mass flow coal+biomass
was for densified wood pellets
Y+Z = 0.88+0.34 = 1.22 X tons/24h
is for non-densified sawdust pellets
Y+Z = 0.14+0.90 = 1.04 X tons/24h

Subconclusion:
when energy input stays the same
and volume of fuel is allowed to go up to 150%
then in case of non-densified sawdust pellets with CV=18 MJ/kg
total tonnage goes to 104% (was 122%)
and cofiring mixture on a mass/mass basis
can reach up to 0.14X / 1.04X = 13% (was 0.88X / 1.22X = 72%)
and cofiring mixture on energy basis
can reach up to (0.14*18) / (0.14*18 + 0.90*24) = 10.5% (was 66%)

7. CONCLUSION

By comparing the substantial drop in cofiring percentages (both on a
mass/mass and energy basis) between densified wood pellets and non-densified
sawdust pellets, the relevance of densification has been shown.

If not DRY sawdust pellets had been taken as the second example but low
density biomass with a higher moisture content and sebsequent lower Caloric
Value, the drop in maximum reachable cofiring percentages had been even more
drastic.

Hope this provides some insight.

Best regards,
Andries Weststeijn
EPZ

From Anonymous Tue Nov 26 17:17:34 2002
From: Anonymous (Anonymous)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:11 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <b91b0c4fbdd548800342e96453c39ee9@NO-ID-FOUND.mhonarc.org>

best regards,
Andries

From Anonymous Tue Nov 26 17:17:45 2002
From: Anonymous (Anonymous)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:21 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <4932e1008adc5df5e96a4f8ac3c42a66@NO-ID-FOUND.mhonarc.org>

This is not to say that at present the 100 MWe level is not already within
reach. In fluidized bed combustion technology this would require a 250-300
MWthermal boiler, which is about state of the art in CFB combustion
technology. Singular (utility type) examples will start showing soon, but
-admittedly- that size will -as yet- not be your averige plant.

> After about 5MW burning the biomass straight will
> give higher eff in a steam plant at lower cost.
>
This is an intriguing statement. Do you mean a straight stand alone grate
boiler?
Could you expand on that? Both re efficiency and cost?
What scenario do you have in mind?

best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

> ----------
> Van: jerry dycus[SMTP:jerry5335@yahoo.com]
> Verzonden: vrijdag 18 mei 2001 12:41
> Aan: Bernhard Kronberger; Gasification
> Onderwerp: Re: GAS-L: biomass gasification for hydrogen production -
> future potential
>
> Hi Bernhard and All,
> --- Bernhard Kronberger <bernhard.kronberger@jrc.it>
> wrote:
> > I was recently asking questions here about biomass
> > gasification systems for
> > thermochemical hydrogen production. Beside all the
> > answers I received
> > (Thanks all of you!) I would like to ask you experts
> > about your opinion on
> > the potential of this processes and what you think
> > about commercialization
> > of large scale (10 - 100MW) plants in future, lets
> > say in 10 and 20 years.
> We are talking about biomass, in that case plants
> larger that 10MW will have problems getting enough
> waste biomass to run them 24/7.
> After about 5MW burning the biomass straight will
> give higher eff in a steam plant at lower cost.
> Turning biomass into H2 will take about 50% of
> the energy of the biomass and that would double the
> amount of biomass needed.
> Biomass plants should be local to the fuel
> source so transport , gathering cost are small. Also
> the ash needs to be put back where it came from to
> feed new biomass growth.
> The best use would be to make syn gas(H2 and CO)
> to make methanol, methane( nat gas), make syn diesel.
> These all have uses where H2 has little use because of
> ineff, storage, engine melting problems.
> jerry dycus
>
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bernhard
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>
> -
> Gasification List Archives:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
> www.webpan.com/BEF
>
> Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Gasification Events and Information:
> http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>

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

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Gasification Events and Information:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/

From Anonymous Tue Nov 26 17:17:45 2002
From: Anonymous (Anonymous)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:22 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <a54f42a4a7ea372a1ec1aef4fca04e79@NO-ID-FOUND.mhonarc.org>

The proportional contribution of biomass to the CO2 mitigation problem, in
the future might very well not be limited by conversion, but rather at the
fuel supply level. But for now (i.e. in this decade to come, during this
build up phase), all effort counts and the wood is there.

Jerry, as to your questions:
No, we are not in methane, methanol or syn diesel manufacturing. Frankly,
personally, I expect that these technologies have a better chance of
spinning off from the chemical or petrochemical industries, rather than from
the power generating utilities (giving the background of the people
involved in both industries). But I might be very wrong, for our
desulpherization and denitrification plants downstream of the coal boilers
are just about complete chemical factories in their own right! So, the
overlapping of technologies has started anyway.

Yes, we do recover the heat as internally generated by gasification: in a
waste heat boiler raising medium pressure steam which in turn gets upgraded
(superheated) in the main boiler before being fed to the MP-steam turbine
set. Having these types of options available does help in reaching the wood
conversion efficiency of 34%.

As to your remarks on introducing steam as a gasifying agent: there is a
fair amount of steam generated internally by the moisture content of the
wood (17-19% in our case, preferably below 20% for gasifiers I gather). To
what extent additional steam will be of additional advantage, I don't have
an answer at hand.

best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

> ----------
> Van: jerry dycus[SMTP:jerry5335@yahoo.com]
> Verzonden: zaterdag 19 mei 2001 3:33
> Aan: Weststeijn A; Gasification
> CC: Bernhard Kronberger
> Onderwerp: RE: GAS-L: biomass gasification for hydrogen production -
> future potential
>
> Hi Andries and All,
> --- Weststeijn A <A.Weststeijn@epz.nl> wrote:
> > Hello Jerry,
> >
> > You wrote:
> > > We are talking about biomass, in that case plants
> > > larger that 10MW will have problems getting enough
> > > waste biomass to run them 24/7.
> > >
> > I believe 10 MW-electric is at the low side of the
> > range.
> > We operate a gasifier on wood of <20% moisture at
> > 5000 tons/year per MWe.
> > Or 17 tons od dry wood per MWe per 24 hours (actual
> > operations).
> > Double this for green wood (forest waste etc) to 35
> > tons/MWe/24h.
> > So a 10 MWe plant on green wood would require 350
> > tons/day or about 15-20
> > truck loads. Or about a truck load green wood every
> > 1.0-1.5 hours.
> > Just to get a feel for the numbers.
> Thanks, good numbers from experence always
> help.
> While that will work in some areas most will not
> support that and there will be competition for biomass
> in the future as oil gets pricer. Places like here in
> Fla that it rains a lot and has good soil can do that
> much but most areas would still be able to do it at a
> slower rate.
> >
> > Cost optimization calculations show that "additional
> > miles" in actual
> > transportation only play a moderately influential
> > role as soon as the
> > biomass has been loaded and is rolling on the road
> > etc. Of course, all
> > dependent on local cost parameters.
> > At the other hand, the economies of scale in
> > construction and operations are
> > quite relevant, if not shockingly important, if one
> > goes from 10 to 20 to 30
> > MWe capacity etc!! So there is a clear driving force
> > to collect biomass from
> > far.
> All RE is very site specific, I was figuring a
> global average. YMMV.
> My main point was that after 5 Mw you need to
> look at future supplies carefully or you may be stuck
> without costeffective fuel.
> >
> > From these cost numbers and from practical
> > considerations (like what size
> > equipment can still be shop manufactured and shipped
> > to site for erection
> > etc) I expect (guestimate) that the "averige"
> > biomass plant module might and
> > up this decade in the 50 MWe range. If the biofuel
> > logistics are being well
> > worked out on a macro scale in the years to come,
> > this range might grow in
> > the next decade perhaps towards the 100 MWe level.
> I hope your right. To see what I mean sailing
> past Haiti and the whole country has been denuded by
> suppling charcoal for their small electric plant. Not
> a tree for as far as the eye can see where there
> should be and was a tropical rain forest..>
> > > After about 5MW burning the biomass straight
> > will
> > > give higher eff in a steam plant at lower cost.
> > >
> > This is an intriguing statement. Do you mean a
> > straight stand alone grate
> > boiler?
> > Could you expand on that? Both re efficiency and
> > cost?
> > What scenario do you have in mind?
> It depends on what type of boiler but Gasification
> , producer gas, takes 10 to 20% of the energy of the
> fuel to gasify itself. You would lose that if burned
> in an equal boiler.
> Here in Tampa we have a coal power plant, Gannon,
> that can burn biomass with they said was a cyclone
> burner but they won't..
> On the other hand you can enrich the producer gas
> by introducing steam to react with the carbon for an
> output of CO and H2.
> Another thing is to put up to 17% hot CO2 back
> into the burn zone with the steam for more CO and H2.
> This could make up the heat loss by turning the heat
> into more fuel.
> Have you thought of making Methane, methanol or
> syn diesel from your units?
> Thanks for making gasification equipment
> available,
> jerry dycus
> >
> > best regards,
> > Andries Weststeijn
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>
> -
> Gasification List Archives:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
> www.webpan.com/BEF
>
> Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Gasification Events and Information:
> http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>

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

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
www.webpan.com/BEF

From Anonymous Tue Nov 26 17:17:47 2002
From: Anonymous (Anonymous)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:24 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <4a135178d3a619abd9b91e4e14293ccc@NO-ID-FOUND.mhonarc.org>

During the years we have all contributed to this forum I have endeavoured to
assist those committed to using gasifiers within the limitations imposed by
my commercial commitments and in part by paranoia of having other companies
copy our designs.

On reflection for many interested in gasifiers, just having questions
answered is not enough, and they have a real need to actually build a
correctly designed gasifier that can run an engine without destroying it.

There is also a need by some to investigate the various changes that take
place in the transition of wood to char to gas. Clearly its time to provide
assistance in a more practical manner than just answering questions.

In 1989 Fluidyne was awarded a contract to supervise the gasification
research team at Bremen University in the development of a simply
constructed wood gasifier for developing countries.

The design was really just a larger more versatile gasifier based on
Fluidyne's Pioneer Class gasifier that did not reach commercial production.
Originally designed for 10kWe output consuming 14 kg of wood/hour, its an
ideal little gasifier for running engines up to about 2000cc, or just
flaring the gas for testing fuels etc. Construction could utilise existing
scrap cylinders, and if you don't mind frequent cheap replacement parts, you
can make everything out of standard steel pipe and plate. For more
reliability however, using a heat resistant stainless steel, like Inconel,
or Avesta 253MA for the reduction tube, grate and nozzle tips will give you
years of operation (ours is about 13 years old).

This is a great little gasifier with no vices, and it tolerates beginner
operators. Easily opened the fuel bed remains intact for examination layer
by layer, enough data for any ardent researcher or student demonstrating
renewable energy.

At the mention of students, this is not a toy or a model gasifier and all
safety regulations must be applied to its use in any location.

Correctly operated, this little gasifier produces a tar free gas from a wide
range of wood fuel particle sizes from chips or small blocks, so it should
work on fuels available to most users. It does not however gasify sawdust,
peat, MSW or other unmentionables which from years of experience we know
don't work in our systems.

Gas cooling and cleaning can be complicated if built to commercial
standards, so I will let you sort out the best option to suit your
situation. Besides I still have to keep some secrets for myself!

The original Pioneer Class drawing is on the Fluidyne Archive with a basic
description of parts. There is plenty of room for innovation, just don't
change they key dimensions except in the manner prescribed.

As I am preparing for my 12th trip to Europe in as many years leaving on the
1st June, I don't have time to answer endless questions. Just build it and
then in July when I'm back in New Zealand we can sort out your individual
queries. With any luck several will be operational and others will be
encouraged to join in the fun.

Looking forward to seeing your projects posted in July.

Regards
Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification.
http://members.nbci.com/whitools/

-
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

From Anonymous Tue Nov 26 17:17:47 2002
From: Anonymous (Anonymous)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:24 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <90a17951c1139ccc66cb03d8564d94a7@NO-ID-FOUND.mhonarc.org>

Cornelius A. Van Milligen
Kentucky Enrichment Inc.
byproduct processors

-
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

From Anonymous Tue Nov 26 17:17:53 2002
From: Anonymous (Anonymous)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:30 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e@NO-ID-FOUND.mhonarc.org>

I believe introducing millions of small power plants to 3rd world will lead
to proper introduction of biomass as an alternative power source. Biomass
power plants to compete for grid market against the likes of coal -- or
even crude oil burning Wartsilas -- give me a break -- that is but a dream
-- or a con -- take your pick.

And don't try holding your breath waiting for the grid masters to collapse
due to lack of fossil fuels!

It is small power plants for 3rd world -- along the lines of Sunpowers
product -- or nothing.

So far -- it has been a few guys making windfalls -- and a whole lot of
nothing everywhere else -- otherwise! I do not consider that a success
story for introduction of gasification of biomasses as an alternative power
source.

Peter Singfield / Belize Central America

>----- Original Message -----
>From: Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net>
>To: <gasification@crest.org>
>Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 9:49 PM
>Subject: GAS-L: The ulimate small gasifier??
>
>
>
>OK listers ---
>
>Want to see what can be done with gasification of biomass for electrical
>power production?
>
>With a little help of from inovative technology.
>
>Tom Reed -- your going to just love this example -- from South Africa --
>
>http://www.sunpower.com/tech_papers/pub76/isec99.html
>

-
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

From Anonymous Tue Nov 26 17:17:55 2002
From: Anonymous (Anonymous)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:32 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <816a44af5833d2a10e461318a9ee5785@NO-ID-FOUND.mhonarc.org>

And as far as you guys running "wood" cars. In a couple of years -- we will
be able to do much better with the automotive gasifiers and fuel cells.

How?? Well, just port in partial combustion gasses to their device -- and
no more drying wood -- or physically conditioning it to within one strict
range of size. Use sawdust -- shavings -- hogged wood -- chipped wood --
mix it all together -- "green" and still get 40% an better over all -- from
heat in fuel to electrical power output to the "wheel".

And an easy updraft design as well -- if your so inclined.

Sure I'm shaking your tree -- someone has to!

Technology evolves -- always -- yet to listen to you guys -- no more
changes needed in this field of endeavor. To my way of looking at it -- you
need to change to survive as the present systems are far to complicated in
fuel conditioning requirements.

Ergo -- improve the present gasification process to except "as-is" fuels --
or adopt motors than can run well on dirty gas -- or a combination of both
-- or ignore everything and watch fuel cells put your devices in the museums.

Steam Reforming is a bad word on this list! And that folks -- right there
-- says so much.

Tom Taylor -- you run real world systems. Can you replace bagasse boilers
with a gasifier -- and rather than run a steam turbine power plant --
operate an IC engine based power plant?? At great over all efficiencies --
just as reliably -- and for the same or less maintenance, operational and
capital costs?

If so -- we'll install one at Tower Hill sugar factory -- present set-up I
have in mind -- 22 megawatt per hour from 300,000 pph steam -- at 300 PSI
-- Capital costs -- $1000 per kwh -- using the above furnaces/boilers in
place.

Power house requires one man for maintenance and operation. All automated.
Furnace and boilers operate as always -- by the sugar factory. Power plant
will run at least 20 years -- and maybe 35 yrs -- between over hauls.

So Tom T. -- what say?

Sure -- a little mechanical engineering "trickery" -- but all off the shelf
components -- and turnkey operation in well under six months. And not a
gasifier involved.

The "Real" world folks --- take it or leave it ---

Now -- I am wondering why a compression cycle with steam injection could
not steam reform tars! The endothermic process would be completed using
heat of compression.

The return stroke would be ignition.

Use -- say -- a Wartsila. Keep the intake hot and pressurized -- pressurize
the gasifier. Thermodynamic processes work quicker and better under pressure.

How to pressurize a gasifier?? Easy -- pyrolization of "raw" biomass. No
venting -- plenty of pressure!

Inject some pressurized air for the partial combustion of "char" -- feed
product to big -- low rpm -- Wartsila -- steam reform the "balance" during
the compression stroke.

No problem regarding low density charges -- you could easily do all this at
500 psi -- or much more. Besides -- you would have double the heat content
product -- at the very least.

The only design problem would be getting the air into this cylinder.

But as coal burning gasification plants are using pure O2 as their
"give-me" -- and that is produced at 2000 psi pressure -- give me that and
I'll show you how.

And while we are at it -- lets use that same pure O2 for injecting into the
biomass gasifier for partial combustion.

Producing pure O2 for power plant size operations is less complicated than
pelletizing!

Right Andreas??

Come on guys -- stop showing your "age"!!! Apply your collective knowledge
-- stop just swimming around in circles in it!!

We can beat those fuel cells ---

Peter Singfield / 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

From Anonymous Tue Nov 26 17:17:56 2002
From: Anonymous (Anonymous)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:34 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <d194840da88716b64c8e22a0283b36ae@NO-ID-FOUND.mhonarc.org>

There is little appreciation of the fact that 2/3 of all engine wear is not
wear, but acid erosion, which forms when moisture released by the combustion
cycle enters the oil by ring blow-by etc.

Because distance, time, or even filters have little relevance to the actual
condition of the oil, it was necessary to establish the go – no go
parameters of the oil in the engine.

Fluidyne drew on existing oil company laboratory procedures for pre testing
oil before the expensive metal tests, called Blotter Spots, refining it for
basic tests in the field.

I introduced Blotter Spot testing to the international gasification engine
expertise in Bremen in 1989, and the Beijer Institute in Sweden circulated
an updated version in the old Producer Gas Round Table Newsletter. Some of
the Indian researchers have found it useful. Basically we have to worry
about three things in the oil when we use producer gas in the engine.
Water, which forms acid and kills the pH of the detergent dispersant (which
eats the engine) and the insolubles which thicken the oil.

Insolubles can come in a number of different forms, but we will worry about
those caused by overheating and soot. As our engines are so derated on
clean gas and can never be overloaded, overheating of the oil can only come
from lack of cooling or combustion temperatures.

When tar or pyrolysis oil is ingested, power output increases dramatically,
as does exhaust temperatures with burning gas exiting the engine. Engines
with tar in the gas always have engine oil problems causing oxidation that
thickens the oil. Oxidation products are asphalt and resins.

Blotter Spots of this condition will show a very dense blot with a brown or
orange halo, and the oil will have a very acrid smell. Dump the oil! The
anti oxidation additive also has another role to play, that of extreme
boundary lubricant. Heat kills the ability of the organic metal skin (a
type of zink phosphate) to keep the metal surfaces apart at high pressure
points, and they start tearing off metal finally seizing.

Soot on the other hand will be just a dense blot of varying density. It
usually has just a wet halo.

In our situation we need to know if there is too much soot or carbon in the
oil, and this is determined by holding the paper up to the light and passing
your finger behind it. If you see the shadow of your finger through the
blot, then the insolubles are below the maximum allowable, but if you cannot
see the shadow, dump the oil. Its too thick!

The maximum amount of moisture allowed in oil is invisible and you haven't
got white scum or milk in the sump, but its easy to test.

You can use almost anything you can heat quickly with a lighter or candle
(tin lid, glass tube, aluminium foil). Warm it first to dry anything of the
test surface and place a few drops on it, heat and listen closely. If it
pops and crackles, too much water – dump the oil. Hence the name Crackle
Test.

The Blotter Spot also shows water as sharp feathered peaks radiating out
through the halo.

Graeme has set up another file in the Fluidyne archive
www.fluidynenz.250x.com showing our old brochure and a few blots for you to
guess the conditions (No prizes). Link: Producer Gas Engine Oil and Soot
http://www.fluidynenz.250x.com/_framed/250x/fluidynenz/oiltest.htm

Soot by the way that flocculates after the grate, have nothing to do with
char levels, temperature, or tar cracking. It is caused by the gas
temperature exceeding 500 degrees C and it reverts back into CO2 and soot.
Tar will condense on it if you have tar in the gas. It is vital to quench
the temperature before you pipe it or squeeze it through filters and
cyclones etc. This was a problem of our early gasifiers which disappeared
after we increased the gas outlet size to overcome the heat stress on the
connection.

Regards
Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification.

-
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

From Anonymous Tue Nov 26 17:17:58 2002
From: Anonymous (Anonymous)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:38 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <46d73ecd3e0f490f409cf6beedeeba09@NO-ID-FOUND.mhonarc.org>

When -in reality- different process conditions are imposed on the
manufacturing of product gas or pyrolysis gas in order to optimize process
conditions, fuel blend and/or CFB bed make-up, the actual cycle time of the
tar measurements will greatly determine the progress of the optimization
work.
Purpose of the optimization work here is assumed to be the minimization of
both gaseous light tars as well as heavy condensable tars.
Both lab work and field work experience is appreciated.
Orders of magitude are also wellcome.

I realize that for practical conditions two parallel systems can accomplish
more than one singular system.
So, my question is specifically related to the response time of a singular
system.

best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

-
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:bioenergy@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bioenergy-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-subscribe@crest.org>

From Anonymous Tue Nov 26 17:18:00 2002
From: Anonymous (Anonymous)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:40 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e@NO-ID-FOUND.mhonarc.org>

But Mark -- I have very little doubts that flow diagram -- as presented --
would steam reform a continuous run of biomass. Remember - -takes just 30
seconds under those conditions to accomplish the conversion. So just
depends on tube diameter -- not length -- what production would be achieved.

Plus -- rather than deal with high pressure at a very hot temperature using
large diameter tubes -- would be better to just put in multiple small
diameter tubes -- as in an old fashioned vertical fire tube boiler. Only
molten Zinc die cast alloy number three surrounding the tubes in that
jacket -- and biomass slurry being pumped through the multiple "fire-tubes".

If I was building this in my old shop I would first order up a 20 foot long
tubing of A106 carbon steel. 2 in. ID and 4 in OD.

I would use a small hydraulic motor attached to a stone type honer and
polish the entire length -- (a trick they use for making long hydraulic
cylinders)

I would then apply the appropriate bends. Finally joining by welding to the
heat exchanger section -- where temps go down.

The heat exchanger would be a 3 in ID by 5 in OD A106 steel tube -- with
bushings welded in at each ends -- allowing the passage of the intake 2 in
ID tube. From the end of that run to the 1st "separator" would be
relatively cold material -- still at 5000 PSI -- so much lighter tubing can
be used.

Now -- if we want to start math modeling -- how much biomass could be
gasified passing though -- say -- 6 feet of liquid metal boiler contact?
Figuring 30 seconds as reaction time??

What is the biomass content of that slurry?

The first though that comes to my mind -- can be a pretty thick slurry --
and still have to more super critical H20 than is required for the process.

As example -- 85% water -- 15% solids. Which just happens to be what citrus
wastes are -- and we have a huge problem with those here in Belize.

Also -- I believe citrus factories around the world are all looking for a
better mousetrap there!

Easy to "blend" that to a slurry.

And -- what about sewage? A light filter belt pressing -- bringing it to
85% H2O -- 15% solids.

At present -- biomasses such as these incur a terrific cost for fuel
conditioning -- namely drying them down to at least 50% H2O and 50% solids.

With the system I am proposing -- fuel conditioning becomes very simple.

Also -- what about Pulp and paper mill wastes -- black water -- etc.

Surely -- we can see some valid potential??

Now folks -- show me some real reasons this can't work.

And finally -- if one put wet sawdust through this same device -- that is
55% H20 and 45% solids -- why would than not "reform" (of course it will!)

Or bagasse at the same criteria??

Or wood chips.

None of these are going to plug up a 2 in ID channel with 6000 psi pushing
it though!

Of course -- you realize that the power for "pressing" the charge through
this flow diagram comes from the blow down?? That pumps a hydraulic system
-- with accumulator -- so that a big piston easily pushes a smaller piston
at 6000 psi "ram" pressure.

Hate to have any loose ends in the energy losses department.

Bad enough to have that 2000 PSI invested in the tanks -- but then one
could always recover some refrigeration from the expansion from the tank to
the engine intake.

Ergo -- recovering energy as refrigeration. At the very least -- that cold
could be used to really cool gas at manifold entrance -- increasing charge
density -- and getting some extra efficiency out of the IC cycle.

And all so very easy to do!! No heat to absorption refrigeration system
crap! Just expand the gas through an orifice.

>I doubt that high pressure washers operate above 3200 psi, though there
>is a new generation of washers that use CO2 above its critical pressure
>for cleaning in applications that used to involve solvents frowned on by
>the EPA.

OK Marc -- how about high pressure cutting devices running water at 45,000
PSI and over?? Used for cutting sheet metal when I left Montreal -- in the
mid 80's -- replacing laser cutters (Which had replaced stamp presses and
robot torch cutters)??

Always look on the "shelf" of "proven" available processes from as broad a
selection as possible - saves a lot of re-inventing the wheel.

Take processes down from that shelf -- and bolt them together.

That is what I am doing here.

As example -- if you hit any engineer cold with the concept of molten metal
bath heat exchangers they will all say "impossible" -- as a molten metal
will surely dissolve the metal container in no time.

Well, I took zinc die cast allow number 3 of the above shelf -- dusted it
of -- and bolted it on. It is a given -- that allow does not dissolve its
steel molds at any great rate.

Or -- you can't find tubing to hold 5000 psi at 600 C -- but plenty of
modern steam turbine plants are operating at higher stress specs. and very
reliably.

Or the catalytic burner.

All from those same shelves -- all developed technology -- all easy to take
down and apply.

Or sticking a wood burning stove catalytic converter at the hot product end
of a gasifier!

If only our grandfathers had been doing this -- then probably people on
this list would look at it??

Now -- hit me with some hard points -- this is all to easy.

Peter Singfield
Belize, Central America

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

At 10:28 AM 9/4/2001 +0800, you wrote:
>Peter Singfield wrote:
>
>>
>> Not at 100 Deg. Centigrade!!
>
>You're right. I dug up my thermo texts. Above critical pressure the only
>thing that changes as you remove heat is that the substance changes from
>a supercritical fluid to a liquid without going through saturation. So
>yes, there is a phase change possible once you drop below Tcrit, which
>for water is about 275 degrees C. At that temperature and pressure,
>hydrogen will still be above its critical point. The hydrogen will be
>much less dense than the water, but I'm curious about solubility and
>diffusivity, both of which will influence separation. Do you have the
>necessary data? If so, can you post them? This is terra incognita for
>me.
>
>> Or, technically -- all high pressure water washers are operating super
>> critical?
>
>I doubt that high pressure washers operate above 3200 psi, though there
>is a new generation of washers that use CO2 above its critical pressure
>for cleaning in applications that used to involve solvents frowned on by
>the EPA.
>
>Marc de Piolenc
>
>
>-
>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:bioenergy@crest.org>
>List-Help: <mailto:bioenergy-help@crest.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-unsubscribe@crest.org>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-subscribe@crest.org>
>
>Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
>-
>Other Gasification Events and Information:
>http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
>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 Anonymous Tue Nov 26 17:18:04 2002
From: Anonymous (Anonymous)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:42 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e@NO-ID-FOUND.mhonarc.org>

Lots of wood 10 in diameter -- say 45 ft tall.

Say and average of 8 in diameter -- 30 ft tall.

Very dense. Large percentage hard woods.

How many tons per square mile?? Anyone??

Guessing -- 75 tons per acre??? (Please correct me!!)

640*75= 48,000 tons per square mile.

Say a swath 15 miles wide by 30 miles long (I am quite sure that is well on
the modest side)

15*30 = 450 sq.M * 48,000 = 21,600,000 tons.

If we harvested that at a rate of 1250 tons per hour -- 10 hrs per day = 50
years!!

12500 tons per day -- 1728 -- 4.73 years

We got maybe five before bad rot. Make it 1500 ton per hour.

Local harvest would come in at $10 US per ton (present price of firewood here)

We have unlimited labor to apply to this operation. They use machete and axe.

How do we pelletize this?? From Chips or hogged wood??

How much would it cost to do this -- prepare whole wood for the pellet
machine?? How much per ton??

What do you figure the price of pelletizing per ton would be here in Belize
(electrical power = 18 cents US per kwh -- good place for some of your
systems Tom -- just to run the pelletizers -- and the rough wood processing)

What would the price be for this product dock side??

Maybe -- just maybe ---

21 million ton * $60 ton (Only!!) = $1,260,000

Hey Tom (and all the rest of you guys out there looking for business) --
worth investigating or not??

This would certainly put this country back on its feet (250,000 population)
and give something to do for the over 18,000 Kekchi Maya that live
subsistence style in the Toledo district -- until they can have their
forests back.

A good job that does a lot of good for everyone concerned! A win-win-win
situation!

How do I contact the European community? Certainly -- they could help
greatly in this matter by simply being a market for this product??

Andries -- Arnt -- what say?? Help some starving Maya Indians (our country
is broke) -- be green (better pellets to CO2 than lots of methane from
rotting) -- set back global warming by replacing coal with biomass.

Your Company alone could save the entire country of Belize.

But here is the crux of the matter -- how much would those pellets be worth??

I could supply all the raw wood you needed -- delivered from up to 30 mile
radius -- for a cost of around $20 US per ton and less (for closer)

Would it be worth the processing into pellets and shipping to Europe??

We have an excellent deep water port right there!! Big Creek is the name.
This is where the large banana boats load up -- banana for Europe!
(Unfortunately -- greater than 95% of that industry was destroyed in this
hurricane)

Excellent land at Big Creek for building a large wood processing plant/yard.

Can this be done listers??

Peter Singfield -- Belize

At 04:22 PM 11/1/2001 EST, you wrote:
>Dear Peter et al,
> The biomass will be higher in ash content as the organic fractions are
>not necessarily leached, but oxidized and to some degree, leached. After a
>period of time the only thing left will be ash portion of the biomass as the
>rest will oxidize and be lost. Ash is a mixture of aluminum, iron, silica,
>and are quite stable in relation to other components such as the organic
>fractions.
> Wish I had an easy answer for reviving the industry or making an
>investment for recovery of the biomass. It will end up in the atmosphere as
>CO2, some methane and the usual components and the water and soil as organic
>compounds.
>
>
>Sincerely,
>Leland T. Taylor
> President
> Thermogenics Inc.
>7100-2nd St. NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87107
>phone 505-761-1454 fax 505-761-1456
>Attached files are zipped and can be decompressed with <A
>HREF="http://www.aladdinsys.com/expander/">www.aladdinsys.com/expander/ </A>
>
>-
>Gasification List Archives:
>http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
>
>Gasification List Moderator:
>Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
>www.webpan.com/BEF
>List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
>List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>
>
>Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
>-
>Other Gasification Events and Information:
>http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
>http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
>
>

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

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

From Anonymous Tue Nov 26 17:18:04 2002
From: Anonymous (Anonymous)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:43 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <862f844f82639eeab1efa558f1eb8bd3@NO-ID-FOUND.mhonarc.org>

Co-firing any coal fired power plant with biomass such as this is a huge
plus for greenness -- true -- or not true?

And it certainly would put so many people to work here in Belize!

Thanks for the input Andries!!

Peter / Belize

At 12:05 AM 11/3/2001 +0100, you wrote:
> Peter Singfiled writes about the downed wood in Belize:
>
>> A good job that does a lot of good for everyone concerned! A win-win-win
>> situation!
>>
>Is worth a look. The big advantage is that there is (according to Peter) an
>ample supply within a reasonable distance (...up to 30 miles...) from an
>operable port (...excellent deep water port with banana boats loading for
>Europe...).
>
>> How do I contact the European community? Certainly -- they could help
>> greatly in this matter by simply being a market for this product??
>>
>I don't think the EU in Brussels provides a market as such. But that isn't
>to say that players in the green market in the EU couldn't get together.
>That might be worth another look.
>
>> Andries -- Arnt -- what say?? Help some starving Maya Indians (our country
>> is broke) -- be green (better pellets to CO2 than lots of methane from
>> rotting) -- set back global warming by replacing coal with biomass.
>>
>I agree this is a win-win situation, doing two good things at the same time.
>
>> Your Company alone could save the entire country of Belize.
>>
>...if we could get it in a shape that we can process it, that is.
>
>> But here is the crux of the matter -- how much would those pellets be
>> worth??
>>
>Don't think in terms of pellets. Those were introduced in the postings due
>to the export of sawdust pellets from the lumber industry.
>You primarily don't have sawdust, but solid wood in all shapes and sizes.
>After the necessary field work you could settle on shipping logs, fist-size
>lumps and chips.
>
>Next to that, manufacture with relatively economic local labor: pelleted
>sawdust and charcoaled bits and pieces.
>Perhaps as local employment project?
>
>Price in the end is a function of CV and "fit-for-end-use" condition.
>A little early to discuss numbers.
>I'll do some backchecking on the shipping costs.
>
>> I could supply all the raw wood you needed -- delivered from up to 30 mile
>> radius -- for a cost of around $20 US per ton and less (for closer)
>> Would it be worth the processing into pellets and shipping to Europe??
>>
>I doubt about the idea of pellets, apart from what you possibly can make as
>an extra from locally collected sawdust as part of the clean-up logging of
>the larger logs.
>
>> We have an excellent deep water port right there!! Big Creek is the name.
>> This is where the large banana boats load up -- banana for Europe!
>> (Unfortunately -- greater than 95% of that industry was destroyed in this
>> hurricane)
>> Excellent land at Big Creek for building a large wood processing
>> plant/yard.
>> Can this be done listers??
>>
>Perhaps the answer is in a combination of higher and lower added-value
>products, to partially offset the "extra costs" of the logging field work.
>The field work will be a "real cost" in this case, as opposed to the
>situation where "avoided tipping charges" constitute a revenue.
>
>I'll be back.
>Andries
>
>
>
>
>-
>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.fsec.ucf.edu/bioam/
>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 Anonymous Tue Nov 26 17:18:06 2002
From: Anonymous (Anonymous)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:48 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <c2c5a525a32846b41724dc046f3b55f0@NO-ID-FOUND.mhonarc.org>

best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

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

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 Anonymous Tue Nov 26 17:18:11 2002
From: Anonymous (Anonymous)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:53 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e@NO-ID-FOUND.mhonarc.org>

Return-Path: <>

.should be "<postmaster@mercurio.ulpgc.es>", not "<>"

Received: from mercurio.ulpgc.es ([193.145.132.3]) by
fep08-svc.swip.net with ESMTP id
<20020112211937.ZMJM6749.fep08-svc.swip.net@mercurio.ulpgc.es>
for <arnt@c2i.net>; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 22:19:37 +0100 Received: by
mercurio.ulpgc.es (Postfix) via BOUNCE id 4F7C11A9B6; Sat, 12 Jan
2002
21:19:42 +0000 (WET) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 21:19:42 +0000 (WET) From:
MAILER-DAEMON@mercurio.ulpgc.es (Mail Delivery System) Subject:

Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender To: arnt@c2i.net MIME-Version: 1.0

.because of: "Return-Path: <>".

Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="D4AB31A7ED.1010870382/mercurio.ulpgc.es" Message-Id:
<20020112211942.4F7C11A9B6@mercurio.ulpgc.es> Status: R X-Status: N
This is a MIME-encapsulated message.
--D4AB31A7ED.1010870382/mercurio.ulpgc.es
Content-Description: Notification
Content-Type: text/plain

.what they received from mail.solarhost.com:

Received: from cicei.ulpgc.es (cicei.ulpgc.es [193.145.132.20])
by mercurio.ulpgc.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4AB31A7ED
for <semai@fotonica.ulpgc.es>; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 20:52:32 +0000
(WET)
Received: from CICEI/SpoolDir by cicei.ulpgc.es (Mercury 1.44);
7 Jan 02 20:55:57 GMT
Received: from SpoolDir by CICEI (Mercury 1.30); 7 Jan 102 20:39:21 GMT
Received: from CICEI/SpoolDir by cicei.ulpgc.es (Mercury 1.30)
for <aggotor@cicei.ulpgc.es>; 7 Jan 102 20:39:21 GMT
Resent-From: aggotor@cicei.ulpgc.es
Resent-To: semai@fotonica.ulpgc.es
Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Jan 102 20:39:21 GMT
Received: from mercurio.ulpgc.es (193.145.132.3)
by cicei.ulpgc.es (Mercury 1.44) with ESMTP;
7 Jan 02 20:39:19 GMT

.year should be "2002", not "102" or "02".
Screws up mail transport handling. Wintendo boxes?

