October 2002 Gasification Archive

From VHarris001 at aol.com Tue Oct 1 20:17:44 2002
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:08 2004
Subject: Eclipse Combustion Engineering Guide - Free PDF
Message-ID: <7e.2eba0bcc.2acbccad@aol.com>

Thought some of you might find this useful.

http://www.burnerparts.com/peconet/efe825tn.pdf

Vernon Harris

From hseaver at cybershamanix.com Wed Oct 2 06:59:23 2002
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Eclipse Combustion Engineering Guide - Free PDF
In-Reply-To: <7e.2eba0bcc.2acbccad@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20021002145639.GA26486@cybershamanix.com>

That's a *very* nice resource. Thanks.

On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 12:14:37AM -0400, VHarris001@aol.com wrote:
> Thought some of you might find this useful.
>
> http://www.burnerparts.com/peconet/efe825tn.pdf
>
> Vernon Harris

--
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 Wed Oct 16 13:44:34 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Arnt's Url
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20021016152704.009819a0@wgs1.btl.net>

Dear List;

Arnt -- are you still out there??

Your Url --

http://skyboom.com/arnt/ssrcolor.gif

No longer works -- any advice how to connect??

Peter

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Oct 17 00:06:41 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Arnt's Url
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20021016152704.009819a0@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <20021017100725.7476f676.arnt@c2i.net>

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 15:36:58 -0500,
Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net> wrote in message
<3.0.32.20021016152704.009819a0@wgs1.btl.net>:

>
> Dear List;
>
> Arnt -- are you still out there??

..oh yeah.

> Your Url --
>
> http://skyboom.com/arnt/ssrcolor.gif

..that dot.com went down in flames.

> No longer works -- any advice how to connect??

..is right here: ;-)
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/199903/gif00013.gif in
http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/199903/msg00055.html .

--
..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 Mon Oct 21 05:36:12 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification tax credits
In-Reply-To: <NGBBKDEHILILFNJPHEFIIEAMCDAA.ronallarson@qwest.net>
Message-ID: <039801c278c6$79758d80$a48cfd0c@TOMBREED>

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 FMurrl at aol.com Mon Oct 21 07:07:09 2002
From: FMurrl at aol.com (FMurrl@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification tax credits
Message-ID: <9f.2f185d08.2ae56c94@aol.com>

Tax credits are my life, and I am happy to put in two cents here to complete the overview.

Section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code was enacted in 1980 as a response to the Arab Oil Embargo, and included provisions for tax credits for oil from unusual sources, natural gas from particular types of formations, synthetic fuels from coal, including the gasification of coal. I was unaware of any portion of the credit that could be taken from gasifying either wood or other forms of biomass, but I just may have missed that.

The tax credits started out quite modestly, and over the years have been driven higher by inflation, such that the current tax credit is now about US$1.08 per million BTUs. Some of the tax credits remain in effect until the end December of 2007.

Gasification definitely qualifies under this US tax credit program. However, to qualify for program, the unit producing the energy had to be in service no later than 30 June 1998, and must have been built in accordance with an "engineering, procurement and construction" contract executed no later than 31 December 1996.

Section 29 has been under review for expansion in the Senate Energy Bill, that is pending in conference committee. It is unknown whether the provisions will be passed by the conference committee.

Regards,
Fred Murrell
Biomass Development Company
Bradenton Florida USA

From tmiles at trmiles.com Mon Oct 21 07:14:29 2002
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification tax credits
In-Reply-To: <9f.2f185d08.2ae56c94@aol.com>
Message-ID: <00e101c27913$ad0b65a0$0301a8c0@tomslaptop>

Fred,

Thanks for the clarification.

Nobody got anything out of this congress. Is
there an extension to section 29 proposed in whatever current energy
bill is floating therein?