Received: from mail.solarhost.com (mail.solarhost.com [206.112.78.16])
by mercurio.ulpgc.es (Postfix) with SMTP id E26FD1A893
for <aggotor@cicei.ulpgc.es>; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 20:37:16 +0000
(WET)
Received: (qmail 15162 invoked by uid 509); 7 Jan 2002 20:36:46 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gasification-help@crest.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
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>
Delivered-To: mailing list gasification@crest.org
Received: (qmail 15156 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2002 20:36:46 -0000
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net>
Reply-To: arnt@c2i.net
Organization: ..ing. Arnt Karlsen
Message-Id: <200201071821.28914@arnt.c2i.net>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 21:41:56 +0100
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2.3]
References:
<MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGMEEOCEAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>
In-Reply-To:
<MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGMEEOCEAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: GAS-L: tests download patience, was: GAS-L: Gasification tests

Sender: gasification-return-5377-aggotor=cicei.ulpgc.es@crest.org

.should not this send the message back to the gas list mail deamon

Resent-Message-Id: <20020107205232.D4AB31A7ED@mercurio.ulpgc.es>
Resent-Sender: arnt@c2i.net

<...body snipped..>

.10 other bounces:
Message-Id: <20020112211942.4F7C11A9B6@mercurio.ulpgc.es>
Message-Id: <200201071821.28914@arnt.c2i.net>

Message-Id: <20020112211942.9CD931A7ED@mercurio.ulpgc.es>
Message-Id: <200201072147.59495@arnt.c2i.net>

Message-Id: <20020113134141.1D4531A7A9@mercurio.ulpgc.es>
Message-Id: <200201081217.16535@arnt.c2i.net>

Message-Id: <20020116021201.6C7361A915@mercurio.ulpgc.es>
Message-Id: <200201110003.49242@arnt.c2i.net>

Message-Id: <20020116021201.D692C1A916@mercurio.ulpgc.es>
Message-Id: <200201110027.08465@arnt.c2i.net>

Message-Id: <20020117031253.579551A83D@mercurio.ulpgc.es>
Message-Id: <200201120118.36582@arnt.c2i.net>

Message-Id: <20020117232446.D72B41A7AB@mercurio.ulpgc.es>
Message-Id: <200201120105.26780@arnt.c2i.net>

Message-Id: <20020118003512.B4E411A994@mercurio.ulpgc.es>
Message-Id: <200201130049.49345@arnt.c2i.net>

Message-Id: <20020118003512.E9F431A995@mercurio.ulpgc.es>
Message-Id: <200201130017.51262@arnt.c2i.net>

Message-Id: <20020118030442.9093F1A8AB@mercurio.ulpgc.es>
Message-Id: <200201130340.24386@arnt.c2i.net>

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

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

--
.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 Anonymous Tue Nov 26 17:18:11 2002
From: Anonymous (Anonymous)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:53 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <143d9cc68e51c2ad1d0d6612c2161abd@NO-ID-FOUND.mhonarc.org>

------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C1A352.5F747D00--

From Anonymous Tue Nov 26 17:18:13 2002
From: Anonymous (Anonymous)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:09:54 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <52dae6a332483f10294096a9987b7093@NO-ID-FOUND.mhonarc.org>

..which allows a "white man life style" for _all_ the 15 billion
people we'll have over the next 400 years. Instead of WWIII.

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

..ok, you make electricity from H2 without any machines?
I dont either. ;-)

> You got Urls for yours???

..just the old boring
http://solstice.crest.org/discussion/gasifiaction/199903/msg00055.html
which doesn't show flywheels ;-)

> By the way folks -- Bright Star found 40% humidity the idea rate for
> self steam reforming biomass.
>
> That Url is long gone -- but I did save a copy!! Very specific --
> very enlightening. They to used catalytic heating -- and membrane
> separators.

..put it back on the web and post the url.

> What they lacked -- and what would have made the big difference -- is
> the tin metal bath deally!
>
> I hope this is not lost on this list?? Re: The vital importance of
> converting CO to H2 at extremely high efficiency. It makes or breaks
> the economics of gasifying any hydrocarbon for purposes of supplying
> H2 to a fuel cell.
>
>
> Peter

--
..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 Anonymous Tue Nov 26 17:18:23 2002
From: Anonymous (Anonymous)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:04 2004
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <5a41acd552426e974835556bb274602a@NO-ID-FOUND.mhonarc.org>

Dosing

Dosing is done by a dosig screew and a weighband before the feeder.
The rotation speed of the dosing screw is controlled by a frequency converter.

Plug breaker

The plug breaker has the purpose of down sizing the plug after the sealing. In order to avoid blockage under the plug breaker the cutting head is mounted with a screw section below the head.

Feed screw

The feed screw is feeding the biomass into the reactor.

The Fuel control system.

The fuel control system consist of a mass measurement and a moisture measurement placed as close to the gasification process as possible.
This means that there is a dead time of 15-20 second from when the fuel mass and moisture is measured until it is entering the reactor.
By measuring the mass and the moisture, the heating value of the fuel can be estimated with good accuracy assuming that the ash content is constant and low.

Fuel quality.

This system will work with biomass with a particle size from 0 to 100 mm. The system can work with input bulk densities in the biomass from 50 to 350 kg/m3.

Fuel feeding accuracy.

Each fuel line will feed one piston stroke every 3 seconds.
The fuel feeding accuracy at mass base at a capacity of 6000 kg pr hour will be:
The mass variations measured over 1 second will be from - 90 % to + 160 % of nominal capacity.
The mass variations measured over 3 second will be from - 15 % to + 15 % of nominal capacity.
The mass variations measured over 60 second will be from - 5 % to + 5 % of nominal capacity.

Inert gas consumption

Maximal inert gas consumption is 20 Nm3 gas pr. hour.

If any one are interested in more details you are velcome to contact me at
Phone +4546191554 or mail tk@tke.dk

Best regards

Thomas Koch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles@trmiles.com>
To: "gasification" <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 1:26 AM
Subject: GAS-L: Biomass Gasification and Feeding

> Subject: Biomass Gasification and Feeding
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I've been following with interest the recent exchanges between Tom Reed,
> > Tom Miles, Thomas Koch and others over biomass feeding, in particular the
> > feeding of bagasse. This topic has also surfaced several times in the
> > past. SRI's James Joyce has recently posted a brief commentary on our
> > development work. My purpose with this brief commentary is to bring the
> > gasification community up to speed with where the QBIG gasification
> > development and SRI's feeder development is at right now.
> >
> > I'm encouraged by Tom Reed's comment on 4 August ".... the world's most
> > difficult feeding fuel - raw bagasse from sugar cane". Chopped straw is
> > not too far behind !!! Our considerable experience with the handling of
> > raw bagasse at high rates in Australian sugar mills has told us that over
> > many years. But to the point. Put simply, SRI and University of
> > Queensland, Chemical Engineering (as part of the QBIG gasification
> > syndicate) embarked on the development of bagasse gasification technology
> > integrated with a sugar mill (that combination provides unique hot fuel gas
> > process advantages not found anywhere else) because of a host of technical
> > and economic reasons. Whether those reasons remain strong into the future
> > remains to be seen !!!! But for now these still exist.
> >
> > But in setting out on this journey, based on our own extensive experience
> > and judgement and with the benefit of the work done elsewhere around the
> > world on biomass gasification, we settled on two basic principles to
> > underpin our gasifier development (1) the process has to be pressurised
> > (although this has yet to be confirmed with detailed engineering, process
> > design and costing for Australian circumstances) and (2) we needed a whole
> > new feeder for bagasse and cane trash. Based on the Maui experiences
> > directly, on our own long experiences with the screwing of bagasse and the
> > commercial operating experiences of a sugar mill feeding bagasse using lock
> > hoppers for furfural production, any screw device was not acceptable, and
> > other devices including lock hoppers did not fit the goals. But as Tom has
> > said, bagasse being bagasse, you need a damned good feeder to feed bagasse
> > whether the pressure is 25 bar or 2 bar (so called atmospheric - although
> > rotary valves would be okay here). Remember that our primary goal in all
> > of our development work has been to focus on technology that would deliver
> > commercially sustainable plant. The feeder that we have now developed,
> > even though it is quite small, has all of the engineering and process
> > features that can be readily scaled-up to the rates that we need for our
> > proposed BIG/CC projects in our large Australian sugar mills. Raw bagasse
> > feeding rates of between 20 and 70 t/h per feeder will be required.
> > Notwithstanding Thomas Koch's admirable developments with his piston
> > feeder, the intermittent piston approach was judged not to be acceptable
> > for our goals - we needed continuous feeding at high very rates.
> >
> > We have now successfully developed a continuous bagasse feeder that has
> > been tested at rates up to about 5 t/h (not sure of the exact figure) for
> > test periods of up to two minutes. That is as long a test time as out
> > developmental rig will allow us. Our experimental data tells us that this
> > has been more than sufficient time to establish stable and consistent
> > operating conditions in the feeder. The feeder operations over that time
> > also tell us that the real world engineering issues that have to be
> > addressed are being addressed, and the feeder can be scaled-up to much
> > larger sizes. The current feeder size was selected to be a direct
> > application for our proposed 15 MWt (~ 5 MWe) demonstration gasifier, now
> > in the planning stages. The particular technology for our feeder comes out
> > of our extensive experience with the milling of bagasse to extract sugar
> > juice.
> >
> > I would be happy to provide more information and comment on bagasse feeding
> > and gasification in general to those interested as you make contact with me
> > directly or through the gasification network.
> >
> > Dr Terry Dixon
> > Manager Engineering Group
> > Sugar Research Institute
> > Box 5611
> > Mackay MC 4741
> > AUSTRALIA
> > Ph: +61 7 49527600
> > Fx: +61 7 49527699
> > Mb: 0418 185 309
> > email: t.dixon@sri.org.au
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------
> >
> > This email message (including any file attachments transmitted with it) is
> > for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
> > and privileged information. Any unauthorised alteration, disclosure or
> > distribution is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please
> > notify the sender by return email and destroy all copies of the original
> > message.
> >
> > Any confidentiality or legal professional privilege is not waived or lost
> > by any mistaken delivery of the email.
> >
> > -------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> -
> Gasification List Archives:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
> www.webpan.com/BEF
> List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>
>
> Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> -
> Other Gasification Events and Information:
> http://www.bioenergy2002.org
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon
>

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

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

From tombreed at attbi.com Fri Nov 1 04:27:48 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Klez virus names...
Message-ID: <009701c281aa$02d93d10$a48cfd0c@TOMBREED>

Dear Tom Miles and All:

There was a question about whether a virus was being spread with our
messages.

I use Norton Antivirus and when it finds a virus it "quarantines" it but
keeps a record. I have just looked at the list back to August and find
subjects like...

end
value
ayag
height
class border
mailbox
my money
PLay
Width
Valign.....

but none that would normally appear in our subject line. I conclude
(tentatively) that none were sent by our members.

TOM REED

Dr. Thomas B. Reed
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone/Fax

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Reed;Thomas
FN:Thomas Reed
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:tombreed@home.com
REV:20021101T132430Z
END:VCARD

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, tombreed@attbi.com Biomass =
Energy Foundation, www.woodgas.com
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>
-
Gasification List Archives http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
Bioenergy 2002 http://www.bioenergy2002.org/
200 kWe CHP Discussion
http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
Gasification Reference http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html

From mnorris at dekaresearch.com Fri Nov 1 15:02:27 2002
From: mnorris at dekaresearch.com (Mike Norris)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Flame speed in producer gas.
Message-ID: <BF9F15B6F927D611B59F000255C705A0A29B6C@EXCHANGE1>

I'm looking for the flame speed of producer gas. Does someone know
the values or where I can find them. I can find the flame speed of H2 and
CO, but I don't know how calculate the flame speed for the mixture.

Mike Norris

----
This e-mail and the information, including any attachments, it
contains areintended to be a confidential communication only to the
person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information
that is privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by
e-mail (administrator@dekaresearch.com), and destroy the original
message. Thank you.

From tombreed at attbi.com Sat Nov 2 03:40:20 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Flame speed in producer gas.
In-Reply-To: <BF9F15B6F927D611B59F000255C705A0A29B6C@EXCHANGE1>
Message-ID: <010001c2826c$8fc0eee0$a48cfd0c@TOMBREED>

Dear Mike and All:

The North American Combustion Handbook, V 1, 3rd edition,m lists the flame
speed of "a producer gas" (probably from coal, not biomass, but probably not
much different) as 0.26 m/s. (For comparison, CO is .52 and H2 is 2.83.
I presume N2 is 0, so reduces the flame speed in producer gas in
proportion.)

The flame speed of producer gas is an important issue in combustion in
internal combustion engines, since the flame should finish combustion before
the exhaust gas pops. As a result it is generally found that engines
running on producer gas reuire spark advance of 30-40 degrees (and possibly
should be more).

I doubt if flame speed is very important in our WoodGas stoves, but the
presence of methane and tars will further cloud the issue.

Onward... TOM REED BEF

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Norris" <mnorris@dekaresearch.com>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:56 PM
Subject: GAS-L: Flame speed in producer gas.

Mike Norris

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, tombreed@attbi.com Biomass =
Energy Foundation, www.woodgas.com
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>
-
Gasification List Archives
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
Bioenergy 2002 http://www.bioenergy2002.org/
200 kWe CHP Discussion
http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
Gasification Reference
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html

-
Stoves List Archives and Website:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/200209/
http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/
>
Stoves List Moderators:
Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com

Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon

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.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/Chambers/Chambers.htm

From tmiles at trmiles.com Sun Nov 3 17:50:44 2002
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Fw: model gasifier
Message-ID: <006901c283ac$64192be0$dafb500a@tomslaptop>

From: "Ken Basterfield" <ken@basterfield.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 11:30 AM
Subject: model gasifier

> Dear Doug,
> I am about to build your DIYgasifier. This will be my first attempt at
such
> an item though I have good engineering skills.
>
> Is the 460mm dia critical?
> I have a number of redundant 39kg propane bottles that would nicely suit
> perhaps. They are 380mm OD and I imagine 2 or 3mm wall. Will it be alright
> to build it 380 od all the way down without operating problems?
> I would appreciate your guidance.
> Sincerely,
> Ken Basterfield
>
>

From tkj at mek.dtu.dk Sun Nov 3 23:06:52 2002
From: tkj at mek.dtu.dk (Jensen, Torben Kvist)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Flame speed in producer gas.
Message-ID: <53562FCA70D1AC47BF7FD7FBD0FD73E325EDBE@mes1.mek.dtu.dk>

At the Technical University of Denmark we have determined the laminar flame speed of producer gas and mixtures of producer gas and natural gas. This was done applying a spherical combustion bomb containing a mixture of fuel and air. Electrodes located at the center of the bomb ignited this mixture and the laminar flame speed was calculated from a measured pressure-time history. For a producer gas with the composition CH4=2%, CO=15%, H2=35%, N2=30% and CO2=18, the laminar flame found to be 2.0 m/s @ lambda=1.0 and 1.1 m/s @ lambda=1.25. Further details about the determination of the flame speed and the flame speed of mixtures of producer gas and natural gas can be found in the SAE paper 1999-01-1571. In the SAE paper 2000-01-2824 we have reported different fuel properties of mixtures producer gas and natural gas (as e.g. flame speed) deduced from combustion engine experiments.

Torben Kvist Jensen. Assistant professor, Ph.D.
Department of Mechanical Engineering
e-mail: tkj@mek.dtu.dk
web: www.bgg.mek.dtu.dk

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Norris [mailto:mnorris@dekaresearch.com]
Sent: 2. november 2002 00:56
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: Flame speed in producer gas.

Mike Norris

From oscar at geprop.cu Mon Nov 4 12:20:44 2002
From: oscar at geprop.cu (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Oscar_Jim=E9nez?=)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas producer for generating power. Looking for experience.
Message-ID: <11197F61CBF36942AC3D9C998E99960B10C885@ntserver.geprop.cu>

Hi there to all.

Currently we are involved in the introduction of renewable energy based technology to covering part of our
second biggest island power demand, located on the southern part of Cuba. Among these renewable energy
based options, we are considering the utilisation of biomass gasification (producer gas) for generating around
3.5 MW of the power demand, using a dual-fuel mode engine. Our main concern about this issue is the capability
of such system to cope with load changes in the grid when generating power. Do you know of any experience on
this issue for guiding us??? For being honest, we are currently on the learning line in the utilisation of producer gas
aimed to power generation. Just yesterday we came from Bangalore, India, after attending and international training
course on biomass gasification. Staying out there we visited a 1MW power generation plant based on producer gas
and one of our most important concern is the one mentioned above. That is why we are looking for other experience
on this issue.

Best regards.

Oscar.

From cicbcal at cal2.vsnl.net.in Mon Nov 4 22:39:24 2002
From: cicbcal at cal2.vsnl.net.in (Kollol Dey)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas producer for generating power. Looking for experience.
In-Reply-To: <11197F61CBF36942AC3D9C998E99960B10C885@ntserver.geprop.cu>
Message-ID: <010c01c2849e$3f2e66e0$2466c5cb@kdey>

Dear Oscar,

Can you please share with us details of the 1.0 MWe
power generation plant which you saw in India? Is this plant based
on Technology from Indian Institute Of Science's Technology,
Bangalore?

Regards

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

To: <A title=gasification@crest.org
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 2:46
AM
Subject: GAS-L: Gas producer for
generating power. Looking for experience.
Hi there to all.Currently we are involved in the
introduction of renewable energy based technology to covering part of
oursecond biggest island power demand, located on the southern part of
Cuba. Among these renewable energybased options, we are considering the
utilisation of biomass gasification (producer gas) for generating
around3.5 MW of the power demand, using a dual-fuel mode engine. Our main
concern about this issue is the capabilityof such system to cope with load
changes in the grid when generating power. Do you know of any experience on
this issue for guiding us??? For being honest, we are currently on the
learning line in the utilisation of producer gasaimed to power generation.
Just yesterday we came from Bangalore, India, after attending and
international training course on biomass gasification. Staying out there
we visited a 1MW power generation plant based on producer gasand one of
our most important concern is the one mentioned above. That is why we are
looking for other experience on this issue.Best
regards.Oscar. Gasification List
Moderator:Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, <A
href="mailto:tombreed@attbi.com">tombreed@attbi.com Biomass =Energy
Foundation, www.woodgas.comList-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>-Gasification
List Archives <A
href="http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/">http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/Bioenergy
2002 <A
href="http://www.bioenergy2002.org/">http://www.bioenergy2002.org/200
kWe CHP Discussion<A
href="http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html">http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.htmlGasification
Reference <A
href="http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html">http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html>

From tkj at mek.dtu.dk Tue Nov 5 04:23:42 2002
From: tkj at mek.dtu.dk (Jensen, Torben Kvist)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Flame speed in producer gas.
Message-ID: <53562FCA70D1AC47BF7FD7FBD0FD73E325CA9A@mes1.mek.dtu.dk>

The flame speeds given here are determined for a synthetic fuel with the same composition as a gas produced from gasification of wood chips in i a two-stage gasifier with an externally heated pyrolysis unit (see www.bgg.mek.dtu.dk). The earlier given flame speeds are valid at 6-7 atm. The flame speed at 1 atm and T_unburned=298 K is 0.65 m/s at lambda=1.0 and 0.50 m/s at lambda =1.25.

Torben Kvist Jensen

___________________________________________________________

The paper lists the flame speed as the flame approaches the
combustion chamber wall when the pressure will be ~ 10 bar.
I am interested in the flame speed at 1 atm. Is that data
available?

Mike Norris

-----Original Message-----
From: Jensen, Torben Kvist
Sent: 4. november 2002 09:03
To: Mike Norris; gasification@crest.org
Subject: RE: GAS-L: Flame speed in producer gas.

Torben Kvist Jensen. Assistant professor, Ph.D.
Department of Mechanical Engineering
e-mail: tkj@mek.dtu.dk
web: www.bgg.mek.dtu.dk

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Norris [mailto:mnorris@dekaresearch.com]
Sent: 2. november 2002 00:56
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: Flame speed in producer gas.

Mike Norris

From gcastilloy at yahoo.es Tue Nov 5 07:23:08 2002
From: gcastilloy at yahoo.es (Gonzalo Castillo Y.)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Small scale gasification technology, commercial status
Message-ID: <003c01c284ef$ca841860$0501a8c0@tie.cl>

Hello,
We are writing from Chile. We are looking for proven biomass gasification
technology for the production of thermal and/or electrical energy. We are
interested in the small scale range, about 20 – 100kW.
We have seen many gasification systems, which works with Diesel engines.
Which are the reasons to use diesel instead of spark ignition engines? Which
could be the problems working with a spark ignition engine? The microturbine gas
technology has not reach a commercial status yet working with lean gas? If the
microturbine are already commercially adopted, in which cases you suggest the
microturbine option instead of the diesel group for electricity generation
How work the gasification technology fed with sawdust?, There are some
application of that size working in cogeneration mode or dual system: direct
flame and/or electricity generation?
Thanks to all
Gonzalo Castillo Y
Energy Research Program
University of Chile

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Wed Nov 6 19:49:37 2002
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Subject: Wood gasification demo in Germany
Message-ID: <008701c28552$4fc4b860$16ff58db@newpc>

Dear Bioenergy Collegue,
Almost every engine gasification project reported in the media as a
successful demonstration of the technology is followed by, further work is
needed to make it commercial, or another million dollars are needed to
investigate gas cleaning!

These type of reports do nothing to advance acceptance of our technology
even when its of a installed working system. The same magazine did an
article on a project Fluidyne implemented in New Guinea in an issue dated
October 1989, It didn't help sell a single gasifier.

We don't need more projects to prove anything, just removal of these almost
working gasifiers and those anonymous energy consultants who know more about
gasifiers than the manufacturer.

Doug Williams

Fluidyne Gasification.

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:43:40 EST
To: bioenergy@crest.org
From: CAVM@aol.com
Subject: Wood gasification demo in Germany
Message-ID: <37.2fa72894.2aeec33c@aol.com>

The October 2002 edition of Diesel & Gas Turbine Worldwide magazine on page
10 has an article on a demo plant in Eckernforde, Germany, by Sr. Franz
Hirschbichler. This plant is producing wood gas from chips, cleaning the
gas

and fueling an internal combustion engine. The use a MDE turbocharged v12,
1.83 L/cyl, S1 Leanburn gas engine adapted to wood gas.

There seems to be some additional work required to get the plant operating
as

planned although they consider the demo to have proved the concept of wood
gas for a CHP plant.

C. Van Milligen
Kentucky Enrichment Inc.
CAVM@AOL.com

From tombreed at attbi.com Fri Nov 8 08:19:10 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: Refractories and Luddites
In-Reply-To: <109.1b4bc361.2af89946@aol.com>
Message-ID: <039301c2856e$a82355e0$a48cfd0c@TOMBREED>

Dear Harmon, Dean and All:

I understand Harmon's worry about health effects of refractory fibres and
other ceramics. I have had lung irritation working with Kaowool, so wear a
mask with ALL fibrous materials. The carcinogenicity of asbestos is well
documented because it was so widely used during WWII until 1980. Then the
long term effects became known through epidemiology. Can't tell with only 1
or 10 or 100 people with varying exposure.

HOWEVER, an excess of caution could cause more damage by non-use than by
use. The original Luddites were weavers fearing machines would destroy
their jobs. They broke into factories and destroyed the new machines. See

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRluddites.htm

I quiver and quake when I get in my car with warnings about the dire dangers
of air bags. Yet the airbags probably save 100-1000 times as many lives as
they endanger. So

a) should we do away with airbags?

b) should we do away with the warnings?

c) should we keep the airbags and train everyone in their use (Seat belts
MUCH more important)

I'll take C.

When pasteurization was first introduced it was strongly opposed by many
groups. When fluoridation was intorduced it stirred up lots of opposition,
some of which still screams...

The moral of the story is that every large upside is bound to have a small
downside. Are we to give up good insulating materials (improving the
cooking for millions) because we have to be careful during installation and
disposal (slightly endangering a very few)? No, better to warn users and
installers about any known dangers.

In addition, we don't really know the problems that we face when using
"indigenous" (local, cheap) materials. Since they are not widely available,
there is no MSDS (Material safety data sheet) available.

~~~~~~~~
I noticed that Thermal Ceramics has MSDS sheets available on all their
products. Why not consult these rather than speculating on possible
carcinogenicity?

Your curmudgeon, TOM REED
BEF

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@cybershamanix.com>
To: <dstill@epud.net>
Cc: <stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: refractory materials

> On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 10:13:22AM -0800, dstill@epud.net wrote:
> > Dear Friends,
> >
> > Tin cans only last about 30 firings in a Rocket stove combustion
chamber.
> > Heavier sheet metal, even stainless steel, does not last for many months
if the
> > stove is used daily. When we use really heavy metal or cast iron folks
don't
> > like the delay in response time, i.e., longer initial time to boil. I
> > guesstimate in designs that when temperatures are over 900F steel cannot
be
> > used, which means that steel is ok in the fuel magazine, pot skirt, etc.
> >
> > The company Thermal Ceramics (800)990 5264 makes a material called
TR-19, not
> > KAOWOOL, which is slightly carcinogenic, which I'm now using to make
> > prototypes. It is inexpensive, very insulative and refractory.
> >
>
> Which do you mean "is slightly carcinogenic", the Kaowool or the
> TR-19? Kaowool and others of the thermoceramics are more than a little
> carcinogenic -- definitely want to be very careful working with them, wear
a
> respirator, gloves, etc. when forming or cutting. I know they've been
banned in
> some university art departments for kilns.
> That's not to say they shouldn't be used, just carefully. So is the
TR-19
> safer?
>
> > We are working on home grown insulative, ceramic refractory recipes and
will
> > make a complete report soon.
> >
>
> I think that's the real answer anyway. Especially if it's safer --
putting
> stoves with carcinogenic riser sleeves, Kaowool, or the like in kitchens
seems
> like simply trading one danger for another.
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com
>
> "War is just a racket ... something that is not what it seems to the
> majority of people. Only a small group knows what its about. It is
> conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the
> masses." --- Major General Smedley Butler, 1933
>
> "Our overriding purpose, from the beginning through to the present
> day, has been world domination - that is, to build and maintain the
> capacity to coerce everybody else on the planet: nonviolently, if
> possible, and violently, if necessary. But the purpose of US foreign
> policy of domination is not just to make the rest of the world jump
> through hoops; the purpose is to faciliate our exploitation of
> resources."
> - Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General
> http://www.thesunmagazine.org/bully.html
>
> -
> Stoves List Archives and Website:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/200209/
> http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/
> >
> Stoves List Moderators:
> Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
>
> Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon
>
> 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.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/Chambers/Chambers.htm
>
>

From Tk at tke.dk Fri Nov 8 10:26:21 2002
From: Tk at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Subject: Wood gasification demo in Germany
In-Reply-To: <008701c28552$4fc4b860$16ff58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <002b01c28642$bcba88a0$6801a8c0@image.dk>

Dear Doug

You are so dead right.
I often wonder where some statements concerning gasifiers come from.

Best regards

Thomas Koch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Graeme Williams" <graeme@powerlink.co.nz>
To: <CAVM@aol.com>
Cc: <gasification@crest.org>; <bioenergy@crest.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 6:06 AM
Subject: GAS-L: Subject: Wood gasification demo in Germany

> Dear Bioenergy Collegue,
> Almost every engine gasification project reported in the media as a
> successful demonstration of the technology is followed by, further work is
> needed to make it commercial, or another million dollars are needed to
> investigate gas cleaning!
>
> These type of reports do nothing to advance acceptance of our technology
> even when its of a installed working system. The same magazine did an
> article on a project Fluidyne implemented in New Guinea in an issue dated
> October 1989, It didn't help sell a single gasifier.
>
> We don't need more projects to prove anything, just removal of these almost
> working gasifiers and those anonymous energy consultants who know more about
> gasifiers than the manufacturer.
>
> Doug Williams
>
> Fluidyne Gasification.
>
>
>
>
> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:43:40 EST
> To: bioenergy@crest.org
> From: CAVM@aol.com
> Subject: Wood gasification demo in Germany
> Message-ID: <37.2fa72894.2aeec33c@aol.com>
>
>
>
> The October 2002 edition of Diesel & Gas Turbine Worldwide magazine on page
> 10 has an article on a demo plant in Eckernforde, Germany, by Sr. Franz
> Hirschbichler. This plant is producing wood gas from chips, cleaning the
> gas
>
> and fueling an internal combustion engine. The use a MDE turbocharged v12,
> 1.83 L/cyl, S1 Leanburn gas engine adapted to wood gas.
>
> There seems to be some additional work required to get the plant operating
> as
>
> planned although they consider the demo to have proved the concept of wood
> gas for a CHP plant.
>
> C. Van Milligen
> Kentucky Enrichment Inc.
> CAVM@AOL.com
>
>
>
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, tombreed@attbi.com Biomass =
> Energy Foundation, www.woodgas.com
> 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>
> -
> Gasification List Archives http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
> Bioenergy 2002 http://www.bioenergy2002.org/
> 200 kWe CHP Discussion
> http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
> Gasification Reference http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
>
> >
>

From FMurrl at aol.com Fri Nov 8 11:52:29 2002
From: FMurrl at aol.com (FMurrl@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification tax credits
Message-ID: <19e.b9682b6.2afc1751@aol.com>

Hi, Can you advise me if Section 29 would be applicable to the vitrification (melting) of biomass from dried sewage sludge?

To be very specific about Section 29, I believe the answer is "no" unless the Congress adds to the Section in either the lame duck session or next year in the new Congress.

Section 29 qualification periods are passed. I don't understand Section 29 to cover this activity now under any circumstances. Even if it did, the equipment causing the gasification would have to have been put into service on or before 30 June 1998, pursuant to an enforceable and binding contract executed on or before 31 December 1996.

Fred Murrell
Biomass Development Company
Bradenton Florida USA

From Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk Fri Nov 8 12:40:01 2002
From: Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Subject: Wood gasification demo in Germany
In-Reply-To: <008701c28552$4fc4b860$16ff58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGAEHKCHAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>

Graeme,
Can you give me a price for a 100kWe CHP system to burn wood chips, 25%
moisture wb. Mean dimensions 20mm x 20mm x 5mm .
What warranty would this a gasifier carry?
What duty can it operate. We would prefer 7500 hrs pa plus
I.e. 6 days between maintenance shutdown- is this possible?

A similar quote for a 2MW system with similar fuel spec would also be
appreciated

Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
3G Energi,

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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Graeme Williams [mailto:graeme@powerlink.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 5:07
To: CAVM@aol.com
Cc: gasification@crest.org; bioenergy@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: Subject: Wood gasification demo in Germany

We don't need more projects to prove anything, just removal of these almost
working gasifiers and those anonymous energy consultants who know more about
gasifiers than the manufacturer.

Doug Williams

Fluidyne Gasification.

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:43:40 EST
To: bioenergy@crest.org
From: CAVM@aol.com
Subject: Wood gasification demo in Germany
Message-ID: <37.2fa72894.2aeec33c@aol.com>

and fueling an internal combustion engine. The use a MDE turbocharged v12,
1.83 L/cyl, S1 Leanburn gas engine adapted to wood gas.

There seems to be some additional work required to get the plant operating
as

planned although they consider the demo to have proved the concept of wood
gas for a CHP plant.

C. Van Milligen
Kentucky Enrichment Inc.
CAVM@AOL.com

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, tombreed@attbi.com Biomass =
Energy Foundation, www.woodgas.com
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>
-
Gasification List Archives
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
Bioenergy 2002 http://www.bioenergy2002.org/
200 kWe CHP Discussion
http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
Gasification Reference
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html

From cicbcal at cal2.vsnl.net.in Fri Nov 8 13:51:00 2002
From: cicbcal at cal2.vsnl.net.in (Kollol Dey)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Furnace Volume for "Producer Gas"
Message-ID: <012e01c286fe$c133ae40$df66c5cb@kdey>

Dear All,

I am looking for methods to calculate furnace volume
when firing "Producer Gas".
Can any one please help ?

Regards

K.Dey.

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Fri Nov 8 15:16:52 2002
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Model gasifier.
Message-ID: <000d01c285fd$9c26be00$1dff58db@newpc>

Dear Ken and Gasification Colleagues

The outer diameter isn't so important within reason, but you must maintain
the critical dimensions between the air nozzles, nozzle to throat tube, and
grate height. These are all the measurements in red ink on the original
drawing.

SAFETY: Old propane cylinders often have wax residue deposits and you will
kill yourself if you don't take every precaution to open them. Don't use
oxy-acetylene cutters, and fill them with water before you attempt any form
of chopping, hacking or sawing!

Before you go too far with the actual manufacture, you might like to tell me
how you plan to use the gasifier, and I can offer a few pointers.

The drawings for the above mentioned gasifier can be found on the Fluidyne
Archive site www.fluidynenz.250x.com Remember this isnt a model
gasifier.

Regards

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification.

From: "Ken Basterfield" ken@basterfield.com
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 11:30 AM
Subject: model gasifier

Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 11:30 AM
Subject: model gasifier

From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Nov 8 15:34:19 2002
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Refractories and Luddites
Message-ID: <181.118ad991.2afd6746@aol.com>

Dear Tom Reed,
Let's take a look at the legal history of asbestos. At one point where it
was determined to be carcinogenic, it became a retroactive issue of people
who were exposed to it were now able to file claims for health problems. It
is still the only material for certain applications and carcinogenic events
still occur.
Many major companies had to file bankruptcy to stay alive from the
asbestos settlements.
What happens if standards become lowered and fused silica and other
fibrous compounds become under the same potential umbrella of liability? This
is a problem with using future standards to clear operations today. We have
no idea of what potential future liability we may suffer if changes in the
standards are lowered. This could occur in any number of currently used
materials, fibre insulation being one of them.

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

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Nov 8 19:40:50 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Subject: Wood gasification demo in Germany
In-Reply-To: <008701c28552$4fc4b860$16ff58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <20021109051918.7eabb33b.arnt@c2i.net>

On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:06:43 +1300,
"Graeme Williams" <graeme@powerlink.co.nz> wrote in message
<008701c28552$4fc4b860$16ff58db@newpc>:

> Dear Bioenergy Collegue,
> Almost every engine gasification project reported in the media as a
> successful demonstration of the technology is followed by, further
> work is needed to make it commercial, or another million dollars are
> needed to investigate gas cleaning!
>
> These type of reports do nothing to advance acceptance of our
> technology even when its of a installed working system. The same
> magazine did an article on a project Fluidyne implemented in New
> Guinea in an issue dated October 1989, It didn't help sell a single
> gasifier.
>
> We don't need more projects to prove anything, just removal of these
> almost working gasifiers and those anonymous energy consultants who
> know more about gasifiers than the manufacturer.

..hear, hear. And we need to lose the stupid "charity only, can't make
profits" attitude. And, never ever act on cotton wall'ers who piss down
your back telling you "how clever you are in running engines on stuff
that won't burn" promising to help fund you. These people are more
dangerous to gasification than the naysayers, as the former, given half
a chance, will happily help prove the latter right, _screwing_ us.

..yeah, I have a working gasifier. Nope, it is not for free, it costs
_real_ money to see in action. Yes, I will share the profits. No, it
_stays_ in my 20' freight container until _I_have_ the money to fire it
up again. I hit the cotton wall. Hard. Your call.

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

From tombreed at attbi.com Sat Nov 9 06:08:20 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Subject: Wood gasification demo in Germany
In-Reply-To: <008701c28552$4fc4b860$16ff58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <005501c287c1$6995ad50$a48cfd0c@TOMBREED>

Dear Tom, Doug and all:

Tom is SO RIGHT. The optimistic prognostications come form new R&D
enthusiasts not familiar with the real problems of gasification development
and the new money they attract with their dreams.

Some stick it out and become realists who then go on to solve the real
problems, and hopefully die rich - or at least not in the poor house.

How can we achieve a proper balance between our dreams that move us forward
and realisms that stop all progress?

TOM REED
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Koch" <Tk@tke.dk>
To: "Graeme Williams" <graeme@powerlink.co.nz>; <CAVM@aol.com>
Cc: <gasification@crest.org>; <bioenergy@crest.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 2:47 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Subject: Wood gasification demo in Germany

Dear Doug

You are so dead right.
I often wonder where some statements concerning gasifiers come from.

Best regards

Thomas Koch

> Dear Bioenergy Collegue,
> Almost every engine gasification project reported in the media as a
> successful demonstration of the technology is followed by, further work is
> needed to make it commercial, or another million dollars are needed to
> investigate gas cleaning!
>
> These type of reports do nothing to advance acceptance of our technology
> even when its of a installed working system. The same magazine did an
> article on a project Fluidyne implemented in New Guinea in an issue dated
> October 1989, It didn't help sell a single gasifier.
>
> We don't need more projects to prove anything, just removal of these
almost
> working gasifiers and those anonymous energy consultants who know more
about
> gasifiers than the manufacturer.
>
> Doug Williams
>
> Fluidyne Gasification.
>
>
>
>
> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:43:40 EST
> To: bioenergy@crest.org
> From: CAVM@aol.com
> Subject: Wood gasification demo in Germany
> Message-ID: <37.2fa72894.2aeec33c@aol.com>
>
>
>
> The October 2002 edition of Diesel & Gas Turbine Worldwide magazine on
page
> 10 has an article on a demo plant in Eckernforde, Germany, by Sr. Franz
> Hirschbichler. This plant is producing wood gas from chips, cleaning the
> gas
>
> and fueling an internal combustion engine. The use a MDE turbocharged
v12,
> 1.83 L/cyl, S1 Leanburn gas engine adapted to wood gas.
>
> There seems to be some additional work required to get the plant operating
> as
>
> planned although they consider the demo to have proved the concept of wood
> gas for a CHP plant.
>
> C. Van Milligen
> Kentucky Enrichment Inc.
> CAVM@AOL.com
>
>
>
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, tombreed@attbi.com Biomass =
> Energy Foundation, www.woodgas.com
> 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>
> -
> Gasification List Archives
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
> Bioenergy 2002 http://www.bioenergy2002.org/
> 200 kWe CHP Discussion
> http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
> Gasification Reference
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
>
> >
>

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, tombreed@attbi.com Biomass =
Energy Foundation, www.woodgas.com
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>
-
Gasification List Archives
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
Bioenergy 2002 http://www.bioenergy2002.org/
200 kWe CHP Discussion
http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
Gasification Reference
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html

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

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

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

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Sat Nov 9 14:10:54 2002
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Subject: Wood gasification demo in Germany
In-Reply-To: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGAEHKCHAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>
Message-ID: <006301c28845$155afa40$09ff58db@newpc>

Dear Gavin

I have stated a number of times on this forum that I had to close the
Fluidyne workshop in New Zealand in 1998 due to the lack of orders for
gasifiers. Fluidyne gasification technology continues to be developed under
my supervision in Canada U.K. and Germany, but mainly Canada where we are
developing the larger gasifiers. To that end there has been almost two
years now of testing to comply with the EPA emission test standards which
once completed will allow us to implement this technology for our own waste
disposal business, and at this stage we are not planning to sell this
equipment.The biggest delays to our work have not been technical, but
trying to get permits etc.

In answer to your question regarding duty cycle, we aim for at least 30 day
continuous operation, and passed experience has shown us that we can operate
up to 12 weeks before shut down to clean a coke that forms in the
distillation zone above the nozzles. The other thing that affects the
reliability is the cleanliness of the fuel whereby dirt or stones form
clinkers that are difficult to clear through the grates.

Because all of our work by the associate companies is being funded
from within company financial resources, the development work creeps
along at snail's pace and it will be quite some time in my opinion before
one of them has the courage to offer equipment with the corresponding
warranties. Personally I would rise to the challenge and go for it myself
and give you a quote, but those days are now passed and you will have to
wait until some other company tries to meet the non existent demand for
gasifiers.

In the meantime I try to contribute to this forum if for no other reason
than to try and contribute in a helpful way, based on experience, which
sadly there seems to be little value for when you try and extract a dollar
for technical assistance. You will see that there is plenty of assistance
needed from the recent requests for information, all of which can be found
in the archives of this forum.

I hope this clarifies the situation with Fluidyne Gasification, which I
always sign after my name, which is Doug Williams (my son is Graeme) so that
you know my contributions are based on commercial experience.

Regards

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gavin Gulliver-Goodall" <Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>
To: "Graeme Williams" <graeme@powerlink.co.nz>
Cc: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 1:20 PM
Subject: RE: GAS-L: Subject: Wood gasification demo in Germany

> Graeme,
> Can you give me a price for a 100kWe CHP system to burn wood chips, 25%
> moisture wb. Mean dimensions 20mm x 20mm x 5mm .
> What warranty would this a gasifier carry?
> What duty can it operate. We would prefer 7500 hrs pa plus
> I.e. 6 days between maintenance shutdown- is this possible?
>
> A similar quote for a 2MW system with similar fuel spec would also be
> appreciated
>
> Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
> 3G Energi,
>
>

From tombreed at attbi.com Mon Nov 11 05:12:22 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Model gasifier.
In-Reply-To: <000d01c285fd$9c26be00$1dff58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <02b801c2894a$a0c47510$a48cfd0c@TOMBREED>

Dear Doug;

Let me compliment you and Graeme on a stunning web page which I am still
studying...

Tom Reed BEF GASWORKS

----- Original Message -----
From: "Graeme Williams" <graeme@powerlink.co.nz>
To: <ken@basterfield.com>
Cc: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 6:32 PM
Subject: GAS-L: Model gasifier.

>
>
> Dear Ken and Gasification Colleagues
>
> The outer diameter isn't so important within reason, but you must maintain
> the critical dimensions between the air nozzles, nozzle to throat tube,
and
> grate height. These are all the measurements in red ink on the original
> drawing.
>
> SAFETY: Old propane cylinders often have wax residue deposits and you
will
> kill yourself if you don't take every precaution to open them. Don't use
> oxy-acetylene cutters, and fill them with water before you attempt any
form
> of chopping, hacking or sawing!
>
> Before you go too far with the actual manufacture, you might like to tell
me
> how you plan to use the gasifier, and I can offer a few pointers.
>
> The drawings for the above mentioned gasifier can be found on the Fluidyne
> Archive site www.fluidynenz.250x.com Remember this isnt a model
> gasifier.
>
> Regards
>
> Doug Williams
> Fluidyne Gasification.
>
>
>
> From: "Ken Basterfield" ken@basterfield.com
> Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 11:30 AM
> Subject: model gasifier
>
> > Dear Doug,
> > I am about to build your DIYgasifier. This will be my first attempt at
> such
> > an item though I have good engineering skills.
> >
> > Is the 460mm dia critical?
> > I have a number of redundant 39kg propane bottles that would nicely suit
> > perhaps. They are 380mm OD and I imagine 2 or 3mm wall. Will it be
alright
> > to build it 380 od all the way down without operating problems?
> > I would appreciate your guidance.
> > Sincerely,
> > Ken Basterfield
> >
> >
>
> Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 11:30 AM
> Subject: model gasifier
>
> > Dear Doug,
> > I am about to build your DIYgasifier. This will be my first attempt at
> such
> > an item though I have good engineering skills.
> >
> > Is the 460mm dia critical?
> > I have a number of redundant 39kg propane bottles that would nicely suit
> > perhaps. They are 380mm OD and I imagine 2 or 3mm wall. Will it be
alright
> > to build it 380 od all the way down without operating problems?
> > I would appreciate your guidance.
> > Sincerely,
> > Ken Basterfield
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, tombreed@attbi.com Biomass =
> Energy Foundation, www.woodgas.com
> 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>
> -
> Gasification List Archives
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
> Bioenergy 2002 http://www.bioenergy2002.org/
> 200 kWe CHP Discussion
> http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
> Gasification Reference
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
>
> >
>
>

From tombreed at attbi.com Mon Nov 11 05:20:09 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: Charcoal + Heat
In-Reply-To: <NGBBKDEHILILFNJPHEFIOEAFCEAA.ronallarson@qwest.net>
Message-ID: <004401c2894c$ffc8e170$a48cfd0c@TOMBREED>

Dear All:

Tom Miles says...

>Charcoal might seem like a convenient byproduct
but I think most of the experience has taught us to treat charcoal and
electricity production as separate processes.

Agreed, and in our CPC gasifiers we try to keep
char/ash production below 5%.

HOWEVER, production of characoal and heat are not
so incompatible. In some of our stoves, after the volatiles have been
gasified, a change of air fuel ratio permits continuing operation to give a good
CO gas flame. OR you can keep the charcoal.

TOM
REED BEF
STOVEWORKS GASWORKS
<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:
Tom Miles

To: <A title=ronallarson@qwest.net
href="mailto:ronallarson@qwest.net">Ron Larson ; <A
title=raywije@eureka.lk href="mailto:raywije@eureka.lk">Ray Wijewardene ;
P.G. Joseph ;
Thomas B Reed
; <A title=adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in
href="mailto:adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in">adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 9:23
AM
Subject: Re: Gasification; bioenergy
etc.

Ron,

A comment on your enthusiasm for charcoal.

A gasifier that is optimized to make fuel gas for
electricity will make very little charcoal. An efficient stove or boiler will
not make any charcoal. A gasifying stove like the turbostove or a staged
combustor like the primenergy gasifier can make charcoal since it's
primarily burning the volatiles. A pyrolyser that is optimized to
make charcoal will make a gas that must be reprocessed (reformed) to make a
gas clean enough to run reliably in an engine.Charcoal might seem like a
convenient byproduct but I think most of the experience has taught us to treat
charcoal and electricity production as separate processes.

Tom Miles

From arnt at c2i.net Mon Nov 11 09:54:01 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Could you please post this
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20021111085549.00969750@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <20021111195110.6c2836f0.arnt@c2i.net>

On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 07:34:04 -0800,
"Tom Miles" <tmiles@trmiles.com> wrote in message
<00c201c28997$cbd55ce0$0301a8c0@tomslaptop>:

> All,
>
> A more useful question is: are you interested in seeing this kind of
> message posted on the lists?

..yes. Just strip off the bloaty html, this is a mail list, not a
scriptkiddie crack-a-box contest. Those of you still running wintendo
remains vulnerable to Javascript, Active-X and Visual Basic embedded
in html-formatted email and in web pages. Plain text email _without_
binary attachments, is the safe way to go.

> In this case the poster suscribed to the list and posted it directly.
> Usually messages of this kind come to Ron, Elk, or myself and we post
> them only if they are germane to the list.
>
> It looks like IndiaCore puts on conferences and publishes books. It
> looks like an interesting source of information adn hopefully useful
> to some on the list.
>
> I note that the sponsor is Tata Power Company which I assume is a
> utility. Terin, a Tata affiliate, has been active with stoves and
> gasfiiers for some time and has some interesting case studies on their
> website http://www.teriin.org/renew/tech/gasif/case.htm My favorite is
> a gasifier for large scale cooking applications - 6,000 people per
> batch.

..ah, the wee beginnings of Toms Gas Diner[Tm]. ;-)

> Tom Miles
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@btl.net>
> To: <stoves@crest.org>
> Cc: <gasification@crest.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 6:57 AM
> Subject: GAS-L: Could you please post this
>
>
> >
> > Dear IndiaCore;
> >
> > It never ceases to amaze me how people from India -- a 3rd world
> country --
> > insist on using the grossest of bloatware to send messages. And to
> > mail lists!!
> >
> > Normally I would just automatically send such a message straight to
> > the trash bin -- without reading a single line!!
> >
> > The entire world is not as "Rich" as India demonstrates in these
> > style Email messages to mail lists!!
> >
> > Many of us have poor I-net connections -- slow and expensive.
> >
> > Maybe India is only interested in communicating with the rich
> > industrialized nations -- and wishes to ignore totally the rest of
> > this planet -- including the greater amount of people in their own
> > country!!
> >
> > Please -- learn to post in ASCII text to mail lists -- else all
> > future messages will be sent to "Trash" bin unread.
> >
> > Actually -- I use mail washer -- and delete them directly from the
> > server-- never letting them enter my computer -- not even
> > downloading them.
> >
> > Many of us do this now.
> >
> > Peter Singfield / Belize
> >
> > Here is you message properly formatted -- a "favor" I do one time --
> > and one time only!!

..this can, and _should_ be automated. Email me, if you want me to do
it. All it takes is a linux box, and it can host the lists and web
sites and still run in circles around your wintendos.

Starting nmap V. 3.00 ( www.insecure.org/nmap/ )
Insufficient responses for TCP sequencing (3), OS detection may be less
accurate Interesting ports on host-65-121-192-13.solarhost.com
(65.121.192.13):(The 1591 ports scanned but not shown below are in
state: closed) Port State Service
21/tcp open ftp
22/tcp open ssh
25/tcp open smtp
80/tcp open http
98/tcp open linuxconf
113/tcp open auth
137/tcp filtered netbios-ns
138/tcp filtered netbios-dgm
139/tcp filtered netbios-ssn
3306/tcp open mysql
Remote operating system guess: Linux 2.1.19 - 2.2.20
Uptime 60.244 days (since Thu Sep 12 14:43:12 2002)

Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 81 seconds

..and, do seal off those wintendo ports (137-139 and 98).
Yeah, I know what I'm talking about. ;-)

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

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Mon Nov 11 15:10:38 2002
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Model Gasifier
Message-ID: <002401c289df$c09381c0$04ff58db@newpc>

Dear Tom R and Colleagues

Thanks for your comments regarding the web pages of theFluidyne Archive
which did start out just to save photographs of gasifiers and engines etc.
Graeme is really responsible for putting it all in place, but his own work
in computing, leaves less time to help me, so hope I can find a way to keep
it up in the long term.

Repeatedly each time I respond in this forum to questions, I receive a flood
of private e-mails which makes it difficult to respond quickly, so if I keep
you waiting for a reply please wait.

Tom, I related to your quote of "proper balance between dreams that move us
forward and realisms that stop all progress". For the benefit of those who
recently posted requests for information on gasifiers and engines, I'd like
to offer the following realisms that kill your aspirations stone dead if you
are looking for commercially developed equipment.

a: In a world that hasn't used gasifiers for 60 years, there has been no
market for manufacturers to supply.

b: How can you develop a gasifier to a commercial standard if there is no
market need?

c: You cannot supply a client list in a world that hasn't used gasifiers.

d: You cannot expect performance guarantees when the client is responsible
for operating the equipment.

e: Each and every country has its own special "twist" to implement a
project, and this includes the environmental conditions that produce changes
in the fuel characteristics.

This is just a sample of the realities that make it difficult for those of
us who have tried to develop this technology to a commercial standard
appropriate for a modern world. Faced with the perception that any biomass
is considered gasifiable in any gasifier for any purpose, the lengthy
explanations to all the necessary questions is like conducting a training
course by correspondence. Hence the value of the Gasification Archives that
is part of this forum.

Since the formation of the Gasification List at Crest, I have made many
contributions regarding gasified engines and rural power generation. This
morning for the first time I punched in "Graeme Williams" to the search box
and was staggered to see the quantity of information I have attempted to
share.

As an appeal to every new researcher or consultant, please take the time to
read what has been written on the subject of gasified power generation in
the Archive. Then you can be more objective with your dreams and
aspirations and hopefully move forward.

As an aside to all of the above, I have just returned from North Queensland,
Australia where I spent 15 days looking at the tropical rain forests, and
the farming areas of the Atherton Tableland that once grew these forests.
This is part of my own ongoing education to study degrading environments,
and the way that nature provided stability before removal of the trees.

Australia is facing an environmental crisis of drought, dust storms, fires,
rising salt levels in farm land and rivers, and deforestation on a huge
scale. Combined with increasing populations and energy demand, there are
big decisions to be made there that must include a reduction of living
standards to be sustainable. Just think, it all began with chopping down
the first tree highlighting the fact that we need to know about everything
before we put a gasifier into a situation that's not environmentally
sustainable.

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification,.

> Dear Doug;
>
> Let me compliment you and Graeme on a stunning web page which I am still
> studying...
>
> Tom Reed BEF GASWORKS
>
> -----

From Richard.OConor at minergy.com Tue Nov 12 05:30:49 2002
From: Richard.OConor at minergy.com (OConor.Richard)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification tax credits
Message-ID: <E30B85A0D126D4118E0D00508B6F23E50C865886@mailqmvc.comp.wepco.com>

Hi, A few weeks ago, somebody posted an article regarding the limited availablity of natural gas in the U.S. Does anyone have a copy of this article or any suggestions where I can find it?

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Reed [mailto:tombreed@attbi.com]
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 12:56 AM
To: Tom Miles
Cc: gasification; Stoves
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification tax credits

Dear Tom M:

Thanks for the elucidation on tax credits below. It came simultaneously
with Ron asking for elucidation on tax credits. I'm filing it by answering
and forwarding...

~~~~
Let me (again) plead for all to put meaningful SUBJECT headings on letters
that diverge significantly from an earlier string. That way one can easily
search past Emails in private files for particular subjects. "TERMINOLOGY"
(Tom's heading) wouldn't have turned up TAX CREDITS, but by resending this
under that subject name I'll be able to find it easily....

Please try ... TOM REED

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles@trmiles.com>
To: "Stoves" <stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: Re "terminology"

> Alternative Fuel Production Credit (Section 29 of the Internal Revenue
Code), or
> "gasification tax credit"
>
> The credit started in 1980. It is due to end December 31, 2002 although
credits on
> some facilities will be received until 2008. I believe the period for
qualification
> for the tax credit expired in June 1998 in it's last extension. By that
time
> enterprising tax attorneys had broadened the definition of a gasifier to
include
> boilers operating in a staged combustion mode with the air required for
"gasifying"
> coming up through the grate. It has also been used extensively for methane
from
> landfills. Other extensions have been proposed but none have been approved
as far as
> I know.
>
> One positive effect of the credit was to force many small boiler makers
who wanted to
> take advantage of the credit to make their systems more efficient. There
were never
> more than half a dozen large industrial scale or independent power systems
built
> under the credit. Most of these were in the period 1984-1990. To my
knowledge only
> one is still operating. For some installations it provided substantial
income. See
> http://www.drykiln2000.com/capstone_turbine/section29.htm
>
> Following is an excerpt from a March 1998 BERA description of tax credits
found at
> http://www.bera1.org/3-26-98.html
> "a tax credit is exactly that, a direct reduction in the tax that is due
on taxable
> income. An example is the biomass gasification tax credit under IRC
Section 29. The
> fuel gases from landfill gas recovery systems and biomass gasifiers
qualify for the
> credit as long as certain conditions are satisfied. The amount of the
credit is
> inversely related to the price of oil; when the price of oil increases,
the credit is
> reduced. For 1997, it was $1.05/MMBtu of fuel gas produced and sold to an
independent
> third party, so the credit can be substantial." See also
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy/box_txt.html and
> http://spee.org/pdfs/taxs29.pdf http://www.lfgtech.com/tax_credits.htm
etc.
>
> Tom Miles
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Larson" <ronallarson@qwest.net>
> To: <andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com>; "Stoves" <stoves@crest.org>; "Paul S.
Anderson"
> <psanders@ilstu.edu>; "Crispin" <crispin@newdawn.sz>; "Mike Antal"
> <mantal@hawaii.edu>; "Tom Reed" <tombreed@attbi.com>; "Dean Still"
<dstill@epud.net>
> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 9:38 PM
> Subject: Re "terminology"
>
>
> > Hi all:
> >
> > This is intended to agree with most everything I hear from Andrew and
> > mostly from Tom - as a part of the terminology thread started by Paul
(and I
> > have changed the subject heading back to
> > "terminology". I am not happy with Paul's use of the word "gasifier".
> >
> > 1. Tom Reed said today re terminology: " The distinction is not
trivial
> > since there are often tax credits for
> > gasification and not for combustion of biomass. Testifying in court, I
> > would say that if in principal you can put a septum between the
gasification
> > section and the combustion section and remove samples of combustible gas
> > requiring more air, it is a gasifier. If sufficient air is supplied in
one
> > step for "substantially" complete combustion (like the pellet stoves),
it is
> > a combustor.
> >
> > (RWL1): I wish that we had this tax credit problem to contend with. If
we
> > did, I might change some of the following. I would say that Tom's
remark is
> > true on the gasification list - where I think they almost never use the
term
> > "pyrolysis". Gasifying people, as Andrew has emphasized, try for a
minimum
> > amount of charcoal, for continuous operation, - and often are adding
steam.
> > You (Paul) and I (and Andrew a lot) are not doing any of these. So
> > everything Tom says about the septum is true - but the septum criterion
also
> > applies to pyrolysis units - which I claim are a different animal from
> > gasifiers.
>
>
>
>
> -
> Stoves List Archives and Website:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/200209/
> http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/
> >
> Stoves List Moderators:
> Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
>
> Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon
>
> 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.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/Chambers/Chambers.htm
>
>

From tmiles at trmiles.com Tue Nov 12 08:21:31 2002
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification tax credits
In-Reply-To: <E30B85A0D126D4118E0D00508B6F23E50C865886@mailqmvc.comp.wepco.com>
Message-ID: <011701c28a6f$7ba4dc40$6601a8c0@tommain>

Richard,

We had quite a discussion on the topic of natural
gas some time ago. Several references were cited within the discussion. Go to
the CREST site www.crest.org and enter
"natural gas" under Search.

Also go to the US Department of Energy Energy
Information Administration <A
href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/">http://www.eia.doe.gov/ and search for
natural gas. The EIA reports do a pretty good job of
representing energy sources. They also cite many references.

Regards,

Tom Miles

<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=Richard.OConor@minergy.com
href="mailto:Richard.OConor@minergy.com">OConor.Richard
To: <A title=tombreed@attbi.com
href="mailto:tombreed@attbi.com">'Tom Reed' ; <A title=tmiles@trmiles.com
href="mailto:tmiles@trmiles.com">Tom Miles
Cc: <A title=gasification@crest.org
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification ; <A
title=Stoves@crest.org href="mailto:Stoves@crest.org">Stoves
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 6:24
AM
Subject: RE: GAS-L: Gasification tax
credits