Tom
<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:
FMurrl@aol.com
To: <A title=tombreed@attbi.com
href="mailto:tombreed@attbi.com">tombreed@attbi.com ; <A
title=tmiles@trmiles.com
href="mailto:tmiles@trmiles.com">tmiles@trmiles.com
Cc: <A title=gasification@crest.org
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org ; <A
title=Stoves@crest.org href="mailto:Stoves@crest.org">Stoves@crest.org

Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 7:43
AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Gasification tax
credits
Tom, Tom and
All:Tax credits are my life, and I am happy to put in two cents here
to complete the overview.Section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code was
enacted in 1980 as a response to the Arab Oil Embargo, and included provisions
for tax credits for oil from unusual sources, natural gas from particular
types of formations, synthetic fuels from coal, including the gasification of
coal. I was unaware of any portion of the credit that could be taken from
gasifying either wood or other forms of biomass, but I just may have missed
that. The tax credits started out quite modestly, and over the years
have been driven higher by inflation, such that the current tax credit is now
about US$1.08 per million BTUs. Some of the tax credits remain in effect until
the end December of 2007. Gasification definitely qualifies under this
US tax credit program. However, to qualify for program, the unit producing the
energy had to be in service no later than 30 June 1998, and must have been
built in accordance with an "engineering, procurement and construction"
contract executed no later than 31 December 1996.Section 29 has been
under review for expansion in the Senate Energy Bill, that is pending in
conference committee. It is unknown whether the provisions will be passed by
the conference committee. Regards,Fred MurrellBiomass
Development CompanyBradenton Florida USA

From FMurrl at aol.com Mon Oct 21 08:05:53 2002
From: FMurrl at aol.com (FMurrl@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification tax credits
Message-ID: <31.2eea9bcc.2ae57f20@aol.com>

Nobody got anything out of this congress. Is there an extension to section 29 proposed in whatever current energy bill is floating therein?

Some of the provisions of the Senate Energy Bill (Senate 517?, I think), that has been enrolled as the Senate provisions in the conference committee bill (HR 4), include references to both Section 45 (the Wind Energy Production Credit and to Section 29 (Alternative Fuels Produced from Non-traditional Sources).

The production tax credit expands qualified systems to include some open loop biomass, while the Section 29 provisions seem to encourage upgraded coal systems (such as SGI and KFx and other systems).

Regards,
Fred Murrell
Biomass Development Company
Bradenton Florida USA

From Richard.OConor at minergy.com Mon Oct 21 08:22:14 2002
From: Richard.OConor at minergy.com (OConor.Richard)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasification tax credits
Message-ID: <E30B85A0D126D4118E0D00508B6F23E50C865817@mailqmvc.comp.wepco.com>

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

<FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----From: FMurrl@aol.com
[mailto:FMurrl@aol.com]Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 9:44
AMTo: tombreed@attbi.com; tmiles@trmiles.comCc:
gasification@crest.org; Stoves@crest.orgSubject: Re: GAS-L:
Gasification tax credits<FONT
size=3>Tom, Tom and All:Tax credits are my life, and I am happy to put
in two cents here to complete the overview.Section 29 of the Internal
Revenue Code was enacted in 1980 as a response to the Arab Oil Embargo, and
included provisions for tax credits for oil from unusual sources, natural gas
from particular types of formations, synthetic fuels from coal, including the
gasification of coal. I was unaware of any portion of the credit that could be
taken from gasifying either wood or other forms of biomass, but I just may
have missed that. The tax credits started out quite modestly, and over
the years have been driven higher by inflation, such that the current tax
credit is now about US$1.08 per million BTUs. Some of the tax credits remain
in effect until the end December of 2007. Gasification definitely
qualifies under this US tax credit program. However, to qualify for program,
the unit producing the energy had to be in service no later than 30 June 1998,
and must have been built in accordance with an "engineering, procurement and
construction" contract executed no later than 31 December 1996.Section
29 has been under review for expansion in the Senate Energy Bill, that is
pending in conference committee. It is unknown whether the provisions will be
passed by the conference committee. Regards,Fred
MurrellBiomass Development CompanyBradenton Florida USA

From vjh201 at stern.nyu.edu Mon Oct 21 19:19:13 2002
From: vjh201 at stern.nyu.edu (Victor Hsu)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Market for small scale gasifiers & open burning regulations
In-Reply-To: <004d01c273ae$66d787e0$2a47fea9@md>
Message-ID: <00a101c27979$48198170$a3cdfea9@Victor>

I have been very impressed with the dearth of knowledge on this listserv.

I am curious if anyone knows what the market is like for small scale
gasifiers. The sort of markets that I would be looking at are smaller scale
i.e., farms, municipalities...