Hi, A few weeks ago, somebody posted an article regarding the
limited availablity of natural gas in the U.S. Does anyone have a copy
of this article or any suggestions where I can find it?
-----Original Message----- From: Tom
Reed [<A
href="mailto:tombreed@attbi.com">mailto:tombreed@attbi.com]
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 12:56 AM To: Tom Miles Cc: gasification; Stoves
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification tax credits
Dear Tom M:
Thanks for the elucidation on tax credits below. It came
simultaneously with Ron asking for elucidation on tax
credits. I'm filing it by answering and
forwarding...
~~~~ Let me (again) plead for all to
put meaningful SUBJECT headings on letters that
diverge significantly from an earlier string. That way one can
easily search past Emails in private files for
particular subjects. "TERMINOLOGY" (Tom's
heading) wouldn't have turned up TAX CREDITS, but by resending this
under that subject name I'll be able to find it
easily....
Please try
...
TOM REED
----- Original Message ----- From:
"Tom Miles" <tmiles@trmiles.com> To: "Stoves"
<stoves@crest.org> Sent: Sunday, October 20,
2002 11:09 AM Subject: Re: Re "terminology"

> Alternative Fuel Production Credit (Section 29 of the
Internal Revenue Code), or > "gasification tax credit" >
> The credit started in 1980. It is due to end December
31, 2002 although credits on > some facilities will be received until 2008. I believe the period
for qualification > for the
tax credit expired in June 1998 in it's last extension. By that
time > enterprising tax attorneys
had broadened the definition of a gasifier to include > boilers operating in a staged
combustion mode with the air required for "gasifying" > coming up through the grate.
It has also been used extensively for methane from > landfills. Other extensions have been
proposed but none have been approved as far as
> I know. > > One positive effect of the credit was to force many small boiler
makers who wanted to > take
advantage of the credit to make their systems more efficient. There
were never > more than half a
dozen large industrial scale or independent power systems built > under the credit. Most of these were
in the period 1984-1990. To my knowledge
only > one is still operating. For some
installations it provided substantial income.
See > <A
href="http://www.drykiln2000.com/capstone_turbine/section29.htm"
target=_blank>http://www.drykiln2000.com/capstone_turbine/section29.htm
> > Following is an excerpt
from a March 1998 BERA description of tax credits found at > <A
href="http://www.bera1.org/3-26-98.html"
target=_blank>http://www.bera1.org/3-26-98.html > "a tax credit is exactly that, a direct reduction in the tax that
is due on taxable > income.
An example is the biomass gasification tax credit under IRC Section 29. The > fuel gases from landfill
gas recovery systems and biomass gasifiers qualify for
the > credit as long as certain conditions are
satisfied. The amount of the credit is
> inversely related to the price of oil; when the price of
oil increases, the credit is > reduced. For 1997, it was $1.05/MMBtu of fuel gas produced and
sold to an independent >
third party, so the credit can be substantial." See also > <A
href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy/box_txt.html"
target=_blank>http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy/box_txt.html
and > <A href="http://spee.org/pdfs/taxs29.pdf"
target=_blank>http://spee.org/pdfs/taxs29.pdf <A
href="http://www.lfgtech.com/tax_credits.htm"
target=_blank>http://www.lfgtech.com/tax_credits.htm etc. > > Tom
Miles > >
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ron Larson" <ronallarson@qwest.net> > To: <andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com>; "Stoves"
<stoves@crest.org>; "Paul S. Anderson"
> <psanders@ilstu.edu>; "Crispin"
<crispin@newdawn.sz>; "Mike Antal" >
<mantal@hawaii.edu>; "Tom Reed" <tombreed@attbi.com>; "Dean
Still" <dstill@epud.net> > Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 9:38 PM > Subject: Re "terminology" >
> > > Hi all:
> > > > This is intended
to agree with most everything I hear from Andrew and > > mostly from Tom - as a part of the terminology thread started
by Paul (and I > > have
changed the subject heading back to > >
"terminology". I am not happy with Paul's use of the word
"gasifier". > > >
> 1. Tom Reed said today re terminology: " The distinction is
not trivial > > since
there are often tax credits for > > gasification
and not for combustion of biomass. Testifying in court, I
> > would say that if in principal you can put a septum
between the gasification >
> section and the combustion section and remove samples of combustible
gas > > requiring more air, it is a
gasifier. If sufficient air is supplied in one > > step for "substantially" complete
combustion (like the pellet stoves), it is
> > a combustor. >
> > > (RWL1): I wish that we had this
tax credit problem to contend with. If we
> > did, I might change some of the following. I
would say that Tom's remark is > > true on the gasification list - where I think they almost
never use the term > >
"pyrolysis". Gasifying people, as Andrew has emphasized, try for
a minimum > > amount of
charcoal, for continuous operation, - and often are adding steam. > > You (Paul) and I (and Andrew a
lot) are not doing any of these. So > >
everything Tom says about the septum is true - but the septum criterion
also > > applies to pyrolysis
units - which I claim are a different animal from >
> gasifiers. > > > >
> - > Stoves List Archives and
Website: > <A
href="http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/200209/"
target=_blank>http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/200209/
> <A
href="http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/"
target=_blank>http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/
> > > Stoves List
Moderators: > Ron Larson,
ronallarson@qwest.net > Elsen L. Karstad,
elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com >
> Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> <A
href="http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html"
target=_blank>http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html
Bioenergy > <A
href="http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html"
target=_blank>http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
Gasification > <A
href="http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html"
target=_blank>http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html
Carbon > > List-Post:
<mailto:stoves@crest.org>
> List-Help: <<A
href="mailto:stoves-help@crest.org">mailto:stoves-help@crest.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <<A
href="mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org">mailto:stoves-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> List-Subscribe: <<A
href="mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org">mailto:stoves-subscribe@crest.org>
> > > For information about
CHAMBERS STOVES > ><A
href="http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/Chambers/Chambers.htm"
target=_blank>http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/Chambers/Chambers.htm
> >
Gasification List Moderator: Tom Reed,
Biomass Energy Foundation, tombreed@attbi.com Biomass = Energy Foundation, www.woodgas.com 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>
- Gasification List Archives <A
href="http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/"
target=_blank>http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
Bioenergy 2002 <A href="http://www.bioenergy2002.org/"
target=_blank>http://www.bioenergy2002.org/ 200
kWe CHP Discussion <A
href="http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html"
target=_blank>http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
Gasification Reference <A
href="http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html"
target=_blank>http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html

>

From Ddjpleines at aol.com Mon Nov 18 18:06:35 2002
From: Ddjpleines at aol.com (Ddjpleines@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Remove me from this list
Message-ID: <2ED1622C.23B1BEA6.0ADE08AA@aol.com>

From HMcBrayer at harbert.net Tue Nov 19 05:23:19 2002
From: HMcBrayer at harbert.net (McBrayer, Howell)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Please Remove Me From List
Message-ID: <91CB5993BC5ED211A7DD00105A1058EEC96351@nthc01.harbert.net>

From Jeff_Bossong at notes.interliant.com Tue Nov 19 05:43:15 2002
From: Jeff_Bossong at notes.interliant.com (Jeff Bossong)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Please Remove Me From List
Message-ID: <86256C76.00501DBE.00@internet-503.interliant.com>

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, tombreed@attbi.com Biomass =
Energy Foundation, www.woodgas.com
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>
-
Gasification List Archives
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
Bioenergy 2002 http://www.bioenergy2002.org/
200 kWe CHP Discussion
http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
Gasification Reference
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html

Thanks,

Jeff Bossong

From tmiles at trmiles.com Tue Nov 19 06:01:42 2002
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: Fw: carbonising kiln
Message-ID: <009f01c28fdc$1aabf7d0$0301a8c0@tomslaptop>

Following is from Malaysia

We get several requests for charcoal making
devices. If anyone has suggestions or links we'll post them on the Renewable
Carbon wed page we started last year.

<A
href="http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html">http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html

Tom

----- Original Message -----
From: <A
title=ciptasb@pd.jaring.my href="mailto:ciptasb@pd.jaring.my">Cipta
To: <A title=stoves-owner@crest.org
href="mailto:stoves-owner@crest.org">stoves-owner@crest.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 12:21 PM
Subject: carbonising kiln

Dear stove,

We are looking for a kind of continous rotary carbonising kiln
for cabonise the biomass such as coconut shell , sawdust and
woodchip.

Thanks

Jim Hii

From tmiles at trmiles.com Tue Nov 19 11:38:03 2002
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Activated Carbon From Straw
Message-ID: <006901c2900b$175a0250$6601a8c0@tommain>

Does anyone know of anyone, anywhere, who is
commercially making activated carbon from straw?

There is a group here that is interested in
making activated carbon from the char byproduct produced from the downdraft
gasification of straw pellets. Aside from that obvious problems of gasifying
straw pellets in a downdraft gasifier I wonder if anyone is using the char
byproduct, or if anyone is making actiated carbon from straw.

Thanks

Tom Miles

From Gabkaboom at aol.com Tue Nov 19 12:51:23 2002
From: Gabkaboom at aol.com (Gabkaboom@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Please remove me from the list
Message-ID: <2f.30472cac.2b0c0b8c@aol.com>

From tmiles at trmiles.com Tue Nov 19 13:06:02 2002
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: List Instructions
Message-ID: <021001c29017$62295a40$6601a8c0@tommain>

List Instructions:

To subscribe to the list send email to: <A
href="mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org">gasification-subscribe@crest.org

To unsubscribe from the list send email to <A
href="mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org">gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org

Thanks

Tom Miles

From snkm at btl.net Wed Nov 20 07:56:20 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:10 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gases for domestic cooking
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20021120104627.00911490@wgs1.btl.net>

A small note to all:

I doubt they use propane -- probably as here in Central America -- butane.

Higher boiling point of butane means less dangerous operating pressures --
the tropics is "hot" --

We have many vehicles here in Belize converted to running on butane --
already.

But still -- half the btu's per gallon -- compared to gasoline. (Maybe
better ratio -- please feel free to correct -- no time to look it up)

Peter Singfield
Belize

At 09:04 AM 11/20/2002 -0700, Tom Reed wrote:
>>>>
Dear Nandu et al: PROPANE is my favorite 20th century fuel because It
burns very clean as a gas It stores as a liquid at relatively low pressures
(<15 atm, boiling point -42C) It is self delivered (no fuel pump) It has a
very high energy both on a liquid, gas and weight basis Unfortunately it
is <3% of the oil barrel and as oil prices go up will be ever less
available to those who need it least. It can't be synthesized from other
oil components or biomass. DIMETHYL ETHER, DME is my favorite 21st
Century fuel because It burns very clean as a gas and is being
considered for diesel engines (and I suspect, spark) It stores as a liquid
at relatively low pressures (<15 atm, boiling point -42C) It is self
delivered (no fuel pump) It has a very high energy both on a liquid, gas
and weight basis It is even easier to make from synthesis gas than
methanol, my favorite liquid fuel METHANE is not nearly so nice,
because It is a permanent gas (BP = -164C, lots of energy to liquefy,
stored in VERY heavy cylinders), so hard to store Pipelines cost >$10/mile.
Do you have any domestic methane in India? Less than half the energy of
propane BIOGAS has most of the faults of methane with only 2/3 the energy
due to 1/3 CO2 content. However, I wonder if it isn't easier to liquefy
than methane because the CO2 boils much higher AND MAY FORM A HYDRATE.
Does anyone know about this (i.e. Dendy Sloan)? PRODUCER GAS is the
worst of this list because it contains 50% N2 BUT It is very easily made
by the air gasification of all sorts of biomass, and can be used locally
for heat or power generation, a well proven technology (www.gocpc.com)
SYNTHESIS GAS in my favorite synthetic gas from biomass, since proven
processes exist to make it into methanol, DME, diesel gasoline or ammonia,
all the necessities of our current civilization. Comments? TOM REED
BEF GASWORKS Dr. Thomas B. Reed
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone/Fax style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px;
PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid;
MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> ----- Original Message ----- From:
<mailto:adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in>A.D. Karve To:
href="mailto:stoves@crest.org">stoves@crest.org Sent: Tuesday, November
19, 2002 10:38 AM Subject: cooking devices for rural India
LPG has become popular all over India because of its extreme user
friendliness. Housewives have changed their ethnic and cultural cooking
habits, scrapped their traditional cookpots and purchased new ones that
suit the LPG stoves. Biogas has the same qualities as LPG but the biogas
technology failed to become popular in India because everybody was
supposed to make his own biogas. We are working towards establishing
rural enterprises producing and selling biogas. The so called community
biogas plants have not at all been successful in India, but we feel that we
have the right formula to make them successful. I am trying to get
funding for establishing a pilot plant based on my ideas, and shall
report about it when it gets going. A.D.Karve

From snkm at btl.net Wed Nov 20 17:16:40 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: Gases for domestic cooking
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20021120200908.00933210@wgs1.btl.net>

Dear Paul and listers;

"SYNTHESIS GAS in my favorite synthetic gas from biomass, since proven
processes exist to make it into methanol, DME, diesel gasoline or ammonia,
all the necessities of our current civilization."

In defense of Tom -- you got to look at the "bigger" picture!!

At present propane and butane are produced from natural gas by "steam
reforming" -- please -- anyone -- correct me if I am wrong!!

A process easily adapted to using synthesis gas rather than natural gas as
base.

Tom is merely suggesting that such "centralized" and later "distributed"
gas works can be "hypothetically" replaced by biomass based synthesis gas
production facilities --

This brings us right back to a few years ago when I was trying to get
interest going in regards to direct steam reforming of any biomass.

For those of you new to these lists -- or short of memory -- start here:

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

Also -- just search steam reforming in the Gas archives.

Certainly -- extremely viable solution -- but sorry -- it does make all
this small biomass stove stuff redundant.

Synthesis gas can also be produced by combusting any biomass in a pure O2
atmosphere.

Andries Weststeijn -- a past member of the Gas list -- maybe still is --
works in a humongous coal fired power plant in Holland that does exactly this!

Replacing coal with any biomass in this style conversion -- is not so
impossible.

My "argument" -- for years on this topic -- has been easier to use a steam
atmosphere than and O2 one.

The BriteStar example I post above was a working prototype plant exactly
along these lines -- and to this day -- we know not why that company just
went "phoof" --

But certainly -- replacing natural gas with biomass to produce propane --
and probably butane -- is not only "real" -- but extremely viable.

It is simply a matter of waiting for this planet to run low on fossil fuel
deposits -- then we shall see.

Still -- I certainly believe that if 3rd world power houses got 100% behind
the development of such plants -- now -- it would happen much sooner.

We must ignore the modern industrialized nations -- they are so tied up
under their elitist oriented rulers -- there is absolutely no hope of any
changes -- till the last deposit of fossil fuel is gone --

and by then -- it will be far to late. but the same elitists -- or their
descendants -- will be so filthy rich -- they probably will have personal
nuclear power plants in any event!!

The rest of those foolish moderns -- be damned!! They will soon be reverted
back to living stone age --

It is up to us in 3rd world to rectify this present situation -- and not by
"just" promoting small stoves that burn cleaner -- and maybe use less
biomass to boil a tub of water.

You see -- everything has it's place -- and everything has it's time.

I "hope" that was what Tom was trying to say??

And one last point -- at this entrance level -- "biomass" can be wood --
straw -- rice bran -- and even chicken manure -- human manure -- and
especially -- human refuse!! Any "BIOMASS" could be utilized!!

Try that with a village stove!!

Read the BriteStar "paper" --

Peter Singfield
Belize

At 03:55 PM 11/20/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>>>>
At 09:12 PM 11/20/02 +0000, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:

Tom,

So how do we make synthesis gas as clearly this must be our main aim.
(rather than good ole producer gas with that sweet sickly smell and tars
that gum up engines)
Gavin,

I do not think it is a simple switch. First, your Subject line says "for
domestic cooking" but your comment speaks of "engines." Quite different.

Second, Tom did not mention the "pyrolysis gasifier gases" that are
produced and used in Tom's Woodgas Campstove and in my Juntos stoves for
developing countries. There is confusion about even the terminology
(names) of gases.

Third, at least some (including Gus Johansson in South Africa) who claim
that the tars, etc are minimal in their producer gas.

And Fourth, "synthesis gas" probably has many variations, each with
advantages and disadvantages that could relate to intended uses.

But as Gavin asks, perhaps someone on the list serve can explain the extent
to which "synthesis gas" is made and is relevant to our topic of domestic
cooking for poor people.

Paul

Thanks

Gavin

Gavin Gulliver-Goodall

3G Energi,

Tel +44 (0)1835 824201

Fax +44 (0)870 8314098

Mob +44 (0)7773 781498

E mail Gavin@3genergi.co.uk
<<mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>

The contents of this email and any attachments are the property of 3G
Energi and are intended for the confidential use of the named recipient(s)
only. They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to or
relied upon by any person without our express written consent. If you are
not an addressee please notify us immediately at the address above or by
email at Gavin@3genergi.co.uk
<<mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>. Any files
attached to this email will have been checked with virus detection software
before transmission. However, you should carry out your own virus check
before opening any attachment.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Reed [<mailto:tombreed@attbi.com>mailto:tombreed@attbi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 16:04
To: A.D. Karve; stoves@crest.org; gasification
Cc: esloan@mines.edu
Subject: Gases for domestic cooking

Dear Nandu et al:

PROPANE is my favorite 20th century fuel because

It burns very clean as a gas

It stores as a liquid at relatively low pressures (<15 atm, boiling point
-42C)

It is self delivered (no fuel pump)

It has a very high energy both on a liquid, gas and weight basis

Unfortunately it is <3% of the oil barrel and as oil prices go up will be
ever less available to those who need it least. It can't be synthesized
from other oil components or biomass.

DIMETHYL ETHER, DME is my favorite 21st Century fuel because

It burns very clean as a gas and is being considered for diesel engines
(and I suspect, spark)

It stores as a liquid at relatively low pressures (<15 atm, boiling point
-42C)

It is self delivered (no fuel pump)

It has a very high energy both on a liquid, gas and weight basis

It is even easier to make from synthesis gas than methanol, my favorite
liquid fuel

METHANE is not nearly so nice, because

It is a permanent gas (BP = -164C, lots of energy to liquefy, stored in
VERY heavy cylinders), so hard to store

Pipelines cost >$10/mile. Do you have any domestic methane in India?

Less than half the energy of propane

BIOGAS has most of the faults of methane with only 2/3 the energy due to
1/3 CO2 content.

However, I wonder if it isn't easier to liquefy than methane because the
CO2 boils much higher AND MAY FORM A HYDRATE.

Does anyone know about this (i.e. Dendy Sloan)?

PRODUCER GAS is the worst of this list because it contains 50% N2 BUT

It is very easily made by the air gasification of all sorts of biomass, and
can be used locally for heat or power generation, a well proven technology
(<http://www.gocpc.com>www.gocpc.com)

SYNTHESIS GAS in my favorite synthetic gas from biomass, since proven
processes exist to make it into methanol, DME, diesel gasoline or ammonia,
all the necessities of our current civilization.

Comments?

TOM REED BEF GASWORKS

Dr. Thomas B. Reed
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
<mailto:tombreed@attbi.com>tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone/Fax

----- Original Message -----

From: <mailto:adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in>A.D. Karve

To: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>stoves@crest.org

Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 10:38 AM

Subject: cooking devices for rural India

LPG has become popular all over India because of its extreme user
friendliness. Housewives have changed their ethnic and cultural cooking
habits, scrapped their traditional cookpots and purchased new ones that
suit the LPG stoves. Biogas has the same qualities as LPG but the biogas
technology failed to become popular in India because everybody was supposed
to make his own biogas. We are working towards establishing rural
enterprises producing and selling biogas. The so called community biogas
plants have not at all been successful in India, but we feel that we have
the right formula to make them successful. I am trying to get funding for
establishing a pilot plant based on my ideas, and shall report about it
when it gets going.

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

From hseaver at cybershamanix.com Wed Nov 20 18:24:27 2002
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: Gases for domestic cooking
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20021120200908.00933210@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <20021121032058.GA22199@cybershamanix.com>

On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:12:14PM -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> Dear Paul and listers;
>
> "SYNTHESIS GAS in my favorite synthetic gas from biomass, since proven
> processes exist to make it into methanol, DME, diesel gasoline or ammonia,
> all the necessities of our current civilization."
>
> In defense of Tom -- you got to look at the "bigger" picture!!
>
> At present propane and butane are produced from natural gas by "steam
> reforming" -- please -- anyone -- correct me if I am wrong!!

Propane is from petroleum, isn't it? LPG -- liquified petroleum gas.

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

"War is just a racket ... something that is not what it seems to the
majority of people. Only a small group knows what its about. It is
conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the
masses." --- Major General Smedley Butler, 1933

"Our overriding purpose, from the beginning through to the present
day, has been world domination - that is, to build and maintain the
capacity to coerce everybody else on the planet: nonviolently, if
possible, and violently, if necessary. But the purpose of US foreign
policy of domination is not just to make the rest of the world jump
through hoops; the purpose is to faciliate our exploitation of
resources."
- Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General
http://www.thesunmagazine.org/bully.html

From enecon at ozemail.com.au Wed Nov 20 19:04:11 2002
From: enecon at ozemail.com.au (Jim Bland)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: LPG and steam reforming
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20021120200908.00933210@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <00a301c29112$87f95b20$6f82140a@enecon.com.au>

Propane (C3H8) and butane (C4H10) are extracted from oil and natural gas
production. LPG is a mixture of propane and butane, anywhere from 100%
propane to 100% butane. The mix depends on the end use and the ambient
conditions. In southern Australia, for automotive use, you will find that
LPG contains more propane in winter to keep the vapour pressure high for
easy starting, and less propane in summer.

In a typical oil/gas well, there will be some initial separation of oil and
gas at or near the well head. The oil will contain most of the >/=C5s
(pentanes and heavier). The gas will contain most of the <C5s (butanes,
propane, ethane (C2H6) and methane(CH4)). Further separation of the gases
is done in a gas plant, which will typically have 3 outlet streams:
= methane (for sale as a fuel),
= ethane (for sale as a feedstock to ethylene plants, and subsequent
chemical manufacture)
= propane and butane (for LPG)

Propane and butane or not normally "manufactured". What you get with your
oil and gas production is what you have to sell.

Methane can be used for chemical manufacture. The main processes start with
reforming, which is reaction of methane with either steam ("steam
reforming") or oxygen to form mixtures of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide
and hydrogen (synthesis gas), by such reactions as:

CH4 + H2O => CO + 3H2
CH4 + ½O2 => CO + 2H2

Synthesis gas can be used to make ammonia, methanol, DME, and synthetic
diesel. Most of the processes use a catalyst which achieves typically 25%
conversion of synthesis gas to chemical product, so there is a need to
recycle the unreacted synthesis gases. If the synthesis gas contains large
amounts of inert gases such as nitrogen or carbon dioxide, these will need
to be either recycled, with consequent increased compressor power and purge
gas losses, or removed immediately after the reforming step, which is
expensive.

All of the above processes run at high temperature (up to 1000°C - 1800°F)
and pressure (150 bar - 2250 psig), require a massive scale to be
competitive, and are totally unsuited to the scale of biomass gasification
that this list discusses. A world-scale methanol plant is currently at
least 2000 t/d, and costs about US$250 million. If this were made from
green wood at 60% efficiency, you'd need about 3500 t/day of wood. I expect
you could harvest this from a sustainably-managed forest of about 600 square
km (240 sq miles).

I'm not sure whether this helps the discussion, but it should clear up some
misconceptions.

Regards,

Jim Bland

Enecon Pty. Ltd.
Level 2, 35 Whitehorse Rd., Deepdene VIC 3103, Australia
PO Box 555, Deepdene DC VIC 3103, Australia
Tel: +61-3-9817 6255
Fax: +61-3-9817 6455
www.enecon.com.au
----- Original Message -----
From: Harmon Seaver <hseaver@cybershamanix.com>
To: Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net>
Cc: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: RE: Gases for domestic cooking

> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:12:14PM -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
> >
> > Dear Paul and listers;
> >
> > "SYNTHESIS GAS in my favorite synthetic gas from biomass, since proven
> > processes exist to make it into methanol, DME, diesel gasoline or
ammonia,
> > all the necessities of our current civilization."
> >
> > In defense of Tom -- you got to look at the "bigger" picture!!
> >
> > At present propane and butane are produced from natural gas by "steam
> > reforming" -- please -- anyone -- correct me if I am wrong!!
>
>
> Propane is from petroleum, isn't it? LPG -- liquified petroleum gas.
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com

From JBenemann at aol.com Thu Nov 21 00:15:19 2002
From: JBenemann at aol.com (JBenemann@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: LPG and steam reforming
Message-ID: <14.2b238b4.2b0dfd53@aol.com>

Dear Mr. Bland:

Thank you for your very useful, concise and instructive primer on hydrocarbon
gases. In particular you laid to rest the old saw about making biogas or
gasifier gas into methanol - the compressor costs become horribly expensive
at small scales and make such process only suitable for large-scale systems.
Of course you still have to clean up the gas to remove tars, etc.... I hope
this will lay to rest this whole business.

One question though: what about making H2? I would be interested in your
answer.

Sincerely,

John R. Benemann, Ph.D.
3434 Tice Creek Dr. No.1
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
(925) 939 5864 Fax (925) 944 1205
Cell (925) 352 3352 jbenemann@aol.com

From snkm at btl.net Thu Nov 21 05:33:46 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: LPG and steam reforming
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20021121082032.00972440@wgs1.btl.net>

Dear Jim and all listers --

I agree that "modern" engineering makes this proposition a loser. For a
number of reasons --

The first -- well discussed on this list in the past -- being:

A major biomass synthesis gas operation (or any major biomass project)
would require so much biomass that transport costs over come practicality.

That is those huge -- modern world standards -- processing plants --

As Jim illustrates:

>If this were made from
>green wood at 60% efficiency, you'd need about 3500 t/day of wood. I expect
>you could harvest this from a sustainably-managed forest of about 600 square
>km (240 sq miles).

A second "killer" is cost of plant.

>A world-scale methanol plant is currently at
>least 2000 t/d, and costs about US$250 million.

Our real interest rates in 3rd world are 15% and over. So massive
engineering models do not pay.

OK -- let's take the sugar industry as example.

Here in Belize -- we have just lately considered "modernizing" our single
sugar factory.

The end cost come to 240 million US.

At 15% interest -- just the interest payment alone works out to $375 per
ton of product!!

World market prices are presently $156 US per ton -- and India yet can sell
for $130 per ton -- and show profit!!

Australia -- like Belize -- is struggling at a loss to survive -- using
"modern" technology as Jim is blind sided with.

How does India do this??

Well -- start by looking this Url over:

http://www.tinytechindia.com/sugar.htm

Of course it is terribly labor intensive -- and at very low pay -- no
"Modern" would ever consider such a "plan".

Yet it works very well in 3rd world.

I humbly suggest the "modern" engineers on this list let their feet touch
the ground and walk on earth -- rather than air.

The future lays with 3rd world -- not with bloated 1'rst world and it's
slanted perspectives.

They were making synthesis gas in small "gas" plants over 150 years ago.
Supplying it to customers -- as a gas fuel --

You really should study this topic in greater depth. I presented a simple
-- village level -- steam reforming process years back on this list --
operating at 5000 psi -- and less expensive than a diesel power plant.

I know labor intensive -- and downsizing -- are dirty words for a "Modern"
-- but hey -- it is real.

If we all could live with huge political and economic trade deficits --
year after year -- as do the modern nations -- we to here in 3rd world
could walk on air like you folks do.

But we can't -- so we strive for real results -- while always hampered by
"moderns" that are trying to keep a secure lid on all economic prospects
viable and real for us here in 3rd world.

They achieve this goal by over engineering -- pure "bloatware"!!!

But hey -- look over that Url and see how India blind sides your sugar
industry in Australia!

Give me half the chance -- I'll do the same for synthesis gas production!

But no -- it will not happen -- can't happen -- bloatedness rules this day
and this age -- and will -- right to the very bitter end!!

Tom's whimsical suggestion stands!

We here in 3rd world need constructive innovation -- not more dogmatic
"modern" engineering specializing in plumber's nightmares that are only
economically feasible for societies with unlimited credit and no intentions
of ever paying their "accounts"!

If your economic "bubble" ever does collapse -- you'll personally quickly
grasp this concept -- that I promise!!

No wonder "Sleep-Disturbance" is the single greatest medical problem in
modern industrialized nations.

We here at least know what we face -- and still manage to live with it --
and sleep well at night!

This list is often not "Sci-Fi" -- but rather pure "Fantasy" --

That fantasy being that global deficit existence is a viable life process!!

Peter/Belize

At 03:00 PM 11/21/2002 +1100, Jim Bland wrote:
>Propane (C3H8) and butane (C4H10) are extracted from oil and natural gas
>production. LPG is a mixture of propane and butane, anywhere from 100%
>propane to 100% butane. The mix depends on the end use and the ambient
>conditions. In southern Australia, for automotive use, you will find that
>LPG contains more propane in winter to keep the vapour pressure high for
>easy starting, and less propane in summer.
>
>In a typical oil/gas well, there will be some initial separation of oil and
>gas at or near the well head. The oil will contain most of the >/=C5s
>(pentanes and heavier). The gas will contain most of the <C5s (butanes,
>propane, ethane (C2H6) and methane(CH4)). Further separation of the gases
>is done in a gas plant, which will typically have 3 outlet streams:
>= methane (for sale as a fuel),
>= ethane (for sale as a feedstock to ethylene plants, and subsequent
>chemical manufacture)
>= propane and butane (for LPG)
>
>Propane and butane or not normally "manufactured". What you get with your
>oil and gas production is what you have to sell.
>
>Methane can be used for chemical manufacture. The main processes start with
>reforming, which is reaction of methane with either steam ("steam
>reforming") or oxygen to form mixtures of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide
>and hydrogen (synthesis gas), by such reactions as:
>
>CH4 + H2O => CO + 3H2
>CH4 + ½O2 => CO + 2H2
>
>Synthesis gas can be used to make ammonia, methanol, DME, and synthetic
>diesel. Most of the processes use a catalyst which achieves typically 25%
>conversion of synthesis gas to chemical product, so there is a need to
>recycle the unreacted synthesis gases. If the synthesis gas contains large
>amounts of inert gases such as nitrogen or carbon dioxide, these will need
>to be either recycled, with consequent increased compressor power and purge
>gas losses, or removed immediately after the reforming step, which is
>expensive.
>
>All of the above processes run at high temperature (up to 1000°C - 1800°F)
>and pressure (150 bar - 2250 psig), require a massive scale to be
>competitive, and are totally unsuited to the scale of biomass gasification
>that this list discusses. A world-scale methanol plant is currently at
>least 2000 t/d, and costs about US$250 million. If this were made from
>green wood at 60% efficiency, you'd need about 3500 t/day of wood. I expect
>you could harvest this from a sustainably-managed forest of about 600 square
>km (240 sq miles).
>
>I'm not sure whether this helps the discussion, but it should clear up some
>misconceptions.
>
>Regards,
>
>Jim Bland
>
>Enecon Pty. Ltd.
>Level 2, 35 Whitehorse Rd., Deepdene VIC 3103, Australia
>PO Box 555, Deepdene DC VIC 3103, Australia
>Tel: +61-3-9817 6255
>Fax: +61-3-9817 6455
>www.enecon.com.au
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Harmon Seaver <hseaver@cybershamanix.com>
>To: Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net>
>Cc: <gasification@crest.org>
>Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 2:20 PM
>Subject: Re: GAS-L: RE: Gases for domestic cooking
>
>
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:12:14PM -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Paul and listers;
>> >
>> > "SYNTHESIS GAS in my favorite synthetic gas from biomass, since proven
>> > processes exist to make it into methanol, DME, diesel gasoline or
>ammonia,
>> > all the necessities of our current civilization."
>> >
>> > In defense of Tom -- you got to look at the "bigger" picture!!
>> >
>> > At present propane and butane are produced from natural gas by "steam
>> > reforming" -- please -- anyone -- correct me if I am wrong!!
>>
>>
>> Propane is from petroleum, isn't it? LPG -- liquified petroleum gas.
>>
>> --
>> Harmon Seaver
>> CyberShamanix
>> http://www.cybershamanix.com
>
>
>
>Gasification List Moderator:
>Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, tombreed@attbi.com Biomass =
>Energy Foundation, www.woodgas.com
>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>
>-
>Gasification List Archives
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
>Bioenergy 2002 http://www.bioenergy2002.org/
>200 kWe CHP Discussion
>http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
>Gasification Reference
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
>
>>
>
>

From snkm at btl.net Thu Nov 21 05:35:45 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Working with ZIP files on a Mac
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20021121074315.00970100@wgs1.btl.net>

To all -- from Peter in Belize --

In regards to this request:

At 01:09 PM 11/21/2002 +0300, you wrote:
>Peter,
>
>Im very interested but as a MacIntosh user, I do not (cannot) use "zip
it" as
>our decompression utility. Ours is a utility called Stuffit.
Alternatively, is
>there any chance you could send it as a PDF file ?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Richard Stanley
>Kampala Uganda

People using Macs should be aware of the program found at:

http://www.maczipit.com/

What is ZipIt?
ZipIt is a Macintosh program that zips and unzips archives in a format
fully compatible with PKZip for the IBM and zip implementations on other
systems.
ZipIt is a Macintosh program
ZipIt features a complete Macintosh interface. In version 2.0, the ZipIt
interface has been completely overhauled. Now easier to use than even
before, ZipIt makes file compression fun.

Mac OS X users will love the fact that ZipIt runs natively on OS X. ZipIt
also takes full advantage of the Aqua user interface.

Zip archives
A zip archive is any file that ends with the extension '.zip'. The zip
format is popular on the IBM, and is widely used as an interplatform
compression format. In addition, ZipIt can compress Macintosh applications
and documents without losing any of their data. ZipIt is best used when
transferring compressed documents to and from other computer types. Some
examples are: text files, TIFF pictures, Excel databases, and QWK message
packets, to name just a very few. Note that files that end in '.Z' or '.gz'
are not ZipIt files, even though Netscape may give them a ZipIt icon.

ZipIt is fully compatible with all versions of PKZip on the IBM, Info-ZIP
on Unix, and zip implementations on other platforms.

Shareware
ZipIt is $20 shareware. You are encouraged to try it out before paying. All
features are available in the unregistered version. Once you register, you
will receive a password that will cause the seven-second registration
screen to stop appearing. In addition, your password will enable the
encryption capabilities of ZipIt.

From tombreed at attbi.com Thu Nov 21 05:53:57 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The "Hydrogen Economy": Bleak or Bright?
In-Reply-To: <14.2b238b4.2b0dfd53@aol.com>
Message-ID: <023401c2916a$f4b41a40$a48cfd0c@TOMBREED>

Dear Mr. Benemann:

I have long been a fan of methanol as the best replacement for gasoline.
However, you are correct in discouraging the idealists from thinking
backyard methanol - even small ethanol should be included. Backyard steel
mills and chemical plants went out with Mao.

Now let me disabuse you of the "Hydrogen Dream". Hydrogen is a major
component of most fuels, but by itself has never been considered as a fuel -
until atomic energy (with electricity too cheap to meter) and the hydrogen
fuel cell arrived. Pure hydrogen is too expensive to make, too hard to ship
and store and often too difficult to use because of its 10X flame speed.

For an excellent, balanced, evaluation of the costs associated with
hydrogen, see
The Future of the Hydrogen Economy:
Bright or Bleak?
Baldur Eliasson1 and Ulf Bossel2
1ABB Switzerland Ltd., Corporate Research, Baden-Dättwil / Switzerland
2Fuel Cell Consultant, Oberrohrdorf / Switzerland
at
http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/hotline/pdf/hydrogen_economy.pdf.

~~~~~~~~~

The October 2002 Scientific American had an article on "Vehicle of Change,
How fuel-cell Cars Could Revolutionize the World. The article, by three
high level GM executives extolled the mechanical ingenuities of possible
hydrogen cars while skipping over the dark realities of generation, supply
and storage.

Then, in an amazing editorial the editors warned about "Greenwashing the
car". They said "Two cheers for the fuel-cell-car pioneers. But this
transformation will start to get serious only in a decade or so. Until
then, industsry lobbyists will apparently continue to battle against
near-term measures to improve the environment. Skeptics note that the
commitemnet to a far-off technology lets the auto industry earn
environmental kudos without necessarily incurring the cost of producing
high-mileage cars today. Environmentalists have a name for a strategy in
which one flaunts green credentials while pusing to maintain the ability to
pollute: "greenwashing."

I fear that this focus on the hydrogen dream will trump practical
development of practical fuels which we will need when worl oil production
peaks and begins to dwindle. I fear the the Hydrogen dream will take over
in national energy plans and leave us with ... nothing.

Here's to our children and grandchildren's energy sources being as good as
ours have been...

Thomas B. Reed

Dr. Thomas B. Reed
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone/Fax
----- Original Message -----
From: <JBenemann@aol.com>
To: <enecon@ozemail.com.au>
Cc: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 2:11 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Re: LPG and steam reforming

> Dear Mr. Bland:
>
> Thank you for your very useful, concise and instructive primer on
hydrocarbon
> gases. In particular you laid to rest the old saw about making biogas or
> gasifier gas into methanol - the compressor costs become horribly
expensive
> at small scales and make such process only suitable for large-scale
systems.
> Of course you still have to clean up the gas to remove tars, etc.... I
hope
> this will lay to rest this whole business.
>
> One question though: what about making H2? I would be interested in your
> answer.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John R. Benemann, Ph.D.
> 3434 Tice Creek Dr. No.1
> Walnut Creek, CA 94595
> (925) 939 5864 Fax (925) 944 1205
> Cell (925) 352 3352 jbenemann@aol.com
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, tombreed@attbi.com Biomass =
> Energy Foundation, www.woodgas.com
> 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>
> -
> Gasification List Archives
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
> Bioenergy 2002 http://www.bioenergy2002.org/
> 200 kWe CHP Discussion
> http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
> Gasification Reference
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
>
> >
>
>

From andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Thu Nov 21 06:05:56 2002
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (AJH)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: LPG and steam reforming
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20021120200908.00933210@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <urpptuogoqb6o5ggklmpshlnojvl2rhq7l@4ax.com>

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:00:28 +1100, "Jim Bland"
<enecon@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>Propane (C3H8) and butane (C4H10) are extracted from oil and natural gas
>production.

Good post Jim.

In uk lpg is being encouraged as a green fuel. Partly I believe
because high pressure pumping operations have meant it is in surplus.

Tom Reed made the point that gas pipelines are expensive, I believe
they are quite efficient at transporting energy. The point in favour
of a methane economy is that it and its infrastructure exist in the
western world. Any competitive technology would have to compete with a
grid with largely amortised costs.

> LPG is a mixture of propane and butane, anywhere from 100%
>propane to 100% butane. The mix depends on the end use and the ambient
>conditions. In southern Australia, for automotive use, you will find that
>LPG contains more propane in winter to keep the vapour pressure high for
>easy starting, and less propane in summer.

Southern Europe seems to have lpg with this higher butane content, it
enables better mileage. Incidentally I run an lpg powered vehicle, it
only achieves 75% the mileage compared with petrol. It has advantages
of cleanliness which should increase engine life.

>All of the above processes run at high temperature (up to 1000°C - 1800°F)
>and pressure (150 bar - 2250 psig), require a massive scale to be
>competitive, and are totally unsuited to the scale of biomass gasification
>that this list discusses. A world-scale methanol plant is currently at
>least 2000 t/d, and costs about US$250 million. If this were made from
>green wood at 60% efficiency, you'd need about 3500 t/day of wood. I expect
>you could harvest this from a sustainably-managed forest of about 600 square
>km (240 sq miles).

I haven't checked your figures but wonder at your 60% efficiency.
Whilst I have no doubt you are right in principle I thought these
plants worked at quite high thermal efficiencies. I remember reading
of one in Holland producing MBTE (I think as an octane enhancer) from
coal which co produced 2MW of electricity for sale.

In fact your 3500tonne/day wood plant is not beyond the realms of
possibility as it is the same order of magnitude of a wood pulp plant.
The crux is that there do not seem to be any current harvesting
systems which can deliver biomass at a price which will compete with a
fossil fuel feedstock.

Whether this will be the case in the future is another matter, I can
imagine a hybrid PV solar and biomass thermal plant might have a good
"fit" for co producing a transport fuel, taking into account the "non
scheduled" delivery of PV and the similarly seasonal production of
biomass.

AJH

From snkm at btl.net Thu Nov 21 06:47:36 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The "Hydrogen Economy": Bleak or Bright?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20021121093507.00971e50@wgs1.btl.net>

Dear All --

There is -- however -- a really cute method of converting synthesis gas to
almost pure H2 product -- at great efficiencies -- using a liquid tin metal
bath.

(converting CO to H2)

Search the Gas archives under my name -- "Peter" -- it is all detailed --
Urls -- etc -- "there".

Kind of makes one rethink the biomass to electrical power route.

As yes -- Tom is correct -- making H2 is so inefficient -- using modern
conventional "dogmatic" vision.

Again -- you'll all have to wait for us here in 3rd world to map this road
out for you.

True innovation has been proclaimed a terrorist activity in modern world.

And it certainly is a terror -- to established bloatware technologies -- as
so well controlled by your powers that be.

Think I exaggerate??

What is the fossil fuel cartel doing?

Probably funding the "conservatives" on these lists. Making sure we play
with better ways to burn sticks -- than come to any "real" energy solutions
-- especially those based on biomass -- so generally available -- so hard
to "control".

Mercantile capitalism and the robber barons -- stay tuned for the eventual
destruction of mankind!

Present status quo for ever!!

Well, maybe -- but first you have to deal with us renegade engineers!

Living in 3rd world -- slightly beyond your reach!! And the one true
technical innovation of the past few years -- the WWW!

As soon as the major developing nation "power-houses" see through the
modern industrialized nations "con-job" -- watch out!

Till then -- yes -- H2 as a viable village "fuel" is "impossible".

Small scale production of synthesis gas -- steam reforming biomass --
"stay" impossible!

There are no feeding troughs for Phd's in those domains -- get the message??

We are stuck in this quagmire till the robber barons finish working us over!

Building large centralized processing plants that are not cost effective is
the program -- right?

Employs lot's of engineers -- Phd's -- and just what else do you think is
important?

An advance in functions??

You got to be kidding!!

no -- the program is to convince emerging nations of mankind that without
all the industrialized bloatware -- nothing can be ever done.

That is the con-job.

Sure -- we support improved better burning of sticks in your "caves" -- but
that is as far as this will go.

Look -- we'll supply umpteen million Phd's to help you burn stick better!
See how lucky you are to have us around to guide you into a better
existence in this modern world??

Biomass to pure H2 is more than viable -- as are H2 fuel cells.

But not as long as modern nations with their robber barons -- control all
playing fields.

Peter / Belize

At 07:33 AM 11/21/2002 -0700, Tom Reed wrote:
>Dear Mr. Benemann:
>
>I have long been a fan of methanol as the best replacement for gasoline.
>However, you are correct in discouraging the idealists from thinking
>backyard methanol - even small ethanol should be included. Backyard steel
>mills and chemical plants went out with Mao.
>
>Now let me disabuse you of the "Hydrogen Dream". Hydrogen is a major
>component of most fuels, but by itself has never been considered as a fuel -
>until atomic energy (with electricity too cheap to meter) and the hydrogen
>fuel cell arrived. Pure hydrogen is too expensive to make, too hard to ship
>and store and often too difficult to use because of its 10X flame speed.
>
>For an excellent, balanced, evaluation of the costs associated with
>hydrogen, see
>The Future of the Hydrogen Economy:
>Bright or Bleak?
>Baldur Eliasson1 and Ulf Bossel2
>1ABB Switzerland Ltd., Corporate Research, Baden-Dättwil / Switzerland
>2Fuel Cell Consultant, Oberrohrdorf / Switzerland
>at
>http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/hotline/pdf/hydrogen_economy.pdf.
>
>~~~~~~~~~
>
>The October 2002 Scientific American had an article on "Vehicle of Change,
>How fuel-cell Cars Could Revolutionize the World. The article, by three
>high level GM executives extolled the mechanical ingenuities of possible
>hydrogen cars while skipping over the dark realities of generation, supply
>and storage.
>
>Then, in an amazing editorial the editors warned about "Greenwashing the
>car". They said "Two cheers for the fuel-cell-car pioneers. But this
>transformation will start to get serious only in a decade or so. Until
>then, industsry lobbyists will apparently continue to battle against
>near-term measures to improve the environment. Skeptics note that the
>commitemnet to a far-off technology lets the auto industry earn
>environmental kudos without necessarily incurring the cost of producing
>high-mileage cars today. Environmentalists have a name for a strategy in
>which one flaunts green credentials while pusing to maintain the ability to
>pollute: "greenwashing."
>
>I fear that this focus on the hydrogen dream will trump practical
>development of practical fuels which we will need when worl oil production
>peaks and begins to dwindle. I fear the the Hydrogen dream will take over
>in national energy plans and leave us with ... nothing.
>
>Here's to our children and grandchildren's energy sources being as good as
>ours have been...
>
>Thomas B. Reed
>
>Dr. Thomas B. Reed
>1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
>tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone/Fax
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <JBenemann@aol.com>
>To: <enecon@ozemail.com.au>
>Cc: <gasification@crest.org>
>Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 2:11 AM
>Subject: Re: GAS-L: Re: LPG and steam reforming
>
>
>> Dear Mr. Bland:
>>
>> Thank you for your very useful, concise and instructive primer on
>hydrocarbon
>> gases. In particular you laid to rest the old saw about making biogas or
>> gasifier gas into methanol - the compressor costs become horribly
>expensive
>> at small scales and make such process only suitable for large-scale
>systems.
>> Of course you still have to clean up the gas to remove tars, etc.... I
>hope
>> this will lay to rest this whole business.
>>
>> One question though: what about making H2? I would be interested in your
>> answer.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> John R. Benemann, Ph.D.
>> 3434 Tice Creek Dr. No.1
>> Walnut Creek, CA 94595
>> (925) 939 5864 Fax (925) 944 1205
>> Cell (925) 352 3352 jbenemann@aol.com
>>
>> Gasification List Moderator:
>> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, tombreed@attbi.com Biomass =
>> Energy Foundation, www.woodgas.com
>> 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>
>> -
>> Gasification List Archives
>http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
>> Bioenergy 2002 http://www.bioenergy2002.org/
>> 200 kWe CHP Discussion
>> http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
>> Gasification Reference
>http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
>Gasification List Moderator:
>Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, tombreed@attbi.com Biomass =
>Energy Foundation, www.woodgas.com
>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>
>-
>Gasification List Archives
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
>Bioenergy 2002 http://www.bioenergy2002.org/
>200 kWe CHP Discussion
>http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
>Gasification Reference
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
>
>>
>
>

From snkm at btl.net Thu Nov 21 07:52:24 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: LPG and steam reforming
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20021121104553.00971e50@wgs1.btl.net>

Taking this out of the stove list domain!

For those out there that are serious and can delve through technical
presentations -- interested in steam reforming??

Start here:

US patent 5,763,716

go to this site:

http://patft.uspto.gov/

Enter the above number into the search slot.

Have appended some "snips" -- but the "Description" part gives an entire
history of this "industry" and is extremely detailed. Also to huge to post.

The basis of high efficiency steam reforming is all about keeping the
proper ratios of "pure" H2 and CO.

And this is the major cost and problem involved in steam reformation of
synthesis gas to preferred product.

Come up with a simple way to do this -- and bingo -- no need for the mega
processing plant.

Again -- this can be accomplished by using a molten tin bath -- not covered
in this reference.

I can supply complete info on that process -- but better let brains rest --
quite a chew right here.

bottom line:

OK -- the India micro factories for sugar production work for these reasons.

#1: Capital cost payback is less than $10 per ton of sugar produced -- not
$375! At the "real" interest rates of 15%!!

#2: Extremely low transportation costs -- in forwarding biomass to plant --
as a plant requires just one hundred acres of cane. Can be done by
"hand-cart" (oh my -- look at all the modern workers faint right there!!)

#3: Extraction efficiency of 14% -- much better than the normal 10%

The disadvantage is grueling manual labor for low pay. No problem for us in
3rd world -- but impossible for 1'st world "workers".

Now -- this same plant operation example can be applied to generating
"fuel" from biomass from small "utilities".

Don't think so??

OK -- how about producing 80 liters of ethanol per ton of cane for a
portable fuel -- and burning the bagasse in a reliable fire tube boiler --
but instead of boiling water -- use a thermal oil -- and feed that to an
Ormat turbine.

Gentlemen -- I have the quotes in hand from Ormat and the from Skip
(remember him oh ye gas listers) now of Apin boilers in Peru.

You would never believe the prices!!

And no need for the sugar making part -- which cuts the cost of the micro
plant down a further large chunk!

Anywhere sugar cane can be grown -- people should not have to suffer for
lack of fuel or food!

Course -- not much work for the Phd's in these kind of ventures -- and that
kills it -- right??

Plus -- hard to grow sugar cane in the industrialized nations -- to cold.

Also -- ethanol "stoves" need no further improvements -- so there goes the
new wave stick burners.

Brazil used "strong rum" (not pure ethanol) to move its vehicles around for
almost one century -- so prior art is well established.

No fossil fuel mega giant corp to fund salaries for 100's of qualified
"modern" nation technical "experts" to guide the way -- eh??

My message to 3rd world -- stay away from these "free" rides -- they take
you down the wrong roads -- and all ends up lost.

I can put together the "same" for a small/micro gas plant -- any day -- any
time!!

No way to wake you guys up -- is there??

OK -- I have done my "shaking" of this tree -- off to real world --

Again -- for those interested -- check that patent!

Dust off the brain cells -- make them do something for a change -- OK???

Better now -- than after your bubble has burst -- then it is to late.

I find the lack of true innovation in visualizing real world energy
solutions astounding!

Well -- at least the list is no longer promoting 3rd world adopting WWII
gasifier technology as the solution to fueling motive apparatus.

But how many years did that take to "discourage"??

Is there some mysterious "chemical" introduced to people living in modern
industrialized nations making them all brain dead!!

Come on people -- "think" -- it is like swimming -- once done -- never
forgotten.

And for those brain stalled Phd's out there -- do not try to beat me on the
head with yourr diploma -- I'll bury you in hard -- real -- DATA!

I'll question on what basis you earned that piece of paper! Intellectual
snobbery is not a viable solution to an ever growing energy shortage in
"poor" 3rd world!

We can't just go out and "take" any oil producing nation to secure future
oil supplies like some countries can!

We will feel the real crunch long before the Robber Baron nations do!

While you all play -- we try to survive.

Pompous statements in regards ot what is impossible by "modern" world
standards -- surely -- we can do better than this??

In fact -- we "MUST" -- granted -- people in industrialized nations are
better brain dead -- cows in their barn are not advised to "think" -- are
they? Just grab that check from the trough -- better the diploma -- better
the check -- real world -- real time -- performance -- be damned!!

Your bubble is rapidly increasing beyond the size surface tension can hold
it together --

"Think" or be damned!

Peter/Belize

*********************
Claims

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

What is claimed is:

1. The process for the conversion of a hydrocarbon gas stream into products
including liquid hydrocarbons comprising the steps of:

first, catalytically reacting the hydrocarbon gas in a first reaction zone
in the presence of water and sufficient carbon dioxide to produce hydrogen
and carbon monoxide product in a ratio of hydrogen to carbon monoxide of
from about 0.5 to about 2.0 to 1 and then removing carbon dioxide from the
hydrogen and carbon monoxide produced in this step and recycling at least a
portion of this carbon dioxide back to the first reaction zone;

second, catalytically reacting the hydrogen and carbon monoxide having a
reduced carbon dioxide content in a second reaction zone in the presence of
a slurry containing an alkali promoted iron-based catalyst under conditions
favoring the formation of carbon dioxide, light hydrocarbon gases, and
normally liquid hydrocarbons containing at least five carbon atoms, and
hydrocarbon waxes, and then separating the liquid hydrocarbon products from
the gaseous products; and

third, reacting the gaseous products in a third reaction zone in the
presence of a slurry containing an alkali promoted iron-based catalyst to
produce additional liquid hydrocarbon product.

2. The process of claim 1 wherein the ratio of carbon from the hydrocarbon
gases first reacted to carbon dioxide is one part of carbon from
hydrocarbon gas to up to two parts of carbon dioxide.

3. The process of claim 2 wherein the ratio of carbon from hydrocarbon gas
to carbon dioxide and water is one part of carbon from the hydrocarbon gas
to four parts of carbon dioxide and water.

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

Description

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

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

This invention relates to a method and a system for the production of
hydrocarbons and hydrocarbon compounds which includes the use of a
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis reactor and process, utilizing a promoted
iron-based catalyst, in combination with processes for converting
hydrocarbon-containing gases in general, and in particular, methane rich
gases, into hydrogen and carbon monoxide from such gases.

Considerable research and development work has been undertaken in the past
to commercially apply the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis of hydrocarbons,
starting from a wide variety of carbonaceous and hydrocarbon starting
materials.

A compendium of some of the prior work with Fischer-Tropsch synthesis
technology is contained in the Bureau of Mines Bulletin 544 (1955) entitled
Bibliography of the Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis and Related Processes by H.
C. Anderson, J. L. Wiley and A. Newell.

The product distribution and yields from specific Fisher-Tropsch reactions
with iron catalysts have also been examined by Charles N. Satterfield and
George A. Huff, Jr. in an article entitled Carbon Number Distribution of
Fischer-Tropsch Products Formed on an Iron Catalyst in a Slurry Reactor,
Journal of Catalysis 73, 187-197 (1982), wherein the Shultz-Flory
distribution is examined with respect to various catalyst systems.

In addition, the article entitled Fischer-Tropsch Processes Investigated at
the Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center Since 1944 by Baird, Schehl, and
Haynes in Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Product Research and
Development, 1980, 19, pages 175-191, describes various Fischer-Tropsch
reactor configurations.

The foregoing articles describe in considerable detail how specific
catalysts can be employed in various reaction vessel configurations under
conditions which favor the conversion of carbon monoxide and hydrogen into
specific product groups.

There have only been a few instances wherein the Fischer-Tropsch reaction
has been incorporated into a complete system, starting with a solid or
gaseous feed stock. Germany placed several plants in operation during the
1930's and 1940's using coal as the feed stock, referenced in Twenty-Five
Years of Synthesis of Gasoline by Catalytic Conversion of Carbon Monoxide
and Hydrogen, Helmut Pichler, Advances in Catalysis, 1952, Vol. 4, pp.
272-341. In addition to the foregoing, South Africa has been using
Fischer-Tropsch technology based upon this German work for the past 35
years to produce gasoline and a variety of other products from coal,
referenced in Sasol Upgrades Synfuels with Refining Technology, J. S.
Swart, G. J. Czajkowski, and R. E. Conser, Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 31,
1991, TECHNOLOGY. There was also a Fischer-Tropsch plant built in the late
1940's to convert natural gas to gasoline and diesel fuel described in
Carthage Hydrocol Project by G. Weber, Oil Gas Journal, 1949, Vol. 47, No.
47, pp. 248-250. These early efforts confirmed that commercial application
of the Fischer-Tropsch process for the synthesis of hydrocarbons from a
hydrocarbon-containing feed stock gas requires solving, in an economical
manner, a set of complex problems associated with the complete system. For
example, initially, it is important for the hydrocarbon-containing feed
stock to be converted into a mixture consisting essentially of hydrogen and
carbon monoxide before introduction of the mixture into the Fischer-Tropsch
reactor. Economic operation of specific sizes of Fischer-Tropsch reactors,
generally requires the ratio of hydrogen to carbon monoxide to be within
well established ranges. The Hydrocol plant, referenced hereinbefore, used
partial oxidation of natural gas to achieve a hydrogen to carbon monoxide
ratio of about 2.0. An alternative approach to partial oxidation uses steam
reforming for converting light hydrocarbon-containing gases into a mixture
of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. In this latter case, steam and carbon
dioxide, methane and water are employed as feed stocks and carbon dioxide
can be recycled from the output of the reformer back to its inlet for the
purpose of reducing the resultant hydrogen to carbon monoxide ratio.

There are therefore, two primary methods for producing synthesis gas from
methane: steam reforming and partial oxidation.

Steam reforming of methane takes place according to the following reaction:

H.sub.2 O+CH.sub.4 .apprxeq.3H.sub.2 +CO (1)

Since both steam and carbon monoxide are present, the water gas shift
reaction also takes place:

H.sub.2 O+CO.apprxeq.H.sub.2 +CO.sub.2 ( 2)

Both of these reactions are reversible, i.e., the extent to which they
proceed as written depends upon the conditions of temperature and pressure
employed. High temperature and low pressure favor the production of
synthesis gas.

Partial oxidation reactions utilize a limited amount of oxygen with
hydrocarbon-containing gases, such as methane, to produce hydrogen and
carbon monoxide, as shown in equation (3), instead of water and carbon
dioxide in the case of complete oxidation.

1/2 O.sub.2 +CH.sub.4 .fwdarw.2H.sub.2 +CO (3)

In actuality, this reaction is difficult to carry out as written. There
will always be some production of water and carbon dioxide; therefore the
water gas shift reaction (2) will also take place. As in the steam
reforming case, relatively high temperatures and relatively low pressures
favor production of synthesis gas.

The primary advantage of partial oxidation over steam reforming is that
once the reactants have been preheated, the reaction is self-sustaining
without the need for the addition of heat.

Another advantage of partial oxidation is the lower ratios of hydrogen to
carbon monoxide normally produced in the synthesis gas which ratios better
match the desired ratio for use in the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis of
hydrocarbon liquids in the overall process.

A still further advantage of partial oxidation resides in the elimination
of a need for the removal of carbon dioxide and/or hydrogen from the
synthesis gas before being fed to the synthesis reactors.

While adjustment of the hydrogen to carbon monoxide ratio can be achieved
by removal of excess hydrogen using a membrane separator, for example. This
approach requires additional capital equipment and can result in lower oil
or liquid hyrdrocarbon yields due to a loss of hydrogen to the process.

In order for the overall process considerations to be used in a manner
which can produce economical results whether employing either steam
reforming or partial oxidation of a feed stock, the Fischer-Tropsch reactor
must typically be able to convert at least 90% of the incoming carbon
monoxide. If a 90% conversion efficiency is to be achieved in single pass
operation and hydrogen is not removed before introduction of the gas stream
into the reactor, the build up of unreacted hydrogen due to the excess of
hydrogen will necessitate a larger reaction vessel to maintain a
sufficiently long residence time in the reaction vessel. Recycle of
unreacted hydrogen and carbon monoxide from the outlet of the
Fischer-Tropsch reactor back to its inlet is commonly employed to achieve
the required conversion. However, when an excess of hydrogen is employed,
an even greater excess of unreacted hydrogen will build up under such a
recycle operation. This condition, in turn, can necessitate an even larger
reaction vessel or alternatively the hydrogen removal described must be
employed.

Major drawbacks to the commercialization of many of the prior processes
were the high cost of product specific catalysts, and when an inexpensive
catalyst was utilized an unacceptable overall process conversion efficiency
of the carbon input into the hydrocarbon products produced.

***********snipped --- huge amount left*************

And all kinds of charts -- as example:

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

While the contribution of the presence of alcohols to the superior
performance of the F/T diesel with respect to emissions generally and
particulate airborne emissions more specifically is not fully understood at
the present time, the following analysis clearly shows the superior
performance of the F/T diesel fuel of the present invention.

TABLE III
______________________________________
SYNTHETIC DIESEL FUEL
______________________________________
ASTM Distillation, .degree.F.
IBP 332
90% 514
EP 555
Cetane Index 62
Sulfur Content, wt % <.001
Cloud Point, .degree.F. -2
Pour Point, .degree.F. -6
Conradson Carbon on 10% Residuum, wt %
.05
Flash Point, .degree.F. 146
Bottom Sediment & Water, vol. %
<.025
Kinematic Viscosity @ 100 .degree.F., cSt
1.89
API Gravity @ 60.degree.F.
48.5
Aromatics, wt % less than 1%
Paraffins, wt % 47
Olefins, wt % 41
Alcohols, wt % 6
Other oxygenates, wt % 6
Heat of Combustion, Btu/lb
18,585
Heat of Combustion, Btu/gal
128,230
______________________________________
TABLE IV
______________________________________
EMISSION RESULTS
(g/bhp-hr)
HC CO NOx BSP
______________________________________
#1 DIESEL FUEL .81 1.25 4.89 .326
std. dev. .01 .02 .02 .001
SYNTHETIC FUEL .69 1.08 5.19 .268
std. dev. .01 .00 .02 .008
______________________________________

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

EXAMPLE 2

Referring to FIG. 3 one million standard cubic feet (28,316 .mu.M.sup.3)
per day of natural gas (assumed to be methane regulated to a pressure of
230 psia (1590 kPa)) is heated to 700.degree. F. (371.degree. C.) in
preheater PH1 (not shown) and flows through sulfur removal bed S1 at a
space velocity of 700 M.sup.3 per hour per M.sup.3 of catalyst. S1 is a
fixed bed of commercially available zinc oxide spherical pellets ranging in
diameter from 1/8 inch (3 mm) to 3/16 inch (5 mm). This type of sulfur
removal process is appropriate for low levels of sulfur compounds, e.g.
less than 25 parts per million (ppm).

The natural gas leaving S1 has a sulfur content less than 0.5 ppm and is
mixed with 1.46 MMSCF (41,343 M.sup.3) per day of carbon dioxide recycled
from stripper ST1 and 1.73 MMSCF (48,987 M.sup.3 per day of steam. The
mixture is preheated to 1292.degree. F. (700.degree. C.) in a preheater
(not shown) by the gases leaving the reforming reactor R1. The heated gas
mixture undergoes chemical reaction in the catalytic reforming reactor R1.
The catalyst is a commercial reforming catalyst such as nickel supported on
aluminum oxide in the form of raschig rings (e.g. catalyst 23-1 available
from Katalco). Since the chemical reactions taking place involving the
methane, steam and carbon dioxide are endothermic, heat is supplied to the
outside walls of the tubes containing the catalyst rings. Due to heat
transfer limitations, tube diameters are kept small, e.g. 5 inches (12.7)
cm) and several tubes are manifolded together. For the flow rates of this
example, a total of 12 tubes of 5 inches (17.7 cm) inside diameter and 24
feet (7.3 m) long would be required.

The objective of the reforming reactor is to produce as much synthesis gas
(a mixture of hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide) and particularly carbon
monoxide as possible. The extent to which the carbon in the methane and
carbon dioxide is converted to carbon contained in carbon monoxide is
determined by the thermodynamic equilibrium of the water gas shift reaction:

H.sub.2 +CO.sub.2 .apprxeq.H.sub.2 O+CO (11)

and the steam-methane reaction:

H.sub.2 O+CH.sub.4 .apprxeq.3H.sub.2 +CO (12)

The equilibrium constants for these reactions depend on the temperature of
the gases leaving the reformer. Since reaction (12) involves an increase in
moles as the reaction consumes methane, higher pressures adversely affect
the extent of conversion of methane. The water-gas shift reaction readily
achieves equilibrium on the nickel catalyst whereas the steam-methane
reaction approaches to within about 16.degree. C. (29.degree. F.) of
equilibrium, and the projected results are based on this phenomenon. For
the present example with an exit gas temperature of 850.degree. C.
(1562.degree. F.) and a pressure of 225 psia (1550 kPa) the gas leaving the
reformer is comprised of 2.15 MMSCFD (60,879 m.sup.3 /day) of hydrogen,
1.52 MMSCFD (43,040 m.sup.3 /day) of carbon monoxide, 0.80 MMSCFD (22,653
m.sup.3 /day) carbon dioxide, 0.08 MMSCFD (2265 m.sup.3 /day) of methane
and 1.29 MMSCFD (36,528 m.sup.3 /day) of water.

From LINVENT at aol.com Thu Nov 21 08:11:35 2002
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Working with ZIP files on a Mac
Message-ID: <15d.17d022f2.2b0e6c63@aol.com>

In a message dated 11/21/02 7:33:44 AM, snkm@btl.net writes:

<< http://www.maczipit.com/ >>
Thank you for the very valuable information. Being a Mac user, I have had to
use Stuffit and everyone I send a file to has to hassle with dealing with
.sit files. The advantages to using Mac far outweighs the issue of this
compression format.
The current ads for Mac are very real and important. To anyone who is
relying upon their computer, the Mac is the most stable and useful platform
to work with. I can operate all PC files on my iBook as I have Windows 98
compatibilty with Virtual PC which runs Windows 98 in a more stable format
than the PC version. I have never had to reload a system unless I am updating
systems and old software back to system 7.5 will still run on my system 9.4.
The old Macs came fully networkable with each individual system acting as a
server and the concept of a server is purely a PC based concept because MS is
not smart enough to do what Steven Jobs did in the 80's. It takes about an
hour to upgrade from one system to another on my Macs. Our office uses Macs
with virtual PC to operate MS only programs such as Autocad. Autocad was
originally operated on Apple systems.
So, next time a virus enters your system (I have never had a virus damage
my Apple files) and you have to go through the monumental effort to clean it
up, toss you MS based system out and go buy an Apple. You will not only be
happier, faster, but will be amazed at how little you have to know to use the
computer and not have to spend any time futzing with your tool. If I bought a
wrench that required as much attention as MS based systems, I would certainly
not use it, or buy one that works better.
Everytime Intel or MS introduces a new product such as their recently
introduced parallel processor, it is to try to catch up with Apple. The basic
processor Apple now uses is a parallel processor and has three times the
effective clock rate of the actual clock rate which makes it the first
personal supercomputer.
Most computer experts recommend PC's as it is the only way they can get
job security. Once Apples are installed, there is not much more to be done
with them.
Meanwhile, I am going to start using my Zipit program and start sending
out files with it to see if it saves the hassle of Aladdin's Stuffit.
Thanks again for the information.

From snkm at btl.net Thu Nov 21 08:23:53 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The "Hydrogen Economy": Bleak or Bright?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20021121111701.00979b70@wgs1.btl.net>

At 10:26 AM 11/21/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>>>>
Peter What a paranoid view of the world. The reality is that yes many
large companies control oil and energy production in this modern age
because of the high risk and high cost in developing oil production. If you
have a good cost effective alternative to cheap oil that is great. Take
the big plunge and market it to the world. Unfortunately (or fortunately
depending on your veiw point) energy is about economics if you can't look
at the costs of the whole project and compete it is doomed to be a
failure. We should be looking at all kinds of alternatives to fossil fuel
and continuously re-evaluting costs and benifits but lets not go blasting
the people that provide what we have. For the most part everybody in all
of this world is just trying to make their way. Remember alot of the
aternative technologies (fuel cells etc) have come from the industrial
nations that you seem to have a problem with. Kelly/USA

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

I am an engineer from "modern" world -- except many years of 3rd world
exposure.

If 10 man hours per gallon of fuel is not economically feasible up your way
-- it is here.

It is quite true that modern countries ignore any concept of future.

So what does not pay now -- kill that idea.

I ordered a tiny cane crusher from India -- should be here shortly. 300
pounds of cane per hour --

I plan on doing some real time work on "strong rum" -- for fuel purposes.
How much cost -- how much labor -- etc.

Just like i have been doing on oil trees.

I am not funded by outside sources -- can do what I damn well please.

Talk to me in ten years time -- OK??

I was a strong supporter of nuclear power plants as a solution to our
present future scenario -- based totally on -- don't worry now -- lot's of
fossil fuels left -- let the future look after itself.

You got to be kidding -- right??

Fuel cells are "Sci-fi" -- that is possible -- rather than fantasy.

Strong rum is now -- as is running my old style Lister on tree oils.

Gasoline is presently $3.40 US per gallon here.

Don't see it going down.

"Replacement" value of strong rum -- not sci-fi -- already works.

Good luck in your brave new world -- sleep well --

I certainly do -- even if I have no modern conveniences -- no fuel -- I can
still live well.

Shit -- I'll just get on my sail boat -- and go fishing!

http://Belize1.com/reefcrawl/trip.html

Totally traditional "local" boat -- married to a little of the best of
modern technology -- it will certainly outlive me -- and requires no fuels!!

Now -- just who are you trying to kid???

Me?? Hey -- been there -- done that -- changed --

I'm retired -- just trying to stimulate minds younger than mine to "think" --

Or rather -- in face of developing issues -- seeing if anyone is left up
there that is made of "real" stuff.

Belize has a population of less than 350,000 people -- yet owes 1.5 billion
US --

We are an Argentina waiting to happen.

sugar is dead -- citrus is dead -- every export industry is dead.

Excuse me for thinking in terms of total self sufficiency starting in the
short term.

Every country in 3rd world is some what like Belize.

We better give up mechanized agriculture -- go back to totally sustainable
"milpa" (as practiced by the Maya here for 10,000 or more years) as it
needs not foreign exchange for fuels -- fertilizers and machineries.

Hey -- if you lived in 3rd world for 15 years -- you might be thinking just
like I do.

One never knows for sure -- but one can certainly spot trends and act
accordingly.

Modern life style is busting the world bank of resources -- so what would
you be doing -- if you lived on the short end of this stick??

Keep on dreaming that there exists an unlimited amount of money to be
borrowed to buy modern industrialized nation's "toys" to advance out plot
in life??

Serious here --

Sorry -- I am to much the engineer to believe that -- have "observed" to
much of real world.

The modern program you espouse does not compute --

Granted -- popular modern mentality can never grasp this --

Peter

From snkm at btl.net Thu Nov 21 08:25:43 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The "Hydrogen Economy": Bleak or Bright?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20021121111701.00974210@wgs1.btl.net>

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

I am an engineer from "modern" world -- except many years of 3rd world
exposure.

If 10 man hours per gallon of fuel is not economically feasible up your way
-- it is here.

It is quite true that modern countries ignore any concept of future.

So what does not pay now -- kill that idea.

I ordered a tiny cane crusher from India -- should be here shortly. 300
pounds of cane per hour --

I plan on doing some real time work on "strong rum" -- for fuel purposes.
How much cost -- how much labor -- etc.

Just like i have been doing on oil trees.

I am not funded by outside sources -- can do what I damn well please.

Talk to me in ten years time -- OK??

I was a strong supporter of nuclear power plants as a solution to our
present future scenario -- based totally on -- don't worry now -- lot's of
fossil fuels left -- let the future look after itself.

You got to be kidding -- right??

Fuel cells are "Sci-fi" -- that is possible -- rather than fantasy.

Strong rum is now -- as is running my old style Lister on tree oils.

Gasoline is presently $3.40 US per gallon here.

Don't see it going down.

"Replacement" value of strong rum -- not sci-fi -- already works.

Good luck in your brave new world -- sleep well --

I certainly do -- even if I have no modern conveniences -- no fuel -- I can
still live well.

Shit -- I'll just get on my sail boat -- and go fishing!

http://Belize1.com/reefcrawl/trip.html

Totally traditional "local" boat -- married to a little of the best of
modern technology -- it will certainly outlive me -- and requires no fuels!!

Now -- just who are you trying to kid???

Me?? Hey -- been there -- done that -- changed --

I'm retired -- just trying to stimulate minds younger than mine to "think" --

Or rather -- in face of developing issues -- seeing if anyone is left up
there that is made of "real" stuff.

Belize has a population of less than 350,000 people -- yet owes 1.5 billion
US --

We are an Argentina waiting to happen.

sugar is dead -- citrus is dead -- every export industry is dead.

Excuse me for thinking in terms of total self sufficiency starting in the
short term.

Every country in 3rd world is some what like Belize.

Hey -- if you lived in 3rd world for 15 years -- you might be thinking just
like I do.

One never knows for sure -- but one can certainly spot trends and act
accordingly.

Modern life style is busting the world bank of resources -- so what would
you be doing -- if you lived on the short end of this stick??

Keep on dreaming that there exists an unlimited amount of money to be
borrowed to buy modern industrialized nation's "toys" to advance out plot
in life??

Serious here --

Sorry -- I am to much the engineer to believe that -- have "observed" to
much of real world.

The modern program you espouse does not compute --

Granted -- popular modern mentality can never grasp this --

Peter

From gldthrp at nznet.gen.nz Thu Nov 21 09:47:30 2002
From: gldthrp at nznet.gen.nz (Goldthorpe)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: Gases for domestic cooking - Propane and butane
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20021120200908.00933210@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <000001c2918d$cf019980$48d81bca@GLDTHRP>

Peter,

Propane and butane are by-products of oil and gas production.

Methane (1 carbon atom - C1) and ethane (2 carbon atoms -C2) can be sold as
pipeline natural gas. Pentane and above (5 carbon atoms and more - C5+) are
naphtha, which is the basis of petrol. However, there is no such ready
market for propane (3 carbon atoms- C3) and butane (4 carbon atoms - C4),
which condense when compressed.

When oil and gas resources are separated into fractions by distillation, the
C3/C4 fraction is separated out as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) which is
sold as a separate product. In many countries (e.g. New Zealand) the supply
of LPG exceeds the essential demand for the product so this by-product of
oil and gas production is sold off into heating markets etc. at low prices.

I hope this clarifies the origin of propane and butane.

Steve Goldthorpe Energy Analyst Limited
PO Box 68, Greenhithe
Auckland, New Zealand
Phone 09 413 9696
Fax 09 413 9642
Mobile 0274 849 764
Email gldthrp@nznet.gen.nz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@btl.net>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: RE: Gases for domestic cooking

>
> Dear Paul and listers;
>
> "SYNTHESIS GAS in my favorite synthetic gas from biomass, since proven
> processes exist to make it into methanol, DME, diesel gasoline or ammonia,
> all the necessities of our current civilization."
>
> In defense of Tom -- you got to look at the "bigger" picture!!
>
> At present propane and butane are produced from natural gas by "steam
> reforming" -- please -- anyone -- correct me if I am wrong!!
>
> A process easily adapted to using synthesis gas rather than natural gas as
> base.
>
> Tom is merely suggesting that such "centralized" and later "distributed"
> gas works can be "hypothetically" replaced by biomass based synthesis gas
> production facilities --
>
> This brings us right back to a few years ago when I was trying to get
> interest going in regards to direct steam reforming of any biomass.
>
> For those of you new to these lists -- or short of memory -- start here:
>
> http://tzabcan.com/gas/BriteStar/TechnicalOverview.zip
>
> Also -- just search steam reforming in the Gas archives.
>
> Certainly -- extremely viable solution -- but sorry -- it does make all
> this small biomass stove stuff redundant.
>
> Synthesis gas can also be produced by combusting any biomass in a pure O2
> atmosphere.
>
> Andries Weststeijn -- a past member of the Gas list -- maybe still is --
> works in a humongous coal fired power plant in Holland that does exactly
this!
>
> Replacing coal with any biomass in this style conversion -- is not so
> impossible.
>
> My "argument" -- for years on this topic -- has been easier to use a steam
> atmosphere than and O2 one.
>
> The BriteStar example I post above was a working prototype plant exactly
> along these lines -- and to this day -- we know not why that company just
> went "phoof" --
>
> But certainly -- replacing natural gas with biomass to produce propane --
> and probably butane -- is not only "real" -- but extremely viable.
>
> It is simply a matter of waiting for this planet to run low on fossil fuel
> deposits -- then we shall see.
>
> Still -- I certainly believe that if 3rd world power houses got 100%
behind
> the development of such plants -- now -- it would happen much sooner.
>
> We must ignore the modern industrialized nations -- they are so tied up
> under their elitist oriented rulers -- there is absolutely no hope of any
> changes -- till the last deposit of fossil fuel is gone --
>
> and by then -- it will be far to late. but the same elitists -- or their
> descendants -- will be so filthy rich -- they probably will have personal
> nuclear power plants in any event!!
>
> The rest of those foolish moderns -- be damned!! They will soon be
reverted
> back to living stone age --
>
> It is up to us in 3rd world to rectify this present situation -- and not
by
> "just" promoting small stoves that burn cleaner -- and maybe use less
> biomass to boil a tub of water.
>
> You see -- everything has it's place -- and everything has it's time.
>
> I "hope" that was what Tom was trying to say??
>
> And one last point -- at this entrance level -- "biomass" can be wood --
> straw -- rice bran -- and even chicken manure -- human manure -- and
> especially -- human refuse!! Any "BIOMASS" could be utilized!!
>
> Try that with a village stove!!
>
> Read the BriteStar "paper" --
>
> Peter Singfield
> Belize
>
>
> At 03:55 PM 11/20/2002 -0600, you wrote:
> >>>>
> At 09:12 PM 11/20/02 +0000, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:
>
> Tom,
>
> So how do we make synthesis gas as clearly this must be our main aim.
> (rather than good ole producer gas with that sweet sickly smell and tars
> that gum up engines)
> Gavin,
>
> I do not think it is a simple switch. First, your Subject line says "for
> domestic cooking" but your comment speaks of "engines." Quite different.
>
> Second, Tom did not mention the "pyrolysis gasifier gases" that are
> produced and used in Tom's Woodgas Campstove and in my Juntos stoves for
> developing countries. There is confusion about even the terminology
> (names) of gases.
>
> Third, at least some (including Gus Johansson in South Africa) who claim
> that the tars, etc are minimal in their producer gas.
>
> And Fourth, "synthesis gas" probably has many variations, each with
> advantages and disadvantages that could relate to intended uses.
>
> But as Gavin asks, perhaps someone on the list serve can explain the
extent
> to which "synthesis gas" is made and is relevant to our topic of domestic
> cooking for poor people.
>
> Paul
>
> Thanks
>
> Gavin
>
>
>
> Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
>
> 3G Energi,
>
>
>
> Tel +44 (0)1835 824201
>
> Fax +44 (0)870 8314098
>
> Mob +44 (0)7773 781498
>
> E mail Gavin@3genergi.co.uk
> <<mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>
>
>
>
> The contents of this email and any attachments are the property of 3G
> Energi and are intended for the confidential use of the named
recipient(s)
> only. They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to or
> relied upon by any person without our express written consent. If you are
> not an addressee please notify us immediately at the address above or by
> email at Gavin@3genergi.co.uk
> <<mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>mailto:Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>. Any files
> attached to this email will have been checked with virus detection
software
> before transmission. However, you should carry out your own virus check
> before opening any attachment.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Reed [<mailto:tombreed@attbi.com>mailto:tombreed@attbi.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 16:04
> To: A.D. Karve; stoves@crest.org; gasification
> Cc: esloan@mines.edu
> Subject: Gases for domestic cooking
>
>
>
> Dear Nandu et al:
>
>
>
> PROPANE is my favorite 20th century fuel because
>
>
>
> It burns very clean as a gas
>
> It stores as a liquid at relatively low pressures (<15 atm, boiling point
> -42C)
>
> It is self delivered (no fuel pump)
>
> It has a very high energy both on a liquid, gas and weight basis
>
>
>
> Unfortunately it is <3% of the oil barrel and as oil prices go up will be
> ever less available to those who need it least. It can't be synthesized
> from other oil components or biomass.
>
>
>
> DIMETHYL ETHER, DME is my favorite 21st Century fuel because
>
>
>
> It burns very clean as a gas and is being considered for diesel engines
> (and I suspect, spark)
>
> It stores as a liquid at relatively low pressures (<15 atm, boiling point
> -42C)
>
> It is self delivered (no fuel pump)
>
> It has a very high energy both on a liquid, gas and weight basis
>
> It is even easier to make from synthesis gas than methanol, my favorite
> liquid fuel
>
>
>
> METHANE is not nearly so nice, because
>
>
>
> It is a permanent gas (BP = -164C, lots of energy to liquefy, stored in
> VERY heavy cylinders), so hard to store
>
> Pipelines cost >$10/mile. Do you have any domestic methane in India?
>
> Less than half the energy of propane
>
>
>
> BIOGAS has most of the faults of methane with only 2/3 the energy due to
> 1/3 CO2 content.
>
>
>
> However, I wonder if it isn't easier to liquefy than methane because the
> CO2 boils much higher AND MAY FORM A HYDRATE.
>
> Does anyone know about this (i.e. Dendy Sloan)?
>
>
>
> PRODUCER GAS is the worst of this list because it contains 50% N2 BUT
>
> It is very easily made by the air gasification of all sorts of biomass,
and
> can be used locally for heat or power generation, a well proven technology
> (<http://www.gocpc.com>www.gocpc.com)
>
>
>
> SYNTHESIS GAS in my favorite synthetic gas from biomass, since proven
> processes exist to make it into methanol, DME, diesel gasoline or ammonia,
> all the necessities of our current civilization.
>
>
>
> Comments?
>
>
>
> TOM REED BEF GASWORKS
>
>
>
> Dr. Thomas B. Reed
> 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
> <mailto:tombreed@attbi.com>tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone/Fax
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: <mailto:adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in>A.D. Karve
>
> To: <mailto:stoves@crest.org>stoves@crest.org
>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 10:38 AM
>
> Subject: cooking devices for rural India
>
>
>
> LPG has become popular all over India because of its extreme user
> friendliness. Housewives have changed their ethnic and cultural cooking
> habits, scrapped their traditional cookpots and purchased new ones that
> suit the LPG stoves. Biogas has the same qualities as LPG but the biogas
> technology failed to become popular in India because everybody was
supposed
> to make his own biogas. We are working towards establishing rural
> enterprises producing and selling biogas. The so called community biogas
> plants have not at all been successful in India, but we feel that we have
> the right formula to make them successful. I am trying to get funding for
> establishing a pilot plant based on my ideas, and shall report about it
> when it gets going.
>
> A.D.Karve
> Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00 Rotary
> University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003 Dept of
> Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University Normal, IL
> 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310 E-mail:
> psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items:
> <http://www.ilstu.edu/~psanders>www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
>
>
>
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, tombreed@attbi.com Biomass =
> Energy Foundation, www.woodgas.com
> 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>
> -
> Gasification List Archives
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
> Bioenergy 2002 http://www.bioenergy2002.org/
> 200 kWe CHP Discussion
> http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
> Gasification Reference
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
>
> >

From JBenemann at aol.com Thu Nov 21 09:56:55 2002
From: JBenemann at aol.com (JBenemann@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The "Hydrogen Economy": Bleak or Bright?
Message-ID: <64.288a7320.2b0e85bd@aol.com>

Dear Tom:

I agree, methanol should be a good fuel, but from wasted, flared natural gas
where available in sufficient amounts, not from biomass, I think we both
agree on that.

Re. H2, I think we have a similar situation - biomass gasification may not be
a good approach to produce H2, due to the clean-up, etc., required.
Fermentations maybe a tad better, maybe. (I should state I work on H2
fermentations, so I may be biased).

But then the question becomes what to do with the H2. After 30 years doing
R&D in biological H2 production, I have yet to see anyone stating a clear
path to practical development. Having low cost (say $400 /kWe) fuel cells,
as promised by the industry, would, maybe,be helpful, but that still requires
some 90 to 99% cost reduction (depending on whose quote you believe).
Anyway, IC engines do reasonably well and I see no real arguments in favor
fuel cells for biomass applications.

Actually, there may be a good use for biomass gasification in a close-coupled
moded for co-firing in coal (and maybe oil) power plants to provide some H2
to help reduce NOx emissions. Has anyone looked at that?

Re. H2 and cars, indeed this is a simple "greenwashing" excercise. Actually,
the key in the Scientific American article is the statement that H2 cars
would preserve our "freedom of personal transportation". Hydrogen cars are
held up as the final solution to all pollution and justification to continue
our wasteful and rapidly selfdefeating, personal car mode of transportation.
H2 may cut down on local air pollution, but overall it seems to me to be
rather marginal, to be charitable. And unaffordable, to be realistic.

This whole H2 car business was started a few years back by Shell in Europe,
as a counter to the arguments by the Greens in Germany (in particular) who
wanted to start moving away from the two plus cars in every garage model to a
more public mode of transportation. Which would be bad for oil companies,
car companies, and all those benefiting from our current system. So their
embrace of H2 is understandable - it justifies the status quo and no danger
of it ever becoming anything more than a Popular Mechanics /Scientific
American cover story, and a (mostly government funded) R&D excercise.
Indeed, the current long-long-term Dept. of Energy H2 car program replaced a
much more serious and near-term high-efficiency car program, which was
becoming dangerously too real to the oil and car companies. So it was
terminated.

Perhaps others would have some additional/alternative perspecitves on this?

John

John R. Benemann, Ph.D.
3434 Tice Creek Dr. No.1
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
(925) 939 5864 Fax (925) 944 1205
Cell (925) 352 3352 jbenemann@aol.com

From motie at paulbunyan.net Thu Nov 21 11:38:33 2002
From: motie at paulbunyan.net (Motie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: LPG and steam reforming
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20021121104553.00971e50@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <003f01c2919d$af30d020$43c0bfd1@m6o7s4>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@btl.net>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Re: LPG and steam reforming

>
> Taking this out of the stove list domain!
>
> For those out there that are serious and can delve through technical
> presentations -- interested in steam reforming??
>
> Start here:
>
> US patent 5,763,716
>
> go to this site:
>
> http://patft.uspto.gov/
>
> Enter the above number into the search slot.
>
> Have appended some "snips" -- but the "Description" part gives an entire
> history of this "industry" and is extremely detailed. Also to huge to
post.
>
> The basis of high efficiency steam reforming is all about keeping the
> proper ratios of "pure" H2 and CO.
>
> And this is the major cost and problem involved in steam reformation of
> synthesis gas to preferred product.
>
> Come up with a simple way to do this -- and bingo -- no need for the mega
> processing plant.
>
> Again -- this can be accomplished by using a molten tin bath -- not
covered
> in this reference.
>
> I can supply complete info on that process -- but better let brains
rest --
> quite a chew right here.
>

Peter,
Based on your post, I seem to have spent several years reinventing the
wheel. I still can't get it to turn, due to regulatory interference. I will
vouch for the workability of the process you have described. Initially,
Cobalt was planned for use as the catalyst, but proved to be too easily
poisoned, and too expensive to replace. Iron ended up being the catalyst of
choice. Another major hurdle was dealing with Nitrogen from air, which was
first considered for use an a source of Oxygen. An Oxygen Generator was
added, increasing costs further.
Too make a very long story short, I produced a Feasabilty Study, and
arranged for financing to build the Project to produce FT Diesel fuel from
wood waste.
Then I discovered that the Engineering and Technical problems were the
minor obstacles to be overcome. Until the time came to apply for the
numerous Permits and conduct required 'approved' Environmental Impact
Studies, we had managed to work unmolested, as our planned Project was
unknown. Once applications were made for Permits to implement the Project,
it was no longer a secret, and opposition surfaced. None of our internal
studies or projections would be accepted. All studies for Air Emissions,
water discharges, etc., would have to be conducted by outside Engineering
Firms, to meet government approval. These would cost $350,000. Arranging
financing was exceedingly difficult! (Understatement!) Once financing was
arranged, it was further required that all the Engineering would also have
to be evaluated by a government-approved Engineering Firm, at a cost of $6M.
I was unable to find financing for this, until an 'undisclosed party' made
an offer to underwrite it. This 'undisclosed party' wants ownership of the
plant and process in return. I could have possibly accepted their ownership
of the plant, but NOT the process. My plan was to replicate this in several
other locations, providing jobs and economic development to the local areas.
All development plans for this process are on hold. I had hoped that our
recent election would provide some hope for change, but I have little hope
for it now. Elected officials are just a figure-head, with the real power
being in the hands of the unelected Bureaucrats and their Corporate owners.
A decision was made early in the development process, to NOT apply for a
Patent, which would entail publicizing Proprietary information. I believe it
was a wise decision. Corporate Raiders can't block my implementation until
the Patent runs out, then build it themselves, because they don't have
access to the details.
I am working on a couple of smaller Projects for now, and taking a hiatus
from the stress. I may try to down-size the process, but it will be
difficult to do, because of the economy of scale. Engineering Costs are
nearly the same for a large plant, as for a small one. Roughly speaking, a
50% reduction in capacity would only save 15% of Capitalization Costs. Any
increase in capacity would increase transportation costs of feedstocks. The
size has to be 'just right', based on local 'site specific' conditions.

I'll close for now, for personal health reasons. I have Post-Traumatic
Stress syndrome caused by putting my heart and soul into development of the
Project. It seems to be too early yet, to properly address this topic.

Respectfully,
Motie

From snkm at btl.net Thu Nov 21 12:28:49 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: LPG and steam reforming
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20021121151547.0097ca70@wgs1.btl.net>

At 02:36 PM 11/21/2002 -0600, Motie wrote:
>
>Peter,
>Based on your post, I seem to have spent several years reinventing the
>wheel. I still can't get it to turn, due to regulatory interference. I will
>vouch for the workability of the process you have described.