Also, does anyone have any information on which states have enacted open
burning regulations? In other words, regulations that forbid local burning?
As far as I know, there are laws at the state level that forbid or regulate
local burning, but no Federal laws.

Thanks guys.

-Victor Hsu

From motie at paulbunyan.net Mon Oct 21 20:36:43 2002
From: motie at paulbunyan.net (Motie)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Market for small scale gasifiers & open burning regulations
In-Reply-To: <004d01c273ae$66d787e0$2a47fea9@md>
Message-ID: <007f01c27984$16b80d80$aec2bfd1@m6o7s4>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Victor Hsu" <vjh201@stern.nyu.edu>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 10:15 PM
Subject: GAS-L: Market for small scale gasifiers & open burning regulations

> I have been very impressed with the dearth of knowledge on this listserv.
>
> I am curious if anyone knows what the market is like for small scale
> gasifiers. The sort of markets that I would be looking at are smaller
scale
> i.e., farms, municipalities...

Victor,
This is not a simple question that you ask. You may be aware of that. A
simple answer is not possible. In my opinion, the market is weak, but mostly
because there is no awareness of the availabilty of a small gasifier. I am
very interested if you have something available in the size range of 50-350
tons/day. What types of materials are you capable of gasifying? Feedstocks
can range from Municipal Solid Waste to farm crop residues to Coal, wood or
Peat. Matching a Gasifier to the available feedstocks is critical, or the
inverse, matching the feedstock to your Gasifier.
>
> Also, does anyone have any information on which states have enacted open
> burning regulations? In other words, regulations that forbid local
burning?
> As far as I know, there are laws at the state level that forbid or
regulate
> local burning, but no Federal laws.

Regulate is a more proper term than forbid. I think all States regulate
burning in some way. There are exceptions to all regulations. 'Open burning'
and 'gasifiers' do not seem to belong in the same conversation. Explain your
thoughts?
>
> Thanks guys.
>
> -Victor Hsu
>

Motie

From harald.kleiven at organicpower.com Tue Oct 22 10:15:10 2002
From: harald.kleiven at organicpower.com (Harald Kleiven)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Market for small scale gasifiers & open burning regulations
Message-ID: <4C319DC17760D611A78B00B0D0B0EE7B03A562@MAIL>

Motie asked: "...I am very interested if you have something available in the
size range of 50-350 tons/day. What types of materials are you capable of
gasifying? Feedstocks can range from Municipal Solid Waste to farm crop
residues to Coal, wood or Peat...."

Such a small-scale gasifier is available from Organic Power ASA in Oslo,
Norway. A short introduction is presented below. You can also look at our
web-page: www.organicpower.com
We are in the process of commercialization, after several years as an R&D
company. Our gasifiers are modular, each processing up to 6,000 metric tons
per year(20 tons/day), combined up to 6-cell plants (36,000 tpa/120 tpd).
Among other projects, a 2-cell plant is operating in Elverum, Norway,
supplying district heating and gasifying pre-sorted and baled MSW (Municipal
Solid Waste). As any new start-up, especially in these times, we are
constantly looking for investors, but also for technology partners. Our
company is following a conservative technical approach, and currently the
technology is only used for heat production (steam, hot water). The small
plant size opens an attractive market for sale of steam & hot water, either
to process plants or district heating networks. The relative capital and O&M
costs are not higher than large-scale Energy from Waste plants. The plants
can operate on multiple solid/bio fuels. I would be happy to supply more
information to interested parties.

Best regards,

Harald Kleiven

ORGANIC POWER ASA

Organic Power was established in January 1997 following a research and
development cooperation between the Norwegian Agricultural University and
the investment company, Hurd. The gasification technology was developed
through the "Distributed Power" research project at the University and was
modified thereafter to satisfy present day requirements for clean energy
production.

The company's first waste-to-energy (WTE) plant was commissioned in November
2000. The plant delivers heat energy to a local district heating network in
the municipality of Tingvoll, Norway. A second WTE plant was commissioned in
June 2001 in Bosung City, South Korea. As of June 2001, Organic Power has
signed a total of six contracts to build WTE plants based on its
gasification technology (four in Norway, one in Denmark, and the sixth in
South Korea) with a total contract value of about $22 million. Over a dozen
other projects are in the pipeline.

The technology - small-scale, modular, multi-fuel, clean and profitable

Organic Power's solutions are based on standard gasification modules with
thermal output of 2MWth (waste throughput of up to 6,000 tonnes per annum).
By combining several modules, the EfW plants can be adapted to serve heat
energy users with a demand of up to 12 MWth (six modules with a combined
throughput of up to 36,000 tonnes per annum).

Each gasification module can use either sorted municipal waste, industrial
waste or biomass as feedstock. The technology can cope better than competing
technologies with feedstock of varying energy and moisture content.
Electricity generation is possible with the addition of extra equipment
(turbine, etc.) at the back-end but at the cost of lowered efficiency.

The market - large and mostly untapped

The potential market for Organic Power's gasification technology is huge.
Within Europe, the adoption of the Landfill Directive by member states means
that millions of tonnes of municipal waste need to be diverted from landfill
annually. For example, in the UK, the Environment Agency forecasts a need
for 40 - 130 EFW plants with annual throughputs of 150,000 tonnes per annum.

The potential demand for the technology is evidenced by the fact that eleven
projects (all in Scandinivia) are in varying stages of negotiations with
customers. If all eleven reach financial close, then the capital expenditure
required is about USD 106 million (UK£68 million). A further six tenders are
being prepared in response to invitations from potential customers (estimate
of capital expenditure = USD 88 million/£56 million).

Corporate strategy

Organic Power's corporate goal is two-fold. First, the company aims to be
highly profitably - a minimum annual return on equity of 15% per annum.
Second, it wants to play a significant role in the global market for
alternative energy.

To this end, Organic Power's management has identified four complementary
revenue streams:

· Sales of gasification modules: Contracts are signed with customers for the
design, construction and commissioning of Organic Power's EFW plants.

· Operation and maintenance: Organic Power contracts to operate and maintain
its EFW plants for an annual fee.

· Licence and royalty fees: Organic Power aims to enter new markets (the US
and the UK being foremost) via licensing agreements with local partners.
Licence fees are one-off fees payable when a licensing agreement is signed.
Royalty fees are payable per gasification module subsequently built by the
licensee.

Organic Power selected the licensing approach for new markets because (1) it
allows a faster penetration of vast foreign markets, (2) poses less
operational risks for shareholders and (3) allows a shorter time to
profitability.

· Engineering services: Organic Power provides engineering services to
strategic partners.

Organic Power's potential customers can be grouped into four types: (1)
utility companies, (2) waste management companies, (3) municipalities, and
(4) industrial companies. Marketing the product is by means of its own sales
force, regional licensees, local representatives and the Internet (see
www.organicpower.com).

The contact at Organic Power for interested investors is Mr. Ole Wiborg.
email: ole.wiborg@organicpower.com, tel: +47 23 11 59 00. Cell: +47 92 26
56 08.

-----Original Message-----
From: Motie
To:
Sent: 10/22/02 6:32 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Market for small scale gasifiers & open burning
regulations

> I have been very impressed with the dearth of knowledge on this
listserv.
>
> I am curious if anyone knows what the market is like for small scale
> gasifiers. The sort of markets that I would be looking at are smaller
scale
> i.e., farms, municipalities...

Victor,
This is not a simple question that you ask. You may be aware of that. A
simple answer is not possible. In my opinion, the market is weak, but
mostly
because there is no awareness of the availabilty of a small gasifier. I
am
very interested if you have something available in the size range of
50-350
tons/day. What types of materials are you capable of gasifying?
Feedstocks
can range from Municipal Solid Waste to farm crop residues to Coal, wood
or
Peat. Matching a Gasifier to the available feedstocks is critical, or
the
inverse, matching the feedstock to your Gasifier.
>
> Also, does anyone have any information on which states have enacted
open
> burning regulations? In other words, regulations that forbid local
burning?
> As far as I know, there are laws at the state level that forbid or
regulate
> local burning, but no Federal laws.