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

Thanks for filling in the blanks Motie --

> I'll close for now, for personal health reasons. I have Post-Traumatic
>Stress syndrome caused by putting my heart and soul into development of the
>Project. It seems to be too early yet, to properly address this topic.
>
>Respectfully,
>Motie

Ha -- when people ask me how I ended up in Belize -- I state the real
reason -- stress was leading me to a premature grave in the over regulated
"modern" world.

I strongly advise you follow this same path I blazed.

"Escape"

Now excuse me list -- I have coconuts to husk in preparation for tomorrow's
oil expressing session.

It may not be leading edge technology -- but the honest work/exercise keeps
me healthy.

Again -- the flat plate heat exchanger I designed and build works
exceptionally well. Once warmed up burns just about any fuel -- no matter
the humidity.

At present is burns fresh coconut shells -- right after the meat is grated
from them.

My expressor is over sized -- and can process what ten of these flat plate
driers dry.

Ergo -- we plan to build ten more -- at ten villages -- and deliver the
dried product to the expressor I have already in operation.

Motie -- consider consuming 40 grams of virgin coconut oil per day to bring
back your health.

Start researching why -- here:

http://www.apcc.org.sg/special.htm

Very technical -- but especially interesting

and a ton more links --

http://www.coconut-info.com/links.htm

And run a search at medline for what "hard" science says.

I am exporting small quantities daily --

Now -- no more talking for me -- it is back to doing.

And oh -- if you really need a complete reconditioning -- consider this
service of mine:

http://Belize1.com/reefcrawl/trip.html

The ultimate chill-out -- works just as described.

And if all that is not enough --

Let me introduce you to some serious "rebuilding":

http://tzabcan.com/4cases/

Think small -- leave the industrialized nations -- live a good life.

Retire in bliss -- live long and prosper -- everyone!!

Peter

From snkm at btl.net Thu Nov 21 12:32:46 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The "Hydrogen Economy": Bleak or Bright?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20021121145845.0097e9c0@wgs1.btl.net>

Dear John and list;

At 01:53 PM 11/21/2002 EST, JBenemann@aol.com wrote:
>Dear Tom:

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

>Re. H2, I think we have a similar situation - biomass gasification may not
be
>a good approach to produce H2, due to the clean-up, etc., required.
>Fermentations maybe a tad better, maybe. (I should state I work on H2
>fermentations, so I may be biased).

I believe Tom Taylor is also well versed in this field of endeavor --
wonder if we can get him to "repeat" what he has been telling us all along??

>
>But then the question becomes what to do with the H2.

Combine it with CO and make synthesis gas??

"The objective of the reforming reactor is to produce as much synthesis gas
(a
mixture of hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide) as possible"

The hard part is getting H2 from biomass. It is relatively simple to make
CO from biomass charcoal.

Blending these two is not any kind of a problem.

Purifying both is tricky.

Tom -- I know you solved most of this already -- further -- in a "size"
well adapted to "small" gas plant models -- perfect for even 3rd world.

Tom's system could utilize the bagasse left over from cane pressing to make
synthetic liquid fuels. Kind of a double whammy -- ferment cane juice to
"strong-rum" and synthetic liquid fuel from the bagasse as well.

Peter / Belize

From JBenemann at aol.com Fri Nov 22 05:29:48 2002
From: JBenemann at aol.com (JBenemann@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The "Hydrogen Economy": Bleak or Bright?
Message-ID: <25.31467731.2b0f5d0b@aol.com>

piolenc@mozcom.com writes from the Philippines:

"....I can't think of a better way to control people than to force them into
cattle-cars for any trip longer than walking distance..."

Well, in the Philippines you certainly have a case, as only a small minority
can afford a car. I gather you have one and want to keep it that way.
Don't blame you. Here in the U.S., and Europe, Japan, etc., where everyone
drives a car, we enjoy the relaxation and peace of mind that only being stuck
for hours in traffic can provide. Of course, as the cars don't move faster
than we could walking, the whole thing becomes ridiculous and freedom of
personal transportation doesn't look so good. So enjoy your status and
freedom while it lasts. We are moving beyond that, out of necessity, not
desire. (Actually you have this problem in Manila and other Cities too,
perhaps not where you are).

The best thing about biomass energy is that it provides only enough for
frugal living, not wanton wasting.

John Benemann

<< Subj: Re: GAS-L: The "Hydrogen Economy": Bleak or Bright?
Date: 11/21/02 11:49:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: piolenc@mozcom.com (Marc de Piolenc)
Reply-to: piolenc@reporters.net
To: JBenemann@aol.com, gasification@crest.org (gasification)

JBenemann@aol.com wrote:

> This whole H2 car business was started a few years back by Shell in Europe,
> as a counter to the arguments by the Greens in Germany (in particular) who
> wanted to start moving away from the two plus cars in every garage model
to a
> more public mode of transportation. Which would be bad for oil companies,
> car companies, and all those benefiting from our current system.

..and bad for all those who value their personal freedom to travel. I
can't think of a better way to control people than to force them into
cattle-cars for any trip longer than walking distance. Central control
over goods transport is an even more powerful means of control. This is
exemplified here in the Philippines, where an oligopoly of shipping
firms controls interisland freight and systematically prevents farm
products from Mindanao (for instance) from reaching lucrative markets in
Luzon.

Best,
Marc de Piolenc
Iligan City, Philippines

>>

From piolenc at mozcom.com Fri Nov 22 05:36:29 2002
From: piolenc at mozcom.com (Marc de Piolenc)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The "Hydrogen Economy": Bleak or Bright?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20021121093507.00971e50@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3DDDF596.FF44E730@mozcom.com>

Peter Singfield wrote:

> There is -- however -- a really cute method of converting synthesis gas to
> almost pure H2 product -- at great efficiencies -- using a liquid tin metal
> bath.

I know you've mentioned this process before on the list, Peter, but I
can't find where the deuce I saved it. This may be one of the files that
was a casualty of my recent "simple" hard drive upgrade.

Can you dig into your archives and repost? I know the crest archives are
nominally available, but access is so slow from here that for practical
purposes the messages might as well be on the Moon.

Best,
Marc

From piolenc at mozcom.com Fri Nov 22 06:03:01 2002
From: piolenc at mozcom.com (Marc de Piolenc)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:11 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The "Hydrogen Economy": Bleak or Bright?
In-Reply-To: <25.31467731.2b0f5d0b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3DDE13C2.2C367679@mozcom.com>

JBenemann@aol.com wrote:
>
> piolenc@mozcom.com writes from the Philippines:
>
> "....I can't think of a better way to control people than to force them into
> cattle-cars for any trip longer than walking distance..."
>
> Well, in the Philippines you certainly have a case, as only a small minority
> can afford a car. I gather you have one and want to keep it that way.
> Don't blame you. Here in the U.S., and Europe, Japan, etc., where everyone
> drives a car, we enjoy the relaxation and peace of mind that only being stuck
> for hours in traffic can provide. Of course, as the cars don't move faster
> than we could walking,

You've got it backwards. In Europe and in the USA I always owned a car,
and I never let myself be suckered into a 90-minute commute. I traveled
when the roads were clear or stayed at home But let's not forget that
people do accept those constraints because they don't trust the
operators of "public" transportation, and with good reason.

I resisted getting a vehicle of my own here for three years after
emigrating, preferring the inexpensive (and more importantly PRIVATE)
taxis and jeepneys. When my wife got pregnant with our first child I
changed my mind. Even though the taxi dispatchers know us personally,
and three drivers were willing to respond to direct calls even after the
dispatch desk shut down, I wanted to be sure.

What's nice here is that the government is so ineffectual that it simply
isn't competent to even make a show of controlling transportation, so
there are viable private collective transport alternatives for most
purposes (load hauling still requires one's own vehicle, or one borrowed
from someone).

Marc de Piolenc

From piolenc at mozcom.com Fri Nov 22 06:37:14 2002
From: piolenc at mozcom.com (Marc de Piolenc)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The "Hydrogen Economy": Bleak or Bright?
In-Reply-To: <64.288a7320.2b0e85bd@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3DDDD7DB.C305A8EA@mozcom.com>

JBenemann@aol.com wrote:

> This whole H2 car business was started a few years back by Shell in Europe,
> as a counter to the arguments by the Greens in Germany (in particular) who
> wanted to start moving away from the two plus cars in every garage model to a
> more public mode of transportation. Which would be bad for oil companies,
> car companies, and all those benefiting from our current system.

..and bad for all those who value their personal freedom to travel. I
can't think of a better way to control people than to force them into
cattle-cars for any trip longer than walking distance. Central control
over goods transport is an even more powerful means of control. This is
exemplified here in the Philippines, where an oligopoly of shipping
firms controls interisland freight and systematically prevents farm
products from Mindanao (for instance) from reaching lucrative markets in
Luzon.

Best,
Marc de Piolenc
Iligan City, Philippines

From piolenc at mozcom.com Fri Nov 22 06:39:21 2002
From: piolenc at mozcom.com (Marc de Piolenc)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The "Hydrogen Economy": Bleak or Bright?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20021121111701.00974210@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3DDDD491.CBE2E4C6@mozcom.com>

While I tend to agree with the post copied in part below, I also fully
understand Peter's jaundiced view of the relations between First and
Third World economic powers. Capital projects here are burdened with
such high rates of interest that they are made artificially
"uneconomical," when they would have succeeded in an un-skewed economy.
It's the 17th-18th century monster, Mercantilism, in a different guise
and with the Third World playing the part of America and those in
control of the World Bank the role of Britain. The effect - which I have
come to believe is fully intended - is that the Third World exports raw
materials and imports manufactured goods, just as a certain thirteen
colonies were forced to do until they took matters into their own hands.

Unfortunately, the Powers that Be here are happy to be in bed with
whoever's running the show internationally, so the only solution is what
Peter is doing:

* ask nobody for approval,
* expect no local help,
* solve your own problems,
* mine the Internet for all the information that could possibly be
relevant
* use the Net to communicate with far-flung like-minded people.

This "global grass roots" approach to industrial development is slow,
but it is immune to sabotage by financial manipulation, which recommends
it in my view. In the long run, I think that other measures are needed
here in the Philippines, namely:

* institution of a gold-based currency, if necessary informally and at
the local level (every attempt at economic recovery in the recent past
has been stopped cold by abrupt devaluation of the peso vis-à-vis the US
"dollar"). This would be relatively easy here, as the overseas Chinese
who are the true drivers of the economy in the South have never put any
faith in fiat currency, and likely have very large personal gold
holdings

* elimination of the cynical education "reforms" of the recent past that
de-emphasized English in favor of the official national language,
Tagalog (renamed for cosmetic purposes "Pilipino"). As all higher
education here is necessarily conducted in English (availability of
textbooks, technical literature, equipment...), this has the effect of
closing the door to higher education to all but the wealthy; no matter
how many scholarship programs are instituted for the poor, they are
useless if primary and secondary schooling give the poor insufficient
grounding in English.

* removal (or bypassing) of "protective" restrictions and tariffs on
foreign publications, which make it difficult and expensive to get
technical literature, especially in the provinces. At present, it is
easier to get technical and historical information on the Philippines
economy in the USA than in the Philippines!

Enough venting for today. Thanks for reading this far.

Marc de Piolenc
Iligan City, Philippines

> At 10:26 AM 11/21/2002 -0600, you wrote:
> >>>>
> Peter What a paranoid view of the world. The reality is that yes many
> large companies control oil and energy production in this modern age
> because of the high risk and high cost in developing oil production. If you
> have a good cost effective alternative to cheap oil that is great. Take
> the big plunge and market it to the world. Unfortunately (or fortunately
> depending on your veiw point) energy is about economics if you can't look
> at the costs of the whole project and compete it is doomed to be a
> failure.

From snkm at btl.net Fri Nov 22 08:29:02 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The "Hydrogen Economy": Bleak or Bright?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20021122084548.00993da0@wgs1.btl.net>

At 05:15 PM 11/22/2002 +0800, Marc de Piolenc wrote:
>
>
>Peter Singfield wrote:
>
>> There is -- however -- a really cute method of converting synthesis gas to
>> almost pure H2 product -- at great efficiencies -- using a liquid tin metal
>> bath.
>
>I know you've mentioned this process before on the list, Peter, but I
>can't find where the deuce I saved it. This may be one of the files that
>was a casualty of my recent "simple" hard drive upgrade.
>
>Can you dig into your archives and repost? I know the crest archives are
>nominally available, but access is so slow from here that for practical
>purposes the messages might as well be on the Moon.
>
>Best,
>Marc
>
>

Dear Marc;

That specific topic went off list at that time. And it is buried in my
archives of personal communications.

Basically --

You pass steam through a liquid metal bath of zinc. Zinc oxide and pure H2
are the results.

The zinc is regenerated back from zinc oxide to pure metal by sparging with
CO. That resulting in CO2 as the off-gas -- and pure zinc in the bath. Of
course -- there is no need to run to "completion" -- just establish rich
enough pure zinc levels for the next steam pass.

Both the H2 and CO2 are relatively pure.

The steam to H2 is endothermic.

The CO to Zinc and CO2 -- exothermic.

So the energy use is balanced well.

We were kicking around the idea of using this process to enrich producer
gas with more hydrogen with the idea of running a fuel cell.

Apparently N2 is not a problem for fuel cells -- but CO2 and CO are??

The other obvious use of such a device is to balance the Fischer Tropsch
reaction. An easy way to maintain proper mix of CO and H2 -- for efficient
synthesis.

It is all highly theoretical --

This is the Url:

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

(If no longer valid -- tell me -- I have this site archived and can post
the text)

They make an interesting statement there -- that should be a guide line for
further inovation in the biomass to energy field of endeavor:

"When hydrocarbons are placed into a pure hydrogen environment at high
temperature they will very quickly transform into methane gas. This is true
because methane is the most stable hydrocarbon and when less complete
hydrocarbons are exposed to unlimited hydrogen atoms they will add as many
to their structure as are required to get to methane."

A new-wave biomass gassification process??

I realize methane is not the kind and gentle gas fuel -- but it will run IC
engines much better than producer gas -- and also fire boilers well. Can be
stored (compressed) to an extent to allow a better control function of
power supply.

Also -- of interest -- along the lines of molten metal baths and separate
-- controlled -- flows of H2 and CO:

Search for patent:

6,110,239

At: http://patft.uspto.gov/

Have appended the Abstract --

Also -- this patent is of interest:

5,537,940 -- have appended abstract as well.

In the last two example -- the "working-fluid" is:

"Molten metal 56 is disposed within reactor 12. In one embodiment, molten
metal 56 comprises a metal having a free energy of oxidation, at operating
conditions of system 10, which is greater than the free energy for
conversion of atomic carbon to carbon monoxide. Examples of suitable metals
include iron, chromium and manganese. Molten metal 56 can include more than
one metal. For example, molten metal 56 can include a solution of miscible
metals, such as iron and chromium."

and:

"Suitable metals are those with melting points within the operating
conditions of the system. It is preferred, for example, to run system 10 in
a temperature range of from about 1300.degree. C. to about 1700.degree. C."

The liquid tin bath is especially interesting -- lower temperatures --
making it more easily scalable -- down!

Many might find this all over challenging -- but I personally worked with
liquid metal baths many years ago -- and find it less of a "threat" than most.

I imagine scrap cast iron would work for the second two??

This is SciFi -- maybe -- but definitly not Fantasy.

Hey -- I'm just trying to get people to wake up and think!! If that can
only be accomplished by moving off-shore from the Induatrialized nations --
so be it!

Belize is ideally situated for a serious Shangrila style "retreat". The
abondoned Libertad Sugar Factory with it's 3500 acres of estate lands --
situated on a great inland river -- barge harbor giving access to the
oceans -- sheltered from hurricanes -- no earthquakes -- no volcanoes --

Existing furnace capacity for 10 megs of power using combustion biomass --
now!!

OK -- that was "Fantasy" ---

But don't we all "wish"??

Peter

******appended 6,110,293 - Abstract***************

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
United States Patent 6,110,239
Malone , et al. August 29, 2000

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Molten metal hydrocarbon gasification process

Abstract
A process in which a high-purity, high-pressure hydrogen-rich gas stream
and a high-purity, high-pressure carbon monoxide-rich gas stream are
simultaneously produced separately and continuously using a molten metal
gasifier that contains at least two zones, thereby avoiding the need to
separate or compress the gases in down-stream equipment. In one version of
the process, the steps comprise (a) introducing a hydrocarbon feed into a
molten metal bath beneath the molten metal surface in a feed zone operating
at a pressure above 5 atmospheres absolute, and decomposing the hydrocarbon
feed into hydrogen, which leaves the feed zone as a hydrogen-rich gas, and
into carbon, which dissolves in the molten metal and increases the carbon
concentration, but controlling the carbon concentration to at or below the
limit of solubility of carbon in the molten metal, (b) transferring a
portion of the molten metal from the feed zone to another molten metal
oxidation zone operating at a pressure above 5 atmospheres absolute into
which an oxygen-containing material is introduced beneath the molten metal
surface to react with a portion of the carbon to form a carbon
monoxide-rich gas which leaves the oxidation zone, wherein the carbon
concentration in the molten metal is controlled so that it does not reach
the concentration at which the equilibrium oxygen concentration would
exceed its solubility limit in the molten metal and a separate iron oxide
phase would accumulate, (c) transferring at least a portion of the molten
metal which has a lower carbon concentration from the oxidation zone back
to the feed zone, and (d) passing said separate high-pressure, high-purity
hydrogen-rich and carbon monoxide-rich gas streams out of their respective
zones, removing entrained dust and cooling the gas streams to temperatures
suitable for use in industrial processes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Inventors: Malone; Donald P (Grayson, KY); Holcombe; Thomas C (Somerville,
NJ); Miller; Charles B (Ashland, KY)
Assignee: Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC ()
Appl. No.: 867703
Filed: May 30, 1997

Current U.S. Class: 48/198.2; 48/92
Intern'l Class: C01B 003/24
Field of Search: 48/92,198.2

********appended #2****************

( 3 of 5 )

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
United States Patent 5,537,940
Nagel , et al. July 23, 1996

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Method for treating organic waste

Abstract
Organic waste is treated in a molten metal bath to sequentially form
enriched hydrogen gas and carbon oxide gas streams. The method includes
introducing organic waste to a molten metal bath in the absence of a
separate oxidizing agent and under conditions that will decompose the
organic waste. As a consequence of this decomposition, an enriched hydrogen
gas stream is generated and the molten metal bath becomes carbonized.
Thereafter, an oxidizing agent is added to the carbonized molten metal bath
to oxidize the carbon contained in the carbonized molten metal bath.
Reaction of the oxidizing agent with the carbon causes formation of a
carbon oxide that escapes from the bath as an enriched carbon oxide gas
stream, thereby decarbonizing the molten metal bath.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Inventors: Nagel; Christopher J. (Wayland, MA); Sparks; Kevin A.
(Scituate, MA); McGeever; Casey E. (Allison Park, PA)
Assignee: Molten Metal Technology, Inc. (Waltham, MA)
Appl. No.: 351382
Filed: January 6, 1995
PCT Filed: June 8, 1993
PCT NO: PCT/US93/05398
371 Date: January 6, 1995
102(e) Date: January 6, 1995
PCT PUB.NO.: WO93/25277
PCT PUB. Date: December 23, 1993

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Nov 22 10:33:53 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The "Hydrogen Economy": Bleak or Bright?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20021122084548.00993da0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <20021122213409.604d6d02.arnt@c2i.net>

On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:47:49 -0600,
Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net> wrote in message
<3.0.32.20021122084548.00993da0@wgs1.btl.net>:

> http://www.alchemix.net/products.htm
>
> (If no longer valid -- tell me -- I have this site archived and can
> post the text)

..do. Above url returns "You are not authorized to view this page"
"HTTP 403.6 - Forbidden: IP address rejected" and a request to visit
Microsoft support, which probably means their wintendo webserver has
been cracked and now host some stolen software or stolen music or
child porn.

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

From snkm at btl.net Fri Nov 22 11:09:27 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Mail failure
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20021122145051.00999480@wgs1.btl.net>

[002] Mail was received that was addressed to unknown addresses.
Mail item was not delivered to:
GEUROPE/GEHOLM/FELDERC

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Microsoft Mail v3.0 (MAPI 1.0 Transport) IPM.Microsoft Mail.Note
From: Peter Singfield
To: gasification
Subject: Re: GAS-L: The "Hydrogen Economy": Bleak or Bright?
Date: 2002-11-22 14:47
Priority: 3
Message ID: 1E4126203DFED611895E0008C75B9D8F

At 05:15 PM 11/22/2002 +0800, Marc de Piolenc wrote:
>
>
>Peter Singfield wrote:
>
>> There is -- however -- a really cute method of converting synthesis gas
to
>> almost pure H2 product -- at great efficiencies -- using a liquid tin
metal
>> bath.
>
>I know you've mentioned this process before on the list, Peter, but I
>can't find where the deuce I saved it. This may be one of the files that
>was a casualty of my recent "simple" hard drive upgrade.
>
>Can you dig into your archives and repost? I know the crest archives are
>nominally available, but access is so slow from here that for practical
>purposes the messages might as well be on the Moon.
>
>Best,
>Marc
>
>

Dear Marc;

That specific topic went off list at that time. And it is buried in my
archives of personal communications.

Basically --

You pass steam through a liquid metal bath of zinc. Zinc oxide and pure H2
are the results.

Both the H2 and CO2 are relatively pure.

The steam to H2 is endothermic.

The CO to Zinc and CO2 -- exothermic.

So the energy use is balanced well.

We were kicking around the idea of using this process to enrich producer
gas with more hydrogen with the idea of running a fuel cell.

Apparently N2 is not a problem for fuel cells -- but CO2 and CO are??

The other obvious use of such a device is to balance the Fischer Tropsch
reaction. An easy way to maintain proper mix of CO and H2 -- for efficient
synthesis.

It is all highly theoretical --

This is the Url:

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

(If no longer valid -- tell me -- I have this site archived and can post
the text)

They make an interesting statement there -- that should be a guide line for
further inovation in the biomass to energy field of endeavor:

A new-wave biomass gassification process??

Also -- of interest -- along the lines of molten metal baths and separate
-- controlled -- flows of H2 and CO:

Search for patent:

6,110,239

At: http://patft.uspto.gov/

Have appended the Abstract --

Also -- this patent is of interest:

5,537,940 -- have appended abstract as well.

In the last two example -- the "working-fluid" is:

and:

The liquid tin bath is especially interesting -- lower temperatures --
making it more easily scalable -- down!

Many might find this all over challenging -- but I personally worked with
liquid metal baths many years ago -- and find it less of a "threat" than
most.

I imagine scrap cast iron would work for the second two??

This is SciFi -- maybe -- but definitly not Fantasy.

Hey -- I'm just trying to get people to wake up and think!! If that can
only be accomplished by moving off-shore from the Induatrialized nations --
so be it!

Existing furnace capacity for 10 megs of power using combustion biomass --
now!!

OK -- that was "Fantasy" ---

But don't we all "wish"??

Peter

******appended 6,110,293 - Abstract***************

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
United States Patent 6,110,239
Malone , et al. August 29, 2000

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Molten metal hydrocarbon gasification process

Current U.S. Class: 48/198.2; 48/92
Intern'l Class: C01B 003/24
Field of Search: 48/92,198.2

********appended #2****************

( 3 of 5 )

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
United States Patent 5,537,940
Nagel , et al. July 23, 1996

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Method for treating organic waste

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, tombreed@attbi.com Biomass =
Energy Foundation, www.woodgas.com
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>
-
Gasification List Archives
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
Bioenergy 2002 http://www.bioenergy2002.org/
200 kWe CHP Discussion
http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
Gasification Reference
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html

*********************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this e-mail message has been scanned for
the presence of known computer viruses by the MessageLabs Virus
Control Centre. However, it is still recommended that you use
local virus scanning software to monitor for the presence of viruses.
*********************************************************************

From snkm at btl.net Fri Nov 22 14:21:56 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: The "Hydrogen Economy": Bleak or Bright?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20021122180152.009e8bd0@wgs1.btl.net>

At 09:34 PM 11/22/2002 +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>..do. Above url returns "You are not authorized to view this page"
>"HTTP 403.6 - Forbidden: IP address rejected" and a request to visit
>Microsoft support, which probably means their wintendo webserver has
>been cracked and now host some stolen software or stolen music or
>child porn.
>

Try this one then:

http://www.alchemix.us/index.php

From snkm at btl.net Fri Nov 22 14:47:39 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tin liguid metal H2 producer -- The Good links
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20021122183445.009e8860@wgs1.btl.net>

OK Folks --

In regards to liquid tin metal baths -- production of pure H2 -- sparging
with CO -- making methane by cooking any biomass in an H2 rich atmosphere
-- etc.

After a little checking.

Here is the exact Url for a PDF file that lays it all on the line.

http://www.alchemix.us/hydromax.pdf

Only 212 KB ---

"Highlightening" the point of interest ot this list:

"The flexibility to use biomass as a feedstock provides a large source of
renewable energy that yields no net increase in carbon dioxide emissions."

Quoting from the PDF -- we see there has been some "changes":

**********************
After some experimentation, Alchemix has selected a mixture of iron and
tin. Iron strongly attracts the oxygen in steam to form iron oxide. The
iron oxide is then reduced back to iron by reacting with carbon and air.
Carbon dioxide is formed in this process. The tin does not oxidize but
allows operation at lower temperatures and helps to remove sulfur at low
cost. The following simplified Figure 1 diagram shows the principal reactions.
**********************

Cute!! Also in that PDF you have complete specs and costs to build a
"gas-plant" -- still to big and to rich for my blood.

Here is the "summary"

*********************
SUMMARY

Hydrogen is now the focus of intense international interest due to current
efforts to develop fuel cells for clean transportation and distributed
power generation. However, hydrogen must first be made available in large
quantities to supply the hydrogen fuel when needed. Alchemix has developed
the HydroMax process to produce hydrogen at low cost from steam and carbon
sources such as coal, petroleum coke and biomass. HydroMax plants can
provide the additional hydrogen needed by oil refineries today to refine
and desulfurize increasingly heavy crude oils to progressively more
stringent specifications.

Later, these same plants can be converted to produce hydrogen as demand
warrants.

These multiple capabilities insure that the HydroMax Technologies can
provide the bridge to a hydrogen based economy. There is a compelling case
to be made politically, environmentally and economically for the adaptation
of the HydroMax technology. The ability to convert high sulfur coal into
hydrogen or syngas cleanly and economically provides a path to energy
independence for coal-rich, oil-poor nations such as the United States,
China, India and Indonesia.

The flexibility to use biomass as a feedstock provides a large source of
renewable energy that yields no net increase in carbon dioxide emissions.

Alchemix is currently soliciting help to build an intermediate size
demonstration plant which will prove the scalability of the HydroMax
Technologies. After this plant has been in operation for about six months,
full scale commercial plants of virtually any size can be built.
********************

Further -- they have a movie of their apparatus in operation -- 6.4 megs:

http://www.alchemix.us/new.mov

To much for me to download.

Happier now Arnt??

Peter / Belize

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Nov 22 19:03:56 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Tin liguid metal H2 producer -- The Good links
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20021122183445.009e8860@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <20021123055735.64c2e99a.arnt@c2i.net>

On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 18:38:08 -0600,
Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net> wrote in message
<3.0.32.20021122183445.009e8860@wgs1.btl.net>:

>
> To much for me to download.
>
> Happier now Arnt??

..yup, have fatter non-metered pipe now. ;-)

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

From snkm at btl.net Sat Nov 23 07:10:54 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: vegetable oil for running diesel engines
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20021123110251.009bd720@wgs1.btl.net>

Dear Listers;

Simply reminding --

In the original contribution in regards to this subject --

I was suggesting that using tree oil to fuel a very small diesel for micro
electrical power needs is hard to beat.

Granted -- running a full scale power plant would be "wasteful".

Of further interest --

Jatropha is native to the Yucatan -- this same area I write from.

Processing is extremely labor intensive. Even more so than Cohune. So many
small "seed" to harvest for any quantity of oil.

In densely populated areas -- anything that makes "shade" has to be
productive.

The oil produced to shade created ratio of jatropha is not so good. The
rest of the plant is of no great value.

We must always consider the efficiency of conversion in regards to
available land -- sunlight -- and product.

I believe when it comes to tree oils -- India is quite advanced in this
aspect.

Their palm oil "plantations" being extremely productive.

The "trash" left after oil extraction from coconut is of high protein and a
"food". Both for humans and livestock.

Jatropha yields no such bounty. Palm "trash" is a more difficult "food" as
well.

Cohune palm nut -- another local species to this area has never existed in
plantations -- only wild.

But the "trash" from cohune nut oil extraction is quite nutritious. And
from observing wild yields -- I am prepared to believe that plantations of
such would exceed yields from present palm plantations.

Curious about Cohune??

"The nuts of the Cohune Palm can be a source of oil, the meat pounded into
flour, and the husks burned to make charcoal. The fronds are used to make
thatched roofs."

Here are a few urls:

http://www.ciat.cgiar.org/ipgri/fruits_from_americas/frutales/Ficha%20Attale
a%20cohune.htm

http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0043e/X0043E06.htm

Discusses 3 "oils" -- cohune is the last -- so read through well.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0043e/X0043E06.htm

Good picture of "cluster"

http://www.caske2000.org/ngo/survival/cohunepalm.htm

Importance to local indigenous people here still living "stone-age"

http://www.floridata.com/ref/A/atta_coh.cfm

http://www.indiana.edu/~wanthro/sust.htm

Interesting "paper" on "sustainable-development" for this area that has
info on cohune nut.

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

Cohune palm appears to be totally disease resistant. Probably would plant
in India/Africa as well.

I never could understand how "Janus" could go crazy over jatropha yet miss
Cohune.

But then -- always beware when dealing with "experts" from modern
industrialized nations!

Cohune is a bounty for food -- oil -- construction material and very high
quality charcoal.

So I feel it is proper to suggest utilizing the oil here for "diesels" --
as at present -- 99.9 percent of this fine material lays abandoned -- and
eventually decomposing -- all about our plentiful jungles here.

Granted -- this is not the situation in India.

I am trying to encourage a few farmers here to try small plantations. But
it takes 5 to 7 years to know.

Still -- though "Janus" was not interested -- surely -- India should be!

Peter / Belize

From snkm at btl.net Sun Nov 24 19:05:32 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:12 2004
Subject: Prior Art in Palm Oil Plantations -- Central Americar
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20021124082402.009f3980@wgs1.btl.net>

This Url:

http://www.asd-cr.com/ASD-Pub/Bol11/B11c1Ing.htm

If of interest in regards to prior art in regards to oil tree plantations.

Peter / Belize

*********header of article*************

The History of Oil Palm Breeding in the United Fruit Company
D.L. Richardson

ASD Oil Palm Papers N° 11, 1-22, 1995

The early history of the oil palm in Central America is largely the history
of the crop in the United Fruit Company. Eventhough the major interest of
the United Fruit Company since the last years of the 19th century has been
the production and exportation of bananas, an interest in crop
diversification is long standing.

A. Preston and L.D. Baker started to ship bananas from Caribbean Islands
and Honduras in 1876, and in 1884 Preston formed the Boston Fruit Company
for the same purpose. In 1872 the first Gros Michel bananas were
cultivated in Costa Rica, and the first small Costa Rican shipments of
bananas to New Orleans and New York occurred in 1879. Minor C. Keith
formed the Tropical Trading and Transport Company in the early 1890's. In
1898 the banana distributor handling Keith's bananas went out of business
and Keith was seeking another distributor. In March 1899, the United Fruit
Company was formed by a fusion of Preston's and Keith's interests.

In the first two decades of the 20th century, the consolidation of the
banana business in Honduras was troubled by political unrest, and in Costa
Rica it was strongly opposed by the oligarchy of coffee growers. In 1923
United Fruit formed a Department of Tropical Research, which was located in
La Lima, Honduras from 1926. In this same year the Lancetilla Experiment
Station was founded near Tela, Honduras. The introduction of new tropical
crops for evaluation in Central America was one of the primary goals of the
Lancetilla Botanical Garden, as it was later called. Renown American
botanist Wilson Popenoe was the Superintendent of Lancetilla for its first
14 years, and the oil palm collection was managed by Alfred F. Butler
during the same period.

*****

The rest is very explicit in regards to the introduction of palm oil
plantations to Central and South Americas.

From kssustain at provide.net Sun Nov 24 19:14:27 2002
From: kssustain at provide.net (Kermit Schlansker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Principles of Sustainability
Message-ID: <002301c293d2$d2cf2040$1a4256d8@default>

Principles of Sustainability

Within this next century, certainly
within the lifetime of our small children, we will run out of gas and oil. Coal
may last a century of two. The life of all of these fuels depends very much on
the rate they are used. I would not be surprised to see a shortage of gas within
the next few years. It really doesn't matter how soon shortages develop because
we can spend only so much Sustainability money per year and since it will take a
lot of money, we must start now. Presently the USA is using
about 100 quadrillion btus (quads) of energy each year. Of this about 40 quads
comes from oil, 24 quads gas, 24 quads coal, 8 quads nuclear, 4 quads
hydroelectric, and less than 1 quad renewables. The large percentage of oil
shows clearly the folly of trying to replace oil with either coal or gas. These
resources would also be quickly depleted. It is likely that shortages will
develop by 2010. The situation will be so bad that both emergency and long range
measures will have to be taken. We can expect a diminishing input from fossil
fuels that will last forever. How fast the plunge will be is hard to determine.
The effects of the catastrophe will be reduced if we start taking
countermeasures such as high energy taxes immediately. If we assume an average
of 10 quads oil over the next century, 10 quads gas, 10 quads biomass, 10 quads
wind, 20 quads coal, 10 quads nuclear, and 10 quads solar, we can get through
this century with an energy average of 80 quads. That would keep us from
starving. However the century after that will be far worse and any moral society
would attempt to cut the consumption to below 80 quads both for scarcity and
Global Warming reasons. The first thought will be to
greatly expand nuclear. This is a mistake because we can't guarantee enough
fossil fuel to store nuclear waste and we have no right to be leaving our
grandchildren a mess that they can't clean up. Furthermore our supplies of
Uranium are finite so we need to save fuel for later generations. What we should
do is slowly expand and improve our nuclear plants and increase our output to
about 10 quads instead of the seven we are getting now. This limited expansion
may give us new ideas for greatly improved plants.
Obviously from our present position it much easier to save energy than it is to
make more energy. That is easy to demonstrate from the fact that the Chinese
consumption per capita is only 10% of ours. I am sure that they are cold in
winter. However, by changing our society to be more energy efficient we can
probably get by on 30% of what we are consuming now for several centuries. Of
course we want enough to eat and to be warm in winter but we will have to give
up individual houses and cars. We will also have to give up luxuries such as
casino gambling, golf courses, and ski resorts. All of these use too much energy
not only in their buildings but also in the transportation necessary to get
there. I am happy that things like listening to classical music, playing bridge,
and nature walks will always be possible. The big reason that we must conserve
rather than produce is Global Warming. There is no possibility of our producing
ourselves out of that problem. We can add perhaps 10
quads to our energy supply by planting enormous quantities of trees. I have seen
estimates as high as 60 quads possible but I don't believe them. We can also add
considerable amounts of food by planting fruit trees. There probably would be
enough bad apples to make considerable amounts of ethanol or feed a lot of deer.
Liquid fuels for plowing will be precious so anything available will be used.
In coming up with a strategy for meeting this
energy problem we must start with a living module that can be demonstrated in a
small area and then repeated across the USA. Solar energy and food production
both are measured by the acre in the US. What we are taking here is how many
people per acre we can support. We can call this a model town. A square mile,
640 acres, is a standard measurement and probably would be an ideal size.
However because of the huge investment costs, early models would probably be
much smaller than that. It is inherent in the design that as much of our food,
energy, and recreation as possible would be derived from the home area. In other
words transportation requirements must be
minimized.
Every step available that would reduce the heating of buildings must be taken.
The first step is to stop building houses and build only Ecomindiums. An
Ecomindium is a large building that has apartments on the upper floors and work
places on the first floor and basements. The dwellers farm in the summer and
manufacture in winter inside the building. This arrangement has many advantages.
First larger buildings are easier to heat because of their reduced surface area
per unit volume. In comparison to a house with the same space as one apartment,
the wall area per apartment of a two story, eight unit building that has four
units on each floor arranged in a square is only half as much. This geometrical
advantage can be improved if better windows and insulation are used. In their
ability to save energy each Ecomindium is the equivalent of a miniature oil or
gas well. Whether their construction energy is too high to make them practical
is a question. However they could easily last a 1000 years and that is the
longest lasting energy investment we could make.
Cogeneration is a term for Combined Heat and Power or CHP whereby the waste heat
from the generation of electricity is used to heat a building. It is possible
also to use a similar term, comanufacturing, to mean using the waste heat from
manufacturing to heat the building. In other words you put the factory inside
the building and use it only in winter. Between comanufacturing and cogeneration
you can heat the building with no other heat input. Note that comanufacturing is
a concept of great importance because it not only provides winter space heating
but it also eliminates commuting. Suppose you have only the wood on your
property to use for heating. With comanufacturing you can use it twice. The
manufacturing can be almost anything from simply making charcoal to full scale
manufacturing. Obviously safety and noise will be continual problems. There are
many other energy economies that can be obtained by cooperative action within
the group. Ecomindiums have the potential to cut energy use by 90%.
Most of our fertilizer is taken from mines,
phosphorous in Florida and Potassium in Canada. Nitrogen is made from air using
natural gas as energy. This fertilizer will not last forever because the mines
and the natural gas will be exhausted. Therefore it is essential that we recycle
fertilizer to the fullest. Nitrogen can be made from almost natural methods by
recycling sewage in a biodigester that consists of some large tanks. The result
of biodigestion is a burnable biogas plus residual liquids that are rich in
nitrogen and the other elements of sewage. Soft biomass such as leaves, paper,
or straw be mixed with this to purify it and get more gas. If a leguminous plant
such as hay is mixed with this, again you get more gas and more nitrogen in the
liquids and solids left after being biodigested. These can be spread directly on
the fields. Another type of fertilizer can be made
from fuel ashes of various kinds, probably principally wood. These ashes will
contain potassium and phosphorous but probably not much nitrogen. The heating
process will drive it off. This recycling of fertilizer must take place
religiously. Otherwise the land would quickly be depleted. It may be possible to
keep fertilizer on land by putting rings of trees around farm fields. These
rings would trap the fertilizer and convert it back into biomass. The ashes then
return the nutrients to the fields. Since wood and
crop residues may be the principal winter manufacturing and heating source it is
imperative that such resources be husbanded to the utmost. One method of
producing gaseous fuel mentioned previously is that of making biogas from sewage
and biomass. This produces a gas that has about 50% of the strength of natural
gas at about 50% efficiency and also makes fertilizer. If the waste heat from
any process can be used for space heating then that process can be made nearly
100% efficient. Another type of gas can be produced by the partial combustion of
wood. The fuel components of this gas are called producer gas and consist of
carbon monoxide (poisonous) and hydrogen. Like the output from the biodigester
the output can run an engine and produce electricity. However these gases might
be too dilute to be compressed and used to run a tractor
Liquid fuels will be precious but still may be used
for farm operations. It is possible to make methanol from producer gas. However,
that process is said to be practical only in very large, very well funded
facilities. Further research might make an Ecomindium size operation feasible.
It would certainly be more efficient because of the waste heat use for space
heating. A calculation on my own personal energy
usage shows about 150 million btus for my gas, electricity, and gasoline.
However, since the per capita consumption in the US is 360 million btus, there
are a lot of expenditures coming from factories and businesses that the
individual has no control over. This suggests that in combating an energy
shortage we must close out many recreational industries and convert many
commercial buildings into apartments. Furthermore we must figure out how to tear
down houses so that the materials can be reused in Ecomindiums.
Various energy devices must be worked on to both
generate and save energy. One of the better devices in summer would be the
steered solar mirror, boiler, and steam engine system. Hopefully this would
generate enough power in summer for air conditioning and utilities in the
daytime. Having lights in the summer would depend on expensive batteries that
might not be affordable or on fossil or nuclear fuel. People might have to sit
around in the dark and talk for recreation. In the
winter, the carefully saved wood and agricultural wastes, would be used for
manufacturing and power generation. The waste heat from these processes would
probably heat the building. If more heat is needed then solar heating panels
might be used. If still insufficient, Then heat pumps driven by coal or nuclear
generated electricity would be possible for perhaps a century. This extra energy
from coal and nuclear could also be used for summer lighting. A wind farm with
transmitted electricity is also a source for summer
lighting. In many areas there is insufficient wind
to pay for the cost of the mill. Nevertheless wind must be experimented with.
Each batch of energy from a high wind would be welcome. Pumping water or sewage
might be useful. The mill could also be used to charge batteries. One way to
increase usefulness would be to increase blade diameter for expected output and
then use protective measures against high wind
breakage. My conclusions are that the road to
Sustainability will require many sacrifices from the public. The key words here
are Modular Development, Ecomindium, Farm in summer manufacture in winter, wood
gasification, biodigestion, tree planting program, Cogeneration,
Comanufacturing, solar mirrors.