Regulate is a more proper term than forbid. I think all States regulate
burning in some way. There are exceptions to all regulations. 'Open
burning'
and 'gasifiers' do not seem to belong in the same conversation. Explain
your
thoughts?
>
> Thanks guys.
>
> -Victor Hsu
>

Motie

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 message has been scanned by F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft Exchange.
For more information, connect to http://www.F-Secure.com/

From rbaileys at prmenergy.com Tue Oct 22 11:58:27 2002
From: rbaileys at prmenergy.com (Ron Bailey)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: "SMALL/LARGE SCALE GASIFICATION"
Message-ID: <000201c27a05$0641dcc0$6701a8c0@RONSR>

Gasification list:

PRM Energy Systems, Inc. supplies Gasification Systems in a size range from
30 tons per day to 2,000 tons per day in the following configurations:

*PRME Close Coupled Direct Fired Boilers, Dryers, Kilns, Furnaces
*PRME Utility Boiler CoFiring Systems
*PRME Biomass Fired Engine Generator Systems
*PRME Biomass Fired Combustion Turbine Generator Systems
*PRME Indirect Fired Turbine Generator Systems

PRME's NaturallyTM Gas Technology is not experimental or "under
development", but has been commercially firing industrial boilers for over
twenty years. PRME systems are successfully operating on five (5)
continents gasifying over 1/2 million tons of biomass annually.

Please visit our web site: http://www.prmenergy.com for more information on
the PRME Gasification Technology and our activities.

Ron Bailey Sr.
rbaileys@prmenergy.com

From tombreed at attbi.com Thu Oct 24 06:24:55 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: > 10,000 gasifier types
In-Reply-To: <004d01c273ae$66d787e0$2a47fea9@md>
Message-ID: <05f901c27b3f$8fe9b750$a48cfd0c@TOMBREED>

Dear Paul and Aul:

When I was younger and I first started working on gasifiers at SERI/NREL, I
gave a talk to the Industrial Wood Energy Forum in 1982 on "Present Status
of Gasifiers in the U.S.". I claimed that there are a bewildering number of
gasifier types depending on the choices in the following 8 term matrix;

1. Fuel type (4): Wood, ag, densified, SMW
2. Fuel form: (2): Particulate, chunky
3. Fuel Feed: (2); Continuous Batch
4. Energy Source (4):
Partial combustion Air Oxygen
Pyrolysis slow Fast
5. Heat/Mass Contact (8)
Direct Suspension Fluidized
Downdraft Updraft
Indirect Liquids Solids Gases
Wall
6. Ash State (2) Molten Dry
7. Pressure (3) Suction low Positive
Elevated
8. Product mix (7) Gas Oil Char G/O G/C
O/C G/O/C
(Unfortunately there are no gasifiers in the "gas only" category).

Multiplying these options together we get 21, 504 types of gasifiers,
smaller than the 6 Million plus patents in the whole U.S. patent system, but
still allowing for a lot of creativity.

No doubt if I were doing it today I would get a different, probably larger,
number.

~~~~~~~~~~`
What to do in the face of so many possibilities?

I believe that the fundamental principles of gasification can be reduced to
a much smaller, (but still significant) number and that they would
automatically generate many of the above and eliminate a large number that
have low probability of working.

Unfortunately, no one funds research on the fundamental principles. I have
a number of seminal experiments in mind for when I get the time/money.

~~~~~~~~~
Lost of scope here for the inventors, none for the government labs.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders@ilstu.edu>
To: "Victor Hsu" <vjh201@stern.nyu.edu>; <stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Market for small scale gasifiers & open burning
regulations

> Victor,
>
> The discussion on "small scale gasifiers" has centered in the Stoves List
> Serve. If you are not subscribed there, I suggest that you do so.
>
> Much confusion on the meaning of "small scale". Mine are "tiny" or
> "micro". Gus Johansson's company in South Africa has a 6kwh unit that
sell
> for about US$14,000 complete with IC motor to run generator. And he has
> made others even smaller but focuses on 100 kwh and I think up to 300 kwh
> systems. He is elderly and not on any List Serve, but can be contacted
via
> me or via Tom Reed.
>
> Would you please define what is "small scale" and what you would actually
want.
>
> Paul
>
> At 11:15 PM 10/21/02 -0400, you wrote:
> >I have been very impressed with the dearth of knowledge on this listserv.
> >
> >I am curious if anyone knows what the market is like for small scale
> >gasifiers. The sort of markets that I would be looking at are smaller
scale
> >i.e., farms, municipalities...
> >
> >Also, does anyone have any information on which states have enacted open
> >burning regulations? In other words, regulations that forbid local
burning?
> >As far as I know, there are laws at the state level that forbid or
regulate
> >local burning, but no Federal laws.
> >
> >Thanks guys.
> >
> >-Victor Hsu
> >
> >
> >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
> >
> > >
>
> Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
> Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
> Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
> Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
> E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
>
>
> -
> 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
>