Kermit Schlansker PE
Principles of Sustainability.doc

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: doc00000.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 56320 bytes
Desc: ">"
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20021124/2b2a9831/doc00000.obj
From piolenc at mozcom.com Sun Nov 24 19:19:49 2002
From: piolenc at mozcom.com (Marc de Piolenc)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Metal bath gasifier/reformer
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20021122145051.00999480@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3DE0CDC9.ED77E146@mozcom.com>

Downloading the patents now.

This is neat - analogous to one of the industrial processes for
producing caustic soda - forgot the name.

Marc

Peter Singfield wrote:

> Basically --
>
> You pass steam through a liquid metal bath of zinc. Zinc oxide and pure H2
> are the results.
>
> The zinc is regenerated back from zinc oxide to pure metal by sparging with
> CO. That resulting in CO2 as the off-gas -- and pure zinc in the bath. Of
> course -- there is no need to run to "completion" -- just establish rich
> enough pure zinc levels for the next steam pass.

From snkm at btl.net Mon Nov 25 00:03:36 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: vegetable oil for running diesel engines
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20021124080450.0092b650@wgs1.btl.net>

Dear Mark;

At 12:37 PM 11/24/2002 +0800, you wrote:
>
>
>Peter Singfield wrote:
>
>> Their [India's] palm oil "plantations" being extremely productive.
>
>The palm oil champions at present, as I understand it, are the
>Indonesians. All the food-grade palm oil on the market here in the
>southern Philippines is from Indonesia.
>

Central and South America are also forging ahead -- Brazil now has over
58,000 hectares of African Oil palm plantations. As does Honduras,
Guatemala and Nicaragua -- that I am sure of.

Belize has none as of yet -- but I believe we should start!

>> The "trash" left after oil extraction from coconut is of high protein and a
>> "food". Both for humans and livestock.
>
>Sorry to be a pedant, but I just want to emphasize that coconut oil is
>not palm oil. [I know you know this, Peter - I just recall how confused
>I was before I began living in the Tropics so I'm sticking my oar in the
>water for the benefit of other readers.] Palm oil is from the soft outer
>parts of the fruit of the oil palm, Eleias guineensis. Palm kernel oil,
>from the same fruit's pit, is almost a direct substitute for coconut oil
>in most of its applications. Palm oils are slowly biting into the
>coconut oil market internationally.
>

Palm oil is supreme for the margarine market at present -- mind you --
everything hydrogenated. That is high temperature oil processing --
purifying with hydrogen --

>> Jatropha yields no such bounty. Palm "trash" is a more difficult "food" as
>> well.
>
>The meal from the pit of the oil palm fruit can be used as fodder after
>oil extraction, according to Purseglove.

Yes -- but mixed with other feeds. Here I am feeding pigs, chicken, turkey
with "only" coconut "trash" (expressor meal) and they are thriving
extremely well.

I also personally munch a lot.

>The coconut has so many uses
>it's not possible to catalogue them in an email message of reasonable
>length.

I am specifically concerned with it's medicinal properties -- again --
starting at:

http://www.apcc.org.sg/special.htm

Very technical -- but especially interesting

and a ton more links --

http://www.coconut-info.com/links.htm

This is a new "market" and is growing fast!

>The problem with current technique for coconut oil extraction is
>that it's based on copra (dried coconut meat) as the feedstock, which
>essentially destroys all the residual value of the fruit in extracting
>oil...whose market value is dropping.

All to true -- that is why I use a large flat plate drier. We grate fresh
coconut and dry in 30 minutes or less.

The idea comes from the Australians. Check out:

http://www.kokonutpacific.com.au/

The model I have built is different in air vents -- etc -- and has a 19 ft
chimney.

Plate size is 32 in wide by 12 feet long.

This system of operation is slow and labor intensive. One plate drier dries
enough gratings for producing 20 liters (by machine expressing) per 8 hour
shift.

The expressor does the total out put of one plate dryer in 45 minutes.

The trash/meal so produced is a good -- healthy -- high protein "food" and
could go a long way to alleviating food deprivation in appropriate areas.

Here I use it for animal feed.

>
>[The good news here in the Philippines, from a conversation I had
>yesterday with U/sec of Agriculture Bolante, is that the gov. has
>finally awakened to the need to emphasize products other than coconut
>oil. With any luck and a little sense, coconut oil will soon be
>recognized as a bye-product, with more valuable products taking priority
>for processing.]

You have a kind of pioneer in marketing coconut product in the Philippines:

http://www.tropicaltraditions.com/

Much information there --

Peter Singfield / Belize

>
>Marc de Piolenc
>Iligan City
>

From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Mon Nov 25 01:47:12 2002
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Principles of Sustainability
In-Reply-To: <002301c293d2$d2cf2040$1a4256d8@default>
Message-ID: <004e01c2946f$e3662c80$9d9a0a40@kevin>

Dear Kermit

I do appreciate your concerns for sustainability.

What do you think of the concept of all the Governments of the World
imposing a 50% tax on all non-sustainable fuels?

Would that not encourage a shift toward the use of energy from sustainable
sources? Would not that encourage conservation?

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

From tombreed at attbi.com Mon Nov 25 03:12:43 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:12 2004
Subject: NOT (Re: Kilns), but CHECK THE TITLE
In-Reply-To: <NGBBKDEHILILFNJPHEFIEEJECEAA.ronallarson@qwest.net>
Message-ID: <001401c29481$c4db8cd0$a48cfd0c@TOMBREED>

Dear Kevin and all:

I suppose Kevin's complaint is justified for some
and we should stick to plain text when possible (which is most of the
time).

However, even better would be a resolution on all
our parts to use appropriate titles. We are all guilty of hitting the
reply button, changing the subject of the body but not the title.

PLEASE CHECK THE TITLE LINE BEFORE SENDING.
We DO archive all this stuff and the archives are unnecessarily cluttered when
we ignore the tile line.

Dr. Thomas B. Reed1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401<A
href="mailto:tombreed@attbi.com">tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558
Phone/Fax
<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:
Kevin
Chisholm
To: <A title=ronallarson@qwest.net
href="mailto:ronallarson@qwest.net">Ron Larson
Cc: <A title=THodson@aol.com
href="mailto:THodson@aol.com">THodson@aol.com ; <A
title=psanders@ilstu.edu href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">Paul S. Anderson
; <A title=stoves@crest.org
href="mailto:stoves@crest.org">stoves@crest.org
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 3:43
AM
Subject: Re: Kilns

Dear Ron

You go to a lot of effort to deal with HTML posts, to enable
the reader to understand "who said what."

HTML has no redeeming social merit, as far as I can see!!
:-)

What about if all those posting to the CREST Lists did so in
Plain Text? It would make life very simple for all of us?

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

<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:
Ron
Larson
To: <A title=adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in
href="mailto:adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in">A.D. Karve
Cc: <A title=THodson@aol.com
href="mailto:THodson@aol.com">THodson@aol.com ; <A
title=psanders@ilstu.edu href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">Paul S.
Anderson ; <A title=stoves@crest.org
href="mailto:stoves@crest.org">stoves@crest.org
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 11:24
AM
Subject: RE: Kilns

AD

See notes below:

-----Original Message-----From: A.D. Karve
[mailto:adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in]Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002
2:04 AMTo: Ron LarsonCc: <A
href="mailto:THodson@aol.com">THodson@aol.com; Paul S. Anderson; <A
href="mailto:stoves@crest.org">stoves@crest.orgSubject: Re:
Kilns
Dear Ron,
we have two types of extruded briquettes. One set has a
diameter of about 19 to 20 mm and the other has a diameter of about 12 to
13 mm. However, because of the problematic electrical supply in the
rural areas, we have now opted for the honeycomb briquettes, which are
made manually, using a mold. The honeycomb briquettes have a
diameter of about 12 cm and height of about 3 cm. Each briquette has
13 vertical holes. Paul Hait wanted to know if we are using the thermal
array type of arrangement of briquettes in our stove. 
[Ron Larson] For new stoves list members, we
should say that Paul Hait developed a charcoal using system in
which the "pillow" type briquette was carefully placed vertically in slots
and in rows in such a way as to get the radiation from one impinging on
another - with good air flow. I don't recall the percent reduction
in charcoal consumption - but it might have been a factor of four or
five. He also used stainless steel (reflective) parts and a clever
fold-up design to get higher efficiencies and user
convenience.
 Paul's question is important in "holey" (or
"honeycomb") briquettes, because the same principal of getting good
use out of the radiated energy (inside the holes as opposed to going off
to be absorbed in something other than the cook pot) helps improve
combustion enormously.
 In your case, what is the
diameter of the 13 vertical holes?
 How does this diameter change
during a run?
 Is there a brittle "ash"
skeleton remaining at the end?
 How long does a single
briquette last? (presumably one being long enough for cooking the
meal you describe)
 Could you make one twice as
tall to cook for twice as long? (In a different
culture)
 Is there a "haybox" effect
also? (some cooking after the single charcoal briquette is
consumed?)
 Could you describe how
lighting is achieved?
 Approximately how high above
the briquette do the flames appear - and how does this distance change
during a single cooking?
 What are the prices of all of
the components of the system - including for a single
briquette?
 What lifetime do you expect
for the charcoal burner? (presumably the cookpot portion is much
longer-lived)
 Will this particular pot and
shield be available for export to interested members of "stoves"? at what
price?



The answer
is "no", because with a single honeycomb briquette, no arrangement is
possible. When we were using the cylindrical (extruded) briquettes,
be just weighed 100 grams of them and put a single layer of briquettes
spread evenly on the grate of the stove.
We use grain starch as binder. The flour fallen on
the floor of a flour mill is swept and sold by the mill operator at a
price of Rs. 2 per kg (Rs.50 per US$). The cost of the char is Rs. 3 per
kg. Because the flour is not costlier than the char, there is no
restriction on the quantity of the flour. We boil about 400 g of flower in
1.5 litres of water and mix it thoroughly with 1 kg char to make a
dough. This dough is filled into the briquette mold and the
briquettes are dried in the sun[Ron Larson] Does this mean that you
might have a wet mix of about 2.9 kg - going to a dry batch of
maybe 1.5 + kg - so this recipe might give 15-20 briquettes - with a
raw material cost of about 5 rupees or US 10 cents - so one briquette (one
meal) has a raw material cost of less than 2/3
cent?

Our stove is a commercially available charcoal
burning stove, made of mild steel sheets. The stove is 11 cm tall.
The cooker consists of a stainless steel container, about 21 cm tall and
18 cm wide, closed with a lid, which is not too tight. The gaps
between the container and the lid allow steam to escape. Inside the
cooker, three cook pots are stacked one on top of the other, so that three
things (rice, beans and vegetables) can be cooked simultaneously. The
cooker sits on the stove with a gap of about 12 mm between the burning
briquette and the bottom of the cooker pot. The cooker and the stove
are together enclosed in a vertical stainless steel sleeve, about 29 cm
tall and 19 cm wide. There is thus a gap of about 5 mm between
the cooker and the sleeve, through which the flue gases
pass. [Ron Larson] : We have talked often about the
optimality of this 5 mm dimension. Any experimental
data?
Have you measured the output temperature of the
exhaust gases?
 Same for temperature of the outermost
wall?
If we knew the weight loss per unit time
(presumably higher at first?), we could estimate the power output
levels. There are several on the list who could do this measurement
quickly using their balancing scales.

(RWL): I
believe there is much to be learned from your geometry - and hope others
will try similar geometries. This is a very high efficiency being
reported - and possibly is very clean as well - given the high
temperatures that are likely being achieved because of the honeycomb
nature of the briquette.

(AD - we look forward also to hearing about emissions at some
time. I'll bet they also look very good.)


The top 4 cm
of the cooker are not covered by the sleeve, because the cooker is
provided with two small handles that are attached to the sides of the
cooker at this height.These handles allow the cooker pot to be lifted out
of the sleeve.
The efficiency was tested by the usual water boiling
test. The housewives who used the cooker were also astonished by the
fuel economy of this stove. Using a traditional wood burning
cookstove, a housewife would have to use 3 kg wood to cook the three items
mentioned above.
We have no means of controlling the air flow. We
may be able to increase or reduce the power output of the
stove by using more or less of the fuel.

Yours A.D.Karve[Ron Larson]:
 Have you tried (or could you try) cooking with two
briquettes of half-height?
 Might power level control then
be possible by rotating one
briquette relative to the other?
 In Johannesburg, the GTZ folk
were showing an example of the "punch-out" "Turbo" stove from Finland that
we have discussed on this list a few times. (Incidentally -very nice
looking product that comes shipped in a big flat (pretty heavy)
box.) It had a very clever air flow control (that I had not
previously noticed) by rotating one set of holes relative to
another. You might be able to do this same with the briquettes to
achieve power
control.

AD Thanks and congratulations again - for what I
think must be the world record. I believe this is better than
my electric range. Ron


<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
-----Original
Message-----From: Ron Larson <<A
href="mailto:ronallarson@qwest.net">ronallarson@qwest.net>To:
A.D. Karve <<A
href="mailto:adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in">adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in>;
THodson@aol.com <<A
href="mailto:THodson@aol.com">THodson@aol.com>Cc: Paul
S. Anderson <<A
href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu>; <A
href="mailto:stoves@crest.org">stoves@crest.org <<A
href="mailto:stoves@crest.org">stoves@crest.org>Date:
Saturday, November 23, 2002 8:31 PMSubject: RE:
Kilns
A.D

1. Thanks for sending this interesting
story on. Not a permanent problem - hopefully, just a new
point to add to your educational program. Old ideas die
hard.


2. What are the dimensions and weight of your
briquettes? (Number making up 100 g?)

3. You probably said this earlier - but what is
your recommended binder formula?

4. You have described your new stove previously, but I
think it needs a repeat - as 70% is just fantastic.
Congratulations!!

5. I do not recall anyone claiming this high an efficiency
value. I believe you have incorporated what we might call a
"convection-enhancing-sleeve" which is probably key to this high
value What is the gap width and height you have chosen in
the model now in production? What is the method of
measurement?

6. Do you have any means of controlling air flow and power
level of this stove design?


7. It is becoming more clear all the time that the Ashden
award people made a wise choice.

Ron

-----Original Message-----From: A.D. Karve
[mailto:adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in]Sent: Saturday, November
23, 2002 4:20 AMTo: THodson@aol.comCc: Paul S.
Anderson; stoves@crest.orgSubject: Re:
Kilns
Dear Tom and Paul,
I spent the last four days at Phaltan, looking at
the charring kilns installed by ARTI at various sites. The
operators in most cases are unemployed rural youth. After
demonstrating the process to them on our own kiln they were
provided with a kiln of their own, and they were asked to char
sugarcane leaves in their own villages. In all the cases, they
had unofficial advisers, who had already made charcoal using the
traditional kilns. In the traditional process, the biomass to be
charred is loaded into a kiln and ignited. One has to regulate
the air supply very judiciously in order to have the right temperature
to cause the biomass to char, but at the same time not provide so much
oxygen that the biomass burns down completely to produce ash. In
our oven and retort model, the biomass to be charred is enclosed in
barrels and it never comes in contact with oxygen. We therefore
keep all the airholes fully open, so that the biomass surrounding the
barrels burns intensely to pyrolyse the biomass inside the
barrels. Our entrepreneurs unfortunately followed the
advice of the traditional charcoal burners in their villages and
contrary to our advice, closed all the air vents, resulting in a very
slow burn of the biomass surrounding the barrels. This not only
increased the batch time but also in producing biomass which was just
roasted and not charred.
Most of them were totally discouraged, firstly
because of low output and also because of its poor quality. The
correct process had to be demonstrated again at each site. We
thought that we had developed a fooproof process, but it turned out
that we were the fools believing that the villagers would easily be
able to produce char using our technology. Our technology, if
correctly employed, would yield about 50 kg char per 8 hour shift.

The char is sold in the form of briquettes.
We started out with the extrusion process to convert the
char into cylindrical briquettes. But in the field, there are problems
with electric supply (either too low voltage or no electricity at
all). So, during my stay at Phaltan we took the decision to
provide the entrepreneurs with molds to produce the so called
honeycomb briquettes manually. These briquettes look like mud pies,
they weigh 100 grams each and each briquette has a set of 13 holes. So
when it is ignited, the pot is hit by 13 flames. I myself
produced these briquettes at the rate of one per minute. Thus by
using our mold, a person can produce 50 kg dry briquettes
per day. If the entire family works on this process, they
can earn Rs. 250 per day (US$ 5), which is more than what an average
industrial worker earns in a city.
We have developed a stove-and-cooker system for
using the char briquettes most rationally. Through using a
very scientific design, we achieve 70% efficiency with our
stove-and-cooker. Just 100 grams of briquettes can cook rice, beans
and vegetables for a family of family. We tested various
prototypes and have now given orders to a stainless steel pots
manufacturer to mass produce this cooker. We expect to get the
first batch of cookers in about a fortnight and then see how
we can market them. We shall sell them very cheaply (at
practically no profit), because the user of a cooker is the potential
buyer of the briquettes.
Yours
Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
Appropriate Rural Technology Institute
Pune,
India.

From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Mon Nov 25 03:23:13 2002
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:12 2004
Subject: GAS-L: NOT (Re: Kilns), but CHECK THE TITLE
In-Reply-To: <NGBBKDEHILILFNJPHEFIEEJECEAA.ronallarson@qwest.net>
Message-ID: <009501c29486$10317380$9d9a0a40@kevin>

Dear Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Reed
To: Kevin Chisholm ; Ron Larson ; gasification
Cc: THodson@aol.com ; Paul S. Anderson ; stoves@crest.org
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 8:54 AM
Subject: GAS-L: NOT (Re: Kilns), but CHECK THE TITLE

Dear Kevin and all:

I suppose Kevin's complaint is justified for some and we should stick to
plain text when possible (which is most of the time).

(Kevin Said This.)Considering the nuisance caused by HTML, when is it ever
justified on these Lists?

However, even better would be a resolution on all our parts to use
appropriate titles. We are all guilty of hitting the reply button, changing
the subject of the body but not the title.

PLEASE CHECK THE TITLE LINE BEFORE SENDING. We DO archive all this stuff
and the archives are unnecessarily cluttered when we ignore the tile line.

Dr. Thomas B. Reed
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone/Fax
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Chisholm
To: Ron Larson
Cc: THodson@aol.com ; Paul S. Anderson ; stoves@crest.org
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 3:43 AM
Subject: Re: Kilns

Dear Ron

You go to a lot of effort to deal with HTML posts, to enable the reader to
understand "who said what."

HTML has no redeeming social merit, as far as I can see!! :-)

What about if all those posting to the CREST Lists did so in Plain Text? It
would make life very simple for all of us?

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Larson
To: A.D. Karve
Cc: THodson@aol.com ; Paul S. Anderson ; stoves@crest.org
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 11:24 AM
Subject: RE: Kilns

See notes below:
-----Original Message-----
From: A.D. Karve [mailto:adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in]
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 2:04 AM
To: Ron Larson
Cc: THodson@aol.com; Paul S. Anderson; stoves@crest.org
Subject: Re: Kilns

Dear Ron,
we have two types of extruded briquettes. One set has a diameter of about 19
to 20 mm and the other has a diameter of about 12 to 13 mm. However,
because of the problematic electrical supply in the rural areas, we have now
opted for the honeycomb briquettes, which are made manually, using a mold.
The honeycomb briquettes have a diameter of about 12 cm and height of about
3 cm. Each briquette has 13 vertical holes. Paul Hait wanted to know if we
are using the thermal array type of arrangement of briquettes in our stove.

[Ron Larson] For new stoves list members, we should say that Paul Hait
developed a charcoal using system in which the "pillow" type briquette was
carefully placed vertically in slots and in rows in such a way as to get the
radiation from one impinging on another - with good air flow. I don't
recall the percent reduction in charcoal consumption - but it might have
been a factor of four or five. He also used stainless steel (reflective)
parts and a clever fold-up design to get higher efficiencies and user
convenience.
Paul's question is important in "holey" (or "honeycomb") briquettes,
because the same principal of getting good use out of the radiated energy
(inside the holes as opposed to going off to be absorbed in something other
than the cook pot) helps improve combustion enormously.
In your case, what is the diameter of the 13 vertical holes?
How does this diameter change during a run?
Is there a brittle "ash" skeleton remaining at the end?
How long does a single briquette last? (presumably one being long
enough for cooking the meal you describe)
Could you make one twice as tall to cook for twice as long? (In a
different culture)
Is there a "haybox" effect also? (some cooking after the single
charcoal briquette is consumed?)
Could you describe how lighting is achieved?
Approximately how high above the briquette do the flames appear - and
how does this distance change during a single cooking?
What are the prices of all of the components of the system - including
for a single briquette?
What lifetime do you expect for the charcoal burner? (presumably the
cookpot portion is much longer-lived)
Will this particular pot and shield be available for export to
interested members of "stoves"? at what price?

The answer is "no", because with a single honeycomb briquette, no
arrangement is possible. When we were using the cylindrical (extruded)
briquettes, be just weighed 100 grams of them and put a single layer of
briquettes spread evenly on the grate of the stove.
We use grain starch as binder. The flour fallen on the floor of a flour
mill is swept and sold by the mill operator at a price of Rs. 2 per kg
(Rs.50 per US$). The cost of the char is Rs. 3 per kg. Because the flour is
not costlier than the char, there is no restriction on the quantity of the
flour. We boil about 400 g of flower in 1.5 litres of water and mix it
thoroughly with 1 kg char to make a dough. This dough is filled into the
briquette mold and the briquettes are dried in the sun
[Ron Larson] Does this mean that you might have a wet mix of about 2.9
kg - going to a dry batch of maybe 1.5 + kg - so this recipe might give
15-20 briquettes - with a raw material cost of about 5 rupees or US 10
cents - so one briquette (one meal) has a raw material cost of less than 2/3
cent?

Our stove is a commercially available charcoal burning stove, made of mild
steel sheets. The stove is 11 cm tall. The cooker consists of a stainless
steel container, about 21 cm tall and 18 cm wide, closed with a lid, which
is not too tight. The gaps between the container and the lid allow steam to
escape. Inside the cooker, three cook pots are stacked one on top of the
other, so that three things (rice, beans and vegetables) can be cooked
simultaneously. The cooker sits on the stove with a gap of about 12 mm
between the burning briquette and the bottom of the cooker pot. The cooker
and the stove are together enclosed in a vertical stainless steel sleeve,
about 29 cm tall and 19 cm wide. There is thus a gap of about 5 mm between
the cooker and the sleeve, through which the flue gases pass.
[Ron Larson] : We have talked often about the optimality of this 5 mm
dimension. Any experimental data?
Have you measured the output temperature of the exhaust gases?
Same for temperature of the outermost wall?
If we knew the weight loss per unit time (presumably higher at first?),
we could estimate the power output levels. There are several on the list
who could do this measurement quickly using their balancing scales.

(RWL): I believe there is much to be learned from your geometry - and hope
others will try similar geometries. This is a very high efficiency being
reported - and possibly is very clean as well - given the high temperatures
that are likely being achieved because of the honeycomb nature of the
briquette.
(AD - we look forward also to hearing about emissions at some time.
I'll bet they also look very good.)

The top 4 cm of the cooker are not covered by the sleeve, because the
cooker is provided with two small handles that are attached to the sides of
the cooker at this height.These handles allow the cooker pot to be lifted
out of the sleeve.
The efficiency was tested by the usual water boiling test. The housewives
who used the cooker were also astonished by the fuel economy of this stove.
Using a traditional wood burning cookstove, a housewife would have to use 3
kg wood to cook the three items mentioned above.
We have no means of controlling the air flow. We may be able to increase or
reduce the power output of the stove by using more or less of the fuel.
Yours A.D.Karve
[Ron Larson]:
Have you tried (or could you try) cooking with two briquettes of
half-height?
Might power level control then be possible by rotating one briquette
relative to the other?
In Johannesburg, the GTZ folk were showing an example of the "punch-out"
"Turbo" stove from Finland that we have discussed on this list a few times.
(Incidentally -very nice looking product that comes shipped in a big flat
(pretty heavy) box.) It had a very clever air flow control (that I had not
previously noticed) by rotating one set of holes relative to another. You
might be able to do this same with the briquettes to achieve power control.

AD Thanks and congratulations again - for what I think must be the world
record. I believe this is better than my electric range. Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Larson <ronallarson@qwest.net>
To: A.D. Karve <adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in>; THodson@aol.com <THodson@aol.com>
Cc: Paul S. Anderson <psanders@ilstu.edu>; stoves@crest.org
<stoves@crest.org>
Date: Saturday, November 23, 2002 8:31 PM
Subject: RE: Kilns

A.D

1. Thanks for sending this interesting story on. Not a permanent
problem - hopefully, just a new point to add to your educational program.
Old ideas die hard.

2. What are the dimensions and weight of your briquettes? (Number making
up 100 g?)

3. You probably said this earlier - but what is your recommended binder
formula?

4. You have described your new stove previously, but I think it needs a
repeat - as 70% is just fantastic. Congratulations!!

5. I do not recall anyone claiming this high an efficiency value. I
believe you have incorporated what we might call a
"convection-enhancing-sleeve" which is probably key to this high value
What is the gap width and height you have chosen in the model now in
production? What is the method of measurement?

6. Do you have any means of controlling air flow and power level of this
stove design?

7. It is becoming more clear all the time that the Ashden award people made
a wise choice.

Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: A.D. Karve [mailto:adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in]
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 4:20 AM
To: THodson@aol.com
Cc: Paul S. Anderson; stoves@crest.org
Subject: Re: Kilns

Dear Tom and Paul,
I spent the last four days at Phaltan, looking at the charring kilns
installed by ARTI at various sites. The operators in most cases are
unemployed rural youth. After demonstrating the process to them on our own
kiln they were provided with a kiln of their own, and they were asked to
char sugarcane leaves in their own villages. In all the cases, they had
unofficial advisers, who had already made charcoal using the traditional
kilns. In the traditional process, the biomass to be charred is loaded into
a kiln and ignited. One has to regulate the air supply very judiciously in
order to have the right temperature to cause the biomass to char, but at the
same time not provide so much oxygen that the biomass burns down completely
to produce ash. In our oven and retort model, the biomass to be charred is
enclosed in barrels and it never comes in contact with oxygen. We therefore
keep all the airholes fully open, so that the biomass surrounding the
barrels burns intensely to pyrolyse the biomass inside the barrels. Our
entrepreneurs unfortunately followed the advice of the traditional charcoal
burners in their villages and contrary to our advice, closed all the air
vents, resulting in a very slow burn of the biomass surrounding the barrels.
This not only increased the batch time but also in producing biomass which
was just roasted and not charred.
Most of them were totally discouraged, firstly because of low output and
also because of its poor quality. The correct process had to be
demonstrated again at each site. We thought that we had developed a fooproof
process, but it turned out that we were the fools believing that the
villagers would easily be able to produce char using our technology. Our
technology, if correctly employed, would yield about 50 kg char per 8 hour
shift.
The char is sold in the form of briquettes. We started out with the
extrusion process to convert the char into cylindrical briquettes. But in
the field, there are problems with electric supply (either too low voltage
or no electricity at all). So, during my stay at Phaltan we took the
decision to provide the entrepreneurs with molds to produce the so called
honeycomb briquettes manually. These briquettes look like mud pies, they
weigh 100 grams each and each briquette has a set of 13 holes. So when it is
ignited, the pot is hit by 13 flames. I myself produced these briquettes at
the rate of one per minute. Thus by using our mold, a person can produce 50
kg dry briquettes per day. If the entire family works on this process, they
can earn Rs. 250 per day (US$ 5), which is more than what an average
industrial worker earns in a city.
We have developed a stove-and-cooker system for using the char briquettes
most rationally. Through using a very scientific design, we achieve 70%
efficiency with our stove-and-cooker. Just 100 grams of briquettes can cook
rice, beans and vegetables for a family of family. We tested various
prototypes and have now given orders to a stainless steel pots manufacturer
to mass produce this cooker. We expect to get the first batch of cookers in
about a fortnight and then see how we can market them. We shall sell them
very cheaply (at practically no profit), because the user of a cooker is the
potential buyer of the briquettes.
Yours
Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
Appropriate Rural Technology Institute
Pune, India.

From hseaver at cybershamanix.com Mon Nov 25 08:33:13 2002
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:12 2004
Subject: Bad form altogether!
In-Reply-To: <NGBBKDEHILILFNJPHEFIEEJECEAA.ronallarson@qwest.net>
Message-ID: <20021125141803.GA5575@cybershamanix.com>

Not only the html and the unchanged subject headings, but why people cannot
set their mail readers to quote properly is more than I can understand. Every
mail reader certainly has this ability, and it not only makes the discussions a
million times more readable, but it also makes replying at least a thousand
times easier.
Why are you folks not doing this? I'm sure a lot of us miss a lot of good
info simply because it is too difficult to follow who said what. If you set your
reader to automatically quote when replying, and with the internet standard
quoting marks -- usually the ">" you see below -- it is then just ever so simple
to interject your answers and questions into to text and it all is clearly
delineated as to who says what.
And good mail readers such the Mutt I'm using here even ask you each time
whether you want to quote the message or not and also allow you to set whether
you want to "top quote" or "bottom quote".
It's really hard for me to comprehend why so many people here who obviously
are technically proficient in many other areas can't seem to figure out how to
do extremely simple things like set up their mail reader properly.

On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 09:24:57AM -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> Dear Tom
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tom Reed
> To: Kevin Chisholm ; Ron Larson ; gasification
> Cc: THodson@aol.com ; Paul S. Anderson ; stoves@crest.org
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 8:54 AM
> Subject: GAS-L: NOT (Re: Kilns), but CHECK THE TITLE
>
>
> Dear Kevin and all:
>
> I suppose Kevin's complaint is justified for some and we should stick to
> plain text when possible (which is most of the time).
>
> (Kevin Said This.)Considering the nuisance caused by HTML, when is it ever
> justified on these Lists?
>
> However, even better would be a resolution on all our parts to use
> appropriate titles. We are all guilty of hitting the reply button, changing
> the subject of the body but not the title.
>
> PLEASE CHECK THE TITLE LINE BEFORE SENDING. We DO archive all this stuff
> and the archives are unnecessarily cluttered when we ignore the tile line.
>
> Dr. Thomas B. Reed
> 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
> tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone/Fax
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kevin Chisholm
> To: Ron Larson
> Cc: THodson@aol.com ; Paul S. Anderson ; stoves@crest.org
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 3:43 AM
> Subject: Re: Kilns
>
>
> Dear Ron
>
> You go to a lot of effort to deal with HTML posts, to enable the reader to
> understand "who said what."
>
> HTML has no redeeming social merit, as far as I can see!! :-)
>
> What about if all those posting to the CREST Lists did so in Plain Text? It
> would make life very simple for all of us?
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ron Larson
> To: A.D. Karve
> Cc: THodson@aol.com ; Paul S. Anderson ; stoves@crest.org
> Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 11:24 AM
> Subject: RE: Kilns
>
>
> AD
>
> See notes below:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A.D. Karve [mailto:adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in]
> Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 2:04 AM
> To: Ron Larson
> Cc: THodson@aol.com; Paul S. Anderson; stoves@crest.org
> Subject: Re: Kilns
>
>
> Dear Ron,
> we have two types of extruded briquettes. One set has a diameter of about 19
> to 20 mm and the other has a diameter of about 12 to 13 mm. However,
> because of the problematic electrical supply in the rural areas, we have now
> opted for the honeycomb briquettes, which are made manually, using a mold.
> The honeycomb briquettes have a diameter of about 12 cm and height of about
> 3 cm. Each briquette has 13 vertical holes. Paul Hait wanted to know if we
> are using the thermal array type of arrangement of briquettes in our stove.
>
> [Ron Larson] For new stoves list members, we should say that Paul Hait
> developed a charcoal using system in which the "pillow" type briquette was
> carefully placed vertically in slots and in rows in such a way as to get the
> radiation from one impinging on another - with good air flow. I don't
> recall the percent reduction in charcoal consumption - but it might have
> been a factor of four or five. He also used stainless steel (reflective)
> parts and a clever fold-up design to get higher efficiencies and user
> convenience.
> Paul's question is important in "holey" (or "honeycomb") briquettes,
> because the same principal of getting good use out of the radiated energy
> (inside the holes as opposed to going off to be absorbed in something other
> than the cook pot) helps improve combustion enormously.
> In your case, what is the diameter of the 13 vertical holes?
> How does this diameter change during a run?
> Is there a brittle "ash" skeleton remaining at the end?
> How long does a single briquette last? (presumably one being long
> enough for cooking the meal you describe)
> Could you make one twice as tall to cook for twice as long? (In a
> different culture)
> Is there a "haybox" effect also? (some cooking after the single
> charcoal briquette is consumed?)
> Could you describe how lighting is achieved?
> Approximately how high above the briquette do the flames appear - and
> how does this distance change during a single cooking?
> What are the prices of all of the components of the system - including
> for a single briquette?
> What lifetime do you expect for the charcoal burner? (presumably the
> cookpot portion is much longer-lived)
> Will this particular pot and shield be available for export to
> interested members of "stoves"? at what price?
>
>
>
> The answer is "no", because with a single honeycomb briquette, no
> arrangement is possible. When we were using the cylindrical (extruded)
> briquettes, be just weighed 100 grams of them and put a single layer of
> briquettes spread evenly on the grate of the stove.
> We use grain starch as binder. The flour fallen on the floor of a flour
> mill is swept and sold by the mill operator at a price of Rs. 2 per kg
> (Rs.50 per US$). The cost of the char is Rs. 3 per kg. Because the flour is
> not costlier than the char, there is no restriction on the quantity of the
> flour. We boil about 400 g of flower in 1.5 litres of water and mix it
> thoroughly with 1 kg char to make a dough. This dough is filled into the
> briquette mold and the briquettes are dried in the sun
> [Ron Larson] Does this mean that you might have a wet mix of about 2.9
> kg - going to a dry batch of maybe 1.5 + kg - so this recipe might give
> 15-20 briquettes - with a raw material cost of about 5 rupees or US 10
> cents - so one briquette (one meal) has a raw material cost of less than 2/3
> cent?
>
> Our stove is a commercially available charcoal burning stove, made of mild
> steel sheets. The stove is 11 cm tall. The cooker consists of a stainless
> steel container, about 21 cm tall and 18 cm wide, closed with a lid, which
> is not too tight. The gaps between the container and the lid allow steam to
> escape. Inside the cooker, three cook pots are stacked one on top of the
> other, so that three things (rice, beans and vegetables) can be cooked
> simultaneously. The cooker sits on the stove with a gap of about 12 mm
> between the burning briquette and the bottom of the cooker pot. The cooker
> and the stove are together enclosed in a vertical stainless steel sleeve,
> about 29 cm tall and 19 cm wide. There is thus a gap of about 5 mm between
> the cooker and the sleeve, through which the flue gases pass.
> [Ron Larson] : We have talked often about the optimality of this 5 mm
> dimension. Any experimental data?
> Have you measured the output temperature of the exhaust gases?
> Same for temperature of the outermost wall?
> If we knew the weight loss per unit time (presumably higher at first?),
> we could estimate the power output levels. There are several on the list
> who could do this measurement quickly using their balancing scales.
>
> (RWL): I believe there is much to be learned from your geometry - and hope
> others will try similar geometries. This is a very high efficiency being
> reported - and possibly is very clean as well - given the high temperatures
> that are likely being achieved because of the honeycomb nature of the
> briquette.
> (AD - we look forward also to hearing about emissions at some time.
> I'll bet they also look very good.)
>
>
> The top 4 cm of the cooker are not covered by the sleeve, because the
> cooker is provided with two small handles that are attached to the sides of
> the cooker at this height.These handles allow the cooker pot to be lifted
> out of the sleeve.
> The efficiency was tested by the usual water boiling test. The housewives
> who used the cooker were also astonished by the fuel economy of this stove.
> Using a traditional wood burning cookstove, a housewife would have to use 3
> kg wood to cook the three items mentioned above.
> We have no means of controlling the air flow. We may be able to increase or
> reduce the power output of the stove by using more or less of the fuel.
> Yours A.D.Karve
> [Ron Larson]:
> Have you tried (or could you try) cooking with two briquettes of
> half-height?
> Might power level control then be possible by rotating one briquette
> relative to the other?
> In Johannesburg, the GTZ folk were showing an example of the "punch-out"
> "Turbo" stove from Finland that we have discussed on this list a few times.
> (Incidentally -very nice looking product that comes shipped in a big flat
> (pretty heavy) box.) It had a very clever air flow control (that I had not
> previously noticed) by rotating one set of holes relative to another. You
> might be able to do this same with the briquettes to achieve power control.
>
> AD Thanks and congratulations again - for what I think must be the world
> record. I believe this is better than my electric range. Ron
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Larson <ronallarson@qwest.net>
> To: A.D. Karve <adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in>; THodson@aol.com <THodson@aol.com>
> Cc: Paul S. Anderson <psanders@ilstu.edu>; stoves@crest.org
> <stoves@crest.org>
> Date: Saturday, November 23, 2002 8:31 PM
> Subject: RE: Kilns
>
>
> A.D
>
> 1. Thanks for sending this interesting story on. Not a permanent
> problem - hopefully, just a new point to add to your educational program.
> Old ideas die hard.
>
>
> 2. What are the dimensions and weight of your briquettes? (Number making
> up 100 g?)
>
> 3. You probably said this earlier - but what is your recommended binder
> formula?
>
> 4. You have described your new stove previously, but I think it needs a
> repeat - as 70% is just fantastic. Congratulations!!
>
> 5. I do not recall anyone claiming this high an efficiency value. I
> believe you have incorporated what we might call a
> "convection-enhancing-sleeve" which is probably key to this high value
> What is the gap width and height you have chosen in the model now in
> production? What is the method of measurement?
>
> 6. Do you have any means of controlling air flow and power level of this
> stove design?
>
>
> 7. It is becoming more clear all the time that the Ashden award people made
> a wise choice.
>
> Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A.D. Karve [mailto:adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in]
> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 4:20 AM
> To: THodson@aol.com
> Cc: Paul S. Anderson; stoves@crest.org
> Subject: Re: Kilns
>
>
> Dear Tom and Paul,
> I spent the last four days at Phaltan, looking at the charring kilns
> installed by ARTI at various sites. The operators in most cases are
> unemployed rural youth. After demonstrating the process to them on our own
> kiln they were provided with a kiln of their own, and they were asked to
> char sugarcane leaves in their own villages. In all the cases, they had
> unofficial advisers, who had already made charcoal using the traditional
> kilns. In the traditional process, the biomass to be charred is loaded into
> a kiln and ignited. One has to regulate the air supply very judiciously in
> order to have the right temperature to cause the biomass to char, but at the
> same time not provide so much oxygen that the biomass burns down completely
> to produce ash. In our oven and retort model, the biomass to be charred is
> enclosed in barrels and it never comes in contact with oxygen. We therefore
> keep all the airholes fully open, so that the biomass surrounding the
> barrels burns intensely to pyrolyse the biomass inside the barrels. Our
> entrepreneurs unfortunately followed the advice of the traditional charcoal
> burners in their villages and contrary to our advice, closed all the air
> vents, resulting in a very slow burn of the biomass surrounding the barrels.
> This not only increased the batch time but also in producing biomass which
> was just roasted and not charred.
> Most of them were totally discouraged, firstly because of low output and
> also because of its poor quality. The correct process had to be
> demonstrated again at each site. We thought that we had developed a fooproof
> process, but it turned out that we were the fools believing that the
> villagers would easily be able to produce char using our technology. Our
> technology, if correctly employed, would yield about 50 kg char per 8 hour
> shift.
> The char is sold in the form of briquettes. We started out with the
> extrusion process to convert the char into cylindrical briquettes. But in
> the field, there are problems with electric supply (either too low voltage
> or no electricity at all). So, during my stay at Phaltan we took the
> decision to provide the entrepreneurs with molds to produce the so called
> honeycomb briquettes manually. These briquettes look like mud pies, they
> weigh 100 grams each and each briquette has a set of 13 holes. So when it is
> ignited, the pot is hit by 13 flames. I myself produced these briquettes at
> the rate of one per minute. Thus by using our mold, a person can produce 50
> kg dry briquettes per day. If the entire family works on this process, they
> can earn Rs. 250 per day (US$ 5), which is more than what an average
> industrial worker earns in a city.
> We have developed a stove-and-cooker system for using the char briquettes
> most rationally. Through using a very scientific design, we achieve 70%
> efficiency with our stove-and-cooker. Just 100 grams of briquettes can cook
> rice, beans and vegetables for a family of family. We tested various
> prototypes and have now given orders to a stainless steel pots manufacturer
> to mass produce this cooker. We expect to get the first batch of cookers in
> about a fortnight and then see how we can market them. We shall sell them
> very cheaply (at practically no profit), because the user of a cooker is the
> potential buyer of the briquettes.
> Yours
> Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
> Appropriate Rural Technology Institute
> Pune, India.
>
>
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, tombreed@attbi.com Biomass =
> Energy Foundation, www.woodgas.com
> 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>
> -
> Gasification List Archives http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
> Bioenergy 2002 http://www.bioenergy2002.org/
> 200 kWe CHP Discussion
> http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
> Gasification Reference http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
>
> >

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

"Our overriding purpose, from the beginning through to the present
day, has been world domination - that is, to build and maintain the
capacity to coerce everybody else on the planet: nonviolently, if
possible, and violently, if necessary. But the purpose of US foreign
policy of domination is not just to make the rest of the world jump
through hoops; the purpose is to facilitate our exploitation of
resources."
- Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General
http://www.thesunmagazine.org/bully.html

From hseaver at cybershamanix.com Mon Nov 25 09:02:10 2002
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Principles of Sustainability
In-Reply-To: <002301c293d2$d2cf2040$1a4256d8@default>
Message-ID: <20021125142727.GB5575@cybershamanix.com>

Speaking of html and attachments, what happened to the ban on attachments that
the list moderators were instituting at the server? Here's one with a couple
attachments.

On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 11:01:18AM -0500, Kermit Schlansker wrote:
> Principles of Sustainability
>
> Within this next century, certainly within the lifetime of our small children, we will run out of gas and oil. Coal may last a century of two. The life of all of these fuels depends very much on the rate they are used. I would not be surprised to see a shortage of gas within the next few years. It really doesn't matter how soon shortages develop because we can spend only so much Sustainability money per year and since it will take a lot of money, we must start now.
> Presently the USA is using about 100 quadrillion btus (quads) of energy each year. Of this about 40 quads comes from oil, 24 quads gas, 24 quads coal, 8 quads nuclear, 4 quads hydroelectric, and less than 1 quad renewables. The large percentage of oil shows clearly the folly of trying to replace oil with either coal or gas. These resources would also be quickly depleted. It is likely that shortages will develop by 2010. The situation will be so bad that both emergency and long range measures will have to be taken. We can expect a diminishing input from fossil fuels that will last forever. How fast the plunge will be is hard to determine. The effects of the catastrophe will be reduced if we start taking countermeasures such as high energy taxes immediately. If we assume an average of 10 quads oil over the next century, 10 quads gas, 10 quads biomass, 10 quads wind, 20 quads coal, 10 quads nuclear, and 10 quads solar, we can get through this century with an energy average of 80 quads. That would keep us from starving. However the century after that will be far worse and any moral society would attempt to cut the consumption to below 80 quads both for scarcity and Global Warming reasons.
> The first thought will be to greatly expand nuclear. This is a mistake because we can't guarantee enough fossil fuel to store nuclear waste and we have no right to be leaving our grandchildren a mess that they can't clean up. Furthermore our supplies of Uranium are finite so we need to save fuel for later generations. What we should do is slowly expand and improve our nuclear plants and increase our output to about 10 quads instead of the seven we are getting now. This limited expansion may give us new ideas for greatly improved plants.
> Obviously from our present position it much easier to save energy than it is to make more energy. That is easy to demonstrate from the fact that the Chinese consumption per capita is only 10% of ours. I am sure that they are cold in winter. However, by changing our society to be more energy efficient we can probably get by on 30% of what we are consuming now for several centuries. Of course we want enough to eat and to be warm in winter but we will have to give up individual houses and cars. We will also have to give up luxuries such as casino gambling, golf courses, and ski resorts. All of these use too much energy not only in their buildings but also in the transportation necessary to get there. I am happy that things like listening to classical music, playing bridge, and nature walks will always be possible. The big reason that we must conserve rather than produce is Global Warming. There is no possibility of our producing ourselves out of that problem.
> We can add perhaps 10 quads to our energy supply by planting enormous quantities of trees. I have seen estimates as high as 60 quads possible but I don't believe them. We can also add considerable amounts of food by planting fruit trees. There probably would be enough bad apples to make considerable amounts of ethanol or feed a lot of deer. Liquid fuels for plowing will be precious so anything available will be used.
> In coming up with a strategy for meeting this energy problem we must start with a living module that can be demonstrated in a small area and then repeated across the USA. Solar energy and food production both are measured by the acre in the US. What we are taking here is how many people per acre we can support. We can call this a model town. A square mile, 640 acres, is a standard measurement and probably would be an ideal size. However because of the huge investment costs, early models would probably be much smaller than that. It is inherent in the design that as much of our food, energy, and recreation as possible would be derived from the home area. In other words transportation requirements must be minimized.
> Every step available that would reduce the heating of buildings must be taken. The first step is to stop building houses and build only Ecomindiums. An Ecomindium is a large building that has apartments on the upper floors and work places on the first floor and basements. The dwellers farm in the summer and manufacture in winter inside the building. This arrangement has many advantages. First larger buildings are easier to heat because of their reduced surface area per unit volume. In comparison to a house with the same space as one apartment, the wall area per apartment of a two story, eight unit building that has four units on each floor arranged in a square is only half as much. This geometrical advantage can be improved if better windows and insulation are used. In their ability to save energy each Ecomindium is the equivalent of a miniature oil or gas well. Whether their construction energy is too high to make them practical is a question. However they could easily last a 1000 years and that is the longest lasting energy investment we could make.
> Cogeneration is a term for Combined Heat and Power or CHP whereby the waste heat from the generation of electricity is used to heat a building. It is possible also to use a similar term, comanufacturing, to mean using the waste heat from manufacturing to heat the building. In other words you put the factory inside the building and use it only in winter. Between comanufacturing and cogeneration you can heat the building with no other heat input. Note that comanufacturing is a concept of great importance because it not only provides winter space heating but it also eliminates commuting. Suppose you have only the wood on your property to use for heating. With comanufacturing you can use it twice. The manufacturing can be almost anything from simply making charcoal to full scale manufacturing. Obviously safety and noise will be continual problems. There are many other energy economies that can be obtained by cooperative action within the group. Ecomindiums have the potential to cut energy use by 90%.
> Most of our fertilizer is taken from mines, phosphorous in Florida and Potassium in Canada. Nitrogen is made from air using natural gas as energy. This fertilizer will not last forever because the mines and the natural gas will be exhausted. Therefore it is essential that we recycle fertilizer to the fullest. Nitrogen can be made from almost natural methods by recycling sewage in a biodigester that consists of some large tanks. The result of biodigestion is a burnable biogas plus residual liquids that are rich in nitrogen and the other elements of sewage. Soft biomass such as leaves, paper, or straw be mixed with this to purify it and get more gas. If a leguminous plant such as hay is mixed with this, again you get more gas and more nitrogen in the liquids and solids left after being biodigested. These can be spread directly on the fields.
> Another type of fertilizer can be made from fuel ashes of various kinds, probably principally wood. These ashes will contain potassium and phosphorous but probably not much nitrogen. The heating process will drive it off. This recycling of fertilizer must take place religiously. Otherwise the land would quickly be depleted. It may be possible to keep fertilizer on land by putting rings of trees around farm fields. These rings would trap the fertilizer and convert it back into biomass. The ashes then return the nutrients to the fields.
> Since wood and crop residues may be the principal winter manufacturing and heating source it is imperative that such resources be husbanded to the utmost. One method of producing gaseous fuel mentioned previously is that of making biogas from sewage and biomass. This produces a gas that has about 50% of the strength of natural gas at about 50% efficiency and also makes fertilizer. If the waste heat from any process can be used for space heating then that process can be made nearly 100% efficient. Another type of gas can be produced by the partial combustion of wood. The fuel components of this gas are called producer gas and consist of carbon monoxide (poisonous) and hydrogen. Like the output from the biodigester the output can run an engine and produce electricity. However these gases might be too dilute to be compressed and used to run a tractor
> Liquid fuels will be precious but still may be used for farm operations. It is possible to make methanol from producer gas. However, that process is said to be practical only in very large, very well funded facilities. Further research might make an Ecomindium size operation feasible. It would certainly be more efficient because of the waste heat use for space heating.
> A calculation on my own personal energy usage shows about 150 million btus for my gas, electricity, and gasoline. However, since the per capita consumption in the US is 360 million btus, there are a lot of expenditures coming from factories and businesses that the individual has no control over. This suggests that in combating an energy shortage we must close out many recreational industries and convert many commercial buildings into apartments. Furthermore we must figure out how to tear down houses so that the materials can be reused in Ecomindiums.
> Various energy devices must be worked on to both generate and save energy. One of the better devices in summer would be the steered solar mirror, boiler, and steam engine system. Hopefully this would generate enough power in summer for air conditioning and utilities in the daytime. Having lights in the summer would depend on expensive batteries that might not be affordable or on fossil or nuclear fuel. People might have to sit around in the dark and talk for recreation.
> In the winter, the carefully saved wood and agricultural wastes, would be used for manufacturing and power generation. The waste heat from these processes would probably heat the building. If more heat is needed then solar heating panels might be used. If still insufficient, Then heat pumps driven by coal or nuclear generated electricity would be possible for perhaps a century. This extra energy from coal and nuclear could also be used for summer lighting. A wind farm with transmitted electricity is also a source for summer lighting.
> In many areas there is insufficient wind to pay for the cost of the mill. Nevertheless wind must be experimented with. Each batch of energy from a high wind would be welcome. Pumping water or sewage might be useful. The mill could also be used to charge batteries. One way to increase usefulness would be to increase blade diameter for expected output and then use protective measures against high wind breakage.
> My conclusions are that the road to Sustainability will require many sacrifices from the public. The key words here are Modular Development, Ecomindium, Farm in summer manufacture in winter, wood gasification, biodigestion, tree planting program, Cogeneration, Comanufacturing, solar mirrors.
>
> Kermit Schlansker PE
>

> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, tombreed@attbi.com Biomass =
> Energy Foundation, www.woodgas.com
> 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>
> -
> Gasification List Archives http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
> Bioenergy 2002 http://www.bioenergy2002.org/
> 200 kWe CHP Discussion
> http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
> Gasification Reference http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
>
> >

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

From kssustain at provide.net Mon Nov 25 09:22:40 2002
From: kssustain at provide.net (Kermit Schlansker)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Principles of Sustainability
Message-ID: <007301c294a0$dcad0540$ad4256d8@default>

Dear Kevin,

I am in agreement that energy taxes would cause more conservation
and more money put into tree planting, gasification, and other forms of
alternate energy. The only problem is that I am 78 years old, have no
political power and could make no contribution to that. Presently there is
no blue print for the future. Bush will probably put a lot on money into
hydrogen. I would prefer that he would put the money into forestation,
Gasification, windmills, solar, and low energy housing. . As an engineer.I
can possibly design both machines and society and then publish and hope that
someone more powerful will use the ideas.My motivation is the fact that I
can clearly see my grandchildren in a cold and starving situation at the age
of 50.
Gasification is of tremendous importance to sustainability
because biomass may be the only fuel we can use in winter. If the wood is
carefully saved for the coldest months. 10 quads might get us through the
winter while doing some serious manufacturing. In the summer months we might
be able to use solarThe use of waste heat from energy processeds for space
heating is about the only way we can get high efficiency. The engineers job
is to make the whole process as efficient as possible.
Tom Reed's wood driven tractor is one of the best
sustainability devices that I have seen. It might have more power on
charcoal. However charcoal making must be done in a building in winter in
order to use the waste heat.

Kermit Schlansker
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>
To: Kermit Schlansker <kssustain@provide.net>; Gasification
<gasification@crest.org>
Date: Monday, November 25, 2002 6:47 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Principles of Sustainability

>Dear Kermit
>
>I do appreciate your concerns for sustainability.
>
>What do you think of the concept of all the Governments of the World
>imposing a 50% tax on all non-sustainable fuels?
>
>Would that not encourage a shift toward the use of energy from sustainable
>sources? Would not that encourage conservation?
>
>Kindest regards,
>
>Kevin Chisholm
>
>
>Gasification List Moderator:
>Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, tombreed@attbi.com Biomass =
>Energy Foundation, www.woodgas.com
>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>
>-
>Gasification List Archives
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
>Bioenergy 2002 http://www.bioenergy2002.org/
>200 kWe CHP Discussion
>http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
>Gasification Reference
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
>
>>
>

From arnt at c2i.net Mon Nov 25 10:57:33 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:13 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Principles of Sustainability
In-Reply-To: <002301c293d2$d2cf2040$1a4256d8@default>
Message-ID: <20021125202932.45b619a0.arnt@c2i.net>

On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 06:34:31 -0400,
"Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net> wrote in message
<004e01c2946f$e3662c80$9d9a0a40@kevin>:

> Dear Kermit
>
> I do appreciate your concerns for sustainability.

..please, Kermit, drop the html and wintendo word repeats of
your plain text message, they consume precious fossil energy,
unwarrantedly.

..an off-topic advice: No need to have Bush nuke away us gooks and
niggahs, drop _big_ props in the water between Florida and Cuba, and
you'll drag off _plenty_ energy, in plenty good time before there is
any chance of Europe freezing over.

..advice is off-topic because is does not have _any_ relevance
to thermochemical or other gasification.

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

From rstanley at legacyfound.org Mon Nov 25 19:33:52 2002
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:13 2004
Subject: Bad form altogether!
In-Reply-To: <NGBBKDEHILILFNJPHEFIEEJECEAA.ronallarson@qwest.net>
Message-ID: <3DE2FD49.5A7E0654@legacyfound.org>

....Then, lets standardise the text and font size and color and spacing and length
of the line and....
but in the meantime, Happy Thanksgiving
/ Richard Stanley

Harmon Seaver wrote:

> Not only the html and the unchanged subject headings, but why people cannot
> set their mail readers to quote properly is more than I can understand. Every
> mail reader certainly has this ability, and it not only makes the discussions a
> million times more readable, but it also makes replying at least a thousand
> times easier.
> Why are you folks not doing this? I'm sure a lot of us miss a lot of good
> info simply because it is too difficult to follow who said what. If you set your
> reader to automatically quote when replying, and with the internet standard
> quoting marks -- usually the ">" you see below -- it is then just ever so simple
> to interject your answers and questions into to text and it all is clearly
> delineated as to who says what.
> And good mail readers such the Mutt I'm using here even ask you each time
> whether you want to quote the message or not and also allow you to set whether
> you want to "top quote" or "bottom quote".
> It's really hard for me to comprehend why so many people here who obviously
> are technically proficient in many other areas can't seem to figure out how to
> do extremely simple things like set up their mail reader properly.
>
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 09:24:57AM -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> > Dear Tom
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Tom Reed
> > To: Kevin Chisholm ; Ron Larson ; gasification
> > Cc: THodson@aol.com ; Paul S. Anderson ; stoves@crest.org
> > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 8:54 AM
> > Subject: GAS-L: NOT (Re: Kilns), but CHECK THE TITLE
> >
> >
> > Dear Kevin and all:
> >
> > I suppose Kevin's complaint is justified for some and we should stick to
> > plain text when possible (which is most of the time).
> >
> > (Kevin Said This.)Considering the nuisance caused by HTML, when is it ever
> > justified on these Lists?
> >
> > However, even better would be a resolution on all our parts to use
> > appropriate titles. We are all guilty of hitting the reply button, changing
> > the subject of the body but not the title.
> >
> > PLEASE CHECK THE TITLE LINE BEFORE SENDING. We DO archive all this stuff
> > and the archives are unnecessarily cluttered when we ignore the tile line.
> >
> > Dr. Thomas B. Reed
> > 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
> > tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone/Fax
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Kevin Chisholm
> > To: Ron Larson
> > Cc: THodson@aol.com ; Paul S. Anderson ; stoves@crest.org
> > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 3:43 AM
> > Subject: Re: Kilns
> >
> >
> > Dear Ron
> >
> > You go to a lot of effort to deal with HTML posts, to enable the reader to
> > understand "who said what."
> >
> > HTML has no redeeming social merit, as far as I can see!! :-)
> >
> > What about if all those posting to the CREST Lists did so in Plain Text? It
> > would make life very simple for all of us?
> >
> > Kindest regards,
> >
> > Kevin Chisholm
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ron Larson
> > To: A.D. Karve
> > Cc: THodson@aol.com ; Paul S. Anderson ; stoves@crest.org
> > Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 11:24 AM
> > Subject: RE: Kilns
> >
> >
> > AD
> >
> > See notes below:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: A.D. Karve [mailto:adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in]
> > Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 2:04 AM
> > To: Ron Larson
> > Cc: THodson@aol.com; Paul S. Anderson; stoves@crest.org
> > Subject: Re: Kilns
> >
> >
> > Dear Ron,
> > we have two types of extruded briquettes. One set has a diameter of about 19
> > to 20 mm and the other has a diameter of about 12 to 13 mm. However,
> > because of the problematic electrical supply in the rural areas, we have now
> > opted for the honeycomb briquettes, which are made manually, using a mold.
> > The honeycomb briquettes have a diameter of about 12 cm and height of about
> > 3 cm. Each briquette has 13 vertical holes. Paul Hait wanted to know if we
> > are using the thermal array type of arrangement of briquettes in our stove.
> >
> > [Ron Larson] For new stoves list members, we should say that Paul Hait
> > developed a charcoal using system in which the "pillow" type briquette was
> > carefully placed vertically in slots and in rows in such a way as to get the
> > radiation from one impinging on another - with good air flow. I don't
> > recall the percent reduction in charcoal consumption - but it might have
> > been a factor of four or five. He also used stainless steel (reflective)
> > parts and a clever fold-up design to get higher efficiencies and user
> > convenience.
> > Paul's question is important in "holey" (or "honeycomb") briquettes,
> > because the same principal of getting good use out of the radiated energy
> > (inside the holes as opposed to going off to be absorbed in something other
> > than the cook pot) helps improve combustion enormously.
> > In your case, what is the diameter of the 13 vertical holes?
> > How does this diameter change during a run?
> > Is there a brittle "ash" skeleton remaining at the end?
> > How long does a single briquette last? (presumably one being long
> > enough for cooking the meal you describe)
> > Could you make one twice as tall to cook for twice as long? (In a
> > different culture)
> > Is there a "haybox" effect also? (some cooking after the single
> > charcoal briquette is consumed?)
> > Could you describe how lighting is achieved?
> > Approximately how high above the briquette do the flames appear - and
> > how does this distance change during a single cooking?
> > What are the prices of all of the components of the system - including
> > for a single briquette?
> > What lifetime do you expect for the charcoal burner? (presumably the
> > cookpot portion is much longer-lived)
> > Will this particular pot and shield be available for export to
> > interested members of "stoves"? at what price?
> >
> >
> >
> > The answer is "no", because with a single honeycomb briquette, no
> > arrangement is possible. When we were using the cylindrical (extruded)
> > briquettes, be just weighed 100 grams of them and put a single layer of
> > briquettes spread evenly on the grate of the stove.
> > We use grain starch as binder. The flour fallen on the floor of a flour
> > mill is swept and sold by the mill operator at a price of Rs. 2 per kg
> > (Rs.50 per US$). The cost of the char is Rs. 3 per kg. Because the flour is
> > not costlier than the char, there is no restriction on the quantity of the
> > flour. We boil about 400 g of flower in 1.5 litres of water and mix it
> > thoroughly with 1 kg char to make a dough. This dough is filled into the
> > briquette mold and the briquettes are dried in the sun
> > [Ron Larson] Does this mean that you might have a wet mix of about 2.9
> > kg - going to a dry batch of maybe 1.5 + kg - so this recipe might give
> > 15-20 briquettes - with a raw material cost of about 5 rupees or US 10
> > cents - so one briquette (one meal) has a raw material cost of less than 2/3
> > cent?
> >
> > Our stove is a commercially available charcoal burning stove, made of mild
> > steel sheets. The stove is 11 cm tall. The cooker consists of a stainless
> > steel container, about 21 cm tall and 18 cm wide, closed with a lid, which
> > is not too tight. The gaps between the container and the lid allow steam to
> > escape. Inside the cooker, three cook pots are stacked one on top of the
> > other, so that three things (rice, beans and vegetables) can be cooked
> > simultaneously. The cooker sits on the stove with a gap of about 12 mm
> > between the burning briquette and the bottom of the cooker pot. The cooker
> > and the stove are together enclosed in a vertical stainless steel sleeve,
> > about 29 cm tall and 19 cm wide. There is thus a gap of about 5 mm between
> > the cooker and the sleeve, through which the flue gases pass.
> > [Ron Larson] : We have talked often about the optimality of this 5 mm
> > dimension. Any experimental data?
> > Have you measured the output temperature of the exhaust gases?
> > Same for temperature of the outermost wall?
> > If we knew the weight loss per unit time (presumably higher at first?),
> > we could estimate the power output levels. There are several on the list
> > who could do this measurement quickly using their balancing scales.
> >
> > (RWL): I believe there is much to be learned from your geometry - and hope
> > others will try similar geometries. This is a very high efficiency being
> > reported - and possibly is very clean as well - given the high temperatures
> > that are likely being achieved because of the honeycomb nature of the
> > briquette.
> > (AD - we look forward also to hearing about emissions at some time.
> > I'll bet they also look very good.)
> >
> >
> > The top 4 cm of the cooker are not covered by the sleeve, because the
> > cooker is provided with two small handles that are attached to the sides of
> > the cooker at this height.These handles allow the cooker pot to be lifted
> > out of the sleeve.
> > The efficiency was tested by the usual water boiling test. The housewives
> > who used the cooker were also astonished by the fuel economy of this stove.
> > Using a traditional wood burning cookstove, a housewife would have to use 3
> > kg wood to cook the three items mentioned above.
> > We have no means of controlling the air flow. We may be able to increase or
> > reduce the power output of the stove by using more or less of the fuel.
> > Yours A.D.Karve
> > [Ron Larson]:
> > Have you tried (or could you try) cooking with two briquettes of
> > half-height?
> > Might power level control then be possible by rotating one briquette
> > relative to the other?
> > In Johannesburg, the GTZ folk were showing an example of the "punch-out"
> > "Turbo" stove from Finland that we have discussed on this list a few times.
> > (Incidentally -very nice looking product that comes shipped in a big flat
> > (pretty heavy) box.) It had a very clever air flow control (that I had not
> > previously noticed) by rotating one set of holes relative to another. You
> > might be able to do this same with the briquettes to achieve power control.
> >
> > AD Thanks and congratulations again - for what I think must be the world
> > record. I believe this is better than my electric range. Ron
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ron Larson <ronallarson@qwest.net>
> > To: A.D. Karve <adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in>; THodson@aol.com <THodson@aol.com>
> > Cc: Paul S. Anderson <psanders@ilstu.edu>; stoves@crest.org
> > <stoves@crest.org>
> > Date: Saturday, November 23, 2002 8:31 PM
> > Subject: RE: Kilns
> >
> >
> > A.D
> >
> > 1. Thanks for sending this interesting story on. Not a permanent
> > problem - hopefully, just a new point to add to your educational program.
> > Old ideas die hard.
> >
> >
> > 2. What are the dimensions and weight of your briquettes? (Number making
> > up 100 g?)
> >
> > 3. You probably said this earlier - but what is your recommended binder
> > formula?
> >
> > 4. You have described your new stove previously, but I think it needs a
> > repeat - as 70% is just fantastic. Congratulations!!
> >
> > 5. I do not recall anyone claiming this high an efficiency value. I
> > believe you have incorporated what we might call a
> > "convection-enhancing-sleeve" which is probably key to this high value
> > What is the gap width and height you have chosen in the model now in
> > production? What is the method of measurement?
> >
> > 6. Do you have any means of controlling air flow and power level of this
> > stove design?
> >
> >
> > 7. It is becoming more clear all the time that the Ashden award people made
> > a wise choice.
> >
> > Ron
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: A.D. Karve [mailto:adkarve@pn2.vsnl.net.in]
> > Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 4:20 AM
> > To: THodson@aol.com
> > Cc: Paul S. Anderson; stoves@crest.org
> > Subject: Re: Kilns
> >
> >
> > Dear Tom and Paul,
> > I spent the last four days at Phaltan, looking at the charring kilns
> > installed by ARTI at various sites. The operators in most cases are
> > unemployed rural youth. After demonstrating the process to them on our own
> > kiln they were provided with a kiln of their own, and they were asked to
> > char sugarcane leaves in their own villages. In all the cases, they had
> > unofficial advisers, who had already made charcoal using the traditional
> > kilns. In the traditional process, the biomass to be charred is loaded into
> > a kiln and ignited. One has to regulate the air supply very judiciously in
> > order to have the right temperature to cause the biomass to char, but at the
> > same time not provide so much oxygen that the biomass burns down completely
> > to produce ash. In our oven and retort model, the biomass to be charred is
> > enclosed in barrels and it never comes in contact with oxygen. We therefore
> > keep all the airholes fully open, so that the biomass surrounding the
> > barrels burns intensely to pyrolyse the biomass inside the barrels. Our
> > entrepreneurs unfortunately followed the advice of the traditional charcoal
> > burners in their villages and contrary to our advice, closed all the air
> > vents, resulting in a very slow burn of the biomass surrounding the barrels.
> > This not only increased the batch time but also in producing biomass which
> > was just roasted and not charred.
> > Most of them were totally discouraged, firstly because of low output and
> > also because of its poor quality. The correct process had to be
> > demonstrated again at each site. We thought that we had developed a fooproof
> > process, but it turned out that we were the fools believing that the
> > villagers would easily be able to produce char using our technology. Our
> > technology, if correctly employed, would yield about 50 kg char per 8 hour
> > shift.
> > The char is sold in the form of briquettes. We started out with the
> > extrusion process to convert the char into cylindrical briquettes. But in
> > the field, there are problems with electric supply (either too low voltage
> > or no electricity at all). So, during my stay at Phaltan we took the
> > decision to provide the entrepreneurs with molds to produce the so called
> > honeycomb briquettes manually. These briquettes look like mud pies, they
> > weigh 100 grams each and each briquette has a set of 13 holes. So when it is
> > ignited, the pot is hit by 13 flames. I myself produced these briquettes at
> > the rate of one per minute. Thus by using our mold, a person can produce 50
> > kg dry briquettes per day. If the entire family works on this process, they
> > can earn Rs. 250 per day (US$ 5), which is more than what an average
> > industrial worker earns in a city.
> > We have developed a stove-and-cooker system for using the char briquettes
> > most rationally. Through using a very scientific design, we achieve 70%
> > efficiency with our stove-and-cooker. Just 100 grams of briquettes can cook
> > rice, beans and vegetables for a family of family. We tested various
> > prototypes and have now given orders to a stainless steel pots manufacturer
> > to mass produce this cooker. We expect to get the first batch of cookers in
> > about a fortnight and then see how we can market them. We shall sell them
> > very cheaply (at practically no profit), because the user of a cooker is the
> > potential buyer of the briquettes.
> > Yours
> > Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
> > Appropriate Rural Technology Institute
> > Pune, India.
> >
> >
> > Gasification List Moderator:
> > Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, tombreed@attbi.com Biomass =
> > Energy Foundation, www.woodgas.com
> > 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>
> > -
> > Gasification List Archives http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
> > Bioenergy 2002 http://www.bioenergy2002.org/
> > 200 kWe CHP Discussion
> > http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
> > Gasification Reference http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
> >
> > >
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com
>
> "War is just a racket ... something that is not what it seems to the
> majority of people. Only a small group knows what its about. It is
> conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the
> masses." --- Major General Smedley Butler, 1933
>
> "Our overriding purpose, from the beginning through to the present
> day, has been world domination - that is, to build and maintain the
> capacity to coerce everybody else on the planet: nonviolently, if
> possible, and violently, if necessary. But the purpose of US foreign
> policy of domination is not just to make the rest of the world jump
> through hoops; the purpose is to facilitate our exploitation of
> resources."
> - Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General
> http://www.thesunmagazine.org/bully.html
>
> -
> Stoves List Archives and Website:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/stoves/200209/
> http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/
> >
> Stoves List Moderators:
> Ron Larson, ronallarson@qwest.net
> Elsen L. Karstad, elk@wananchi.com www.chardust.com
>
> Other Biomass Stoves Events and Information:
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
> http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon
>
> 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.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/Chambers/Chambers.htm

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

November 2002 Gasification Archive