-
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 psanders at ilstu.edu Fri Oct 25 14:54:33 2002
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: Great persons in gasification - Gus Johansson
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20021025172914.01c16d10@mail.ilstu.edu>

Stovers and Gasifiers,

I have had the immense pleasure of knowing Mr. Gus Johansson, and I want to
make some comments to you, who can appreciate this man.

Gus is in his 80's and is not on either of the Stoves or Gasification list
serves. He lives on the edge of Johannesburg, South Africa, but is
originally from Sweden.

Put that information together, and you have a person who was in his 20's in
Sweden during World War II. AND he was working on gasification things
then, and has continued to work on gasification still to today.

To have breakfast with Gus is an educational experience. He has first-hand
stories about motor vehicles in Europe running on gasification during World
War II. For example, because of tars, etc, in the gases, the internal
combustion engines could only run for about 500 hours before needing a
complete overhaul, if not actual rebuilding of key parts. That helped me
understand why gasification vehicles did not become a success after that war.

So when he talks about building 6 kwh gasifiers, and 15 kwh and 100 kwh (he
has one in his far backyard that he will light for you) and on up to 300
kwh units, he speaks with authority.

He has several publications about the Johansson System that he freely
shares. Not that I can appreciate all of the top technical info, but I am
impressed. He also claims (and I totally believe him) to have solved the
problem of tars in the producer gas, but that is a trade secret that is
closely guarded.

**************
Tom Miles provided the following information:
The System Johansson Gasproducer is apparently also being developed by Eskom
Enterprises, a South African utlity
http://www.eskomenterprises.co.za/main/Casestudies/TSIcases/systemjohansson.htm

I [Tom Miles] understand that Gus has about a dozen systems operating. A
firm in the US is in the process of licensing the Johansson designs
suitable for 100 kWe CHP at a pilot
facility to be installed somewhere in the east.
************

On my several visits to his home I showed him my tiny Juntos gasifiers
(actually pyrolysis off-gas units or POGs as I am now calling them). He
taught me a lot about what is actually happening in those units, and his
comments were solidly founded in theory and practice.

We also discussed and lamented the lack of governmental and other support
for renewable biomass energy sources. Gus spoke of the decades of changes
in South Africa that supported and now does not support the planting of trees.

I met Gus via Tom Reed, who knows Gus much better than I do. And I decided
to write this tribute about one of the "great persons in gasification." I
hope you all have a chance to know him and appreciate his work.

Paul

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

From guillaume.brouillard at sympatico.ca Fri Oct 25 18:37:07 2002
From: guillaume.brouillard at sympatico.ca (Guillaume Brouillard)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: livestock gasification
Message-ID: <001b01c27c98$8de0fa40$2184acce@hp>

Hello everyone, I enjoy reading all posts on
this list! I have been looking towards bio-oil lately and wondered if one of you
might have an idea as to how much more energy could be taken from gasification
of whole animal carcases such as bovines and swine than from converting the
melted fat into bio-oil for firing up a furnace or operating a diesel
engine. Is there such a project going on somewhere in your knowlwdge? Would the
extra BTUs gained from the bone, hair, skin and muscle tissue burning be worth
the extra effort? Sorry, it may sound morbid but at least Babe and Barney the
beef's mortal remains might just serve science one last time and even
heat and light our homes!

Greetings

Bill Fohg

From hseaver at cybershamanix.com Fri Oct 25 19:12:45 2002
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: 100KW size? (was Re: GAS-L: Great persons in gasification - Gus Johansson)
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20021025172914.01c16d10@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <20021026030903.GA19847@cybershamanix.com>

On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 05:58:37PM -0500, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
> Stovers and Gasifiers,

(snip)
>
> So when he talks about building 6 kwh gasifiers, and 15 kwh and 100 kwh (he
> has one in his far backyard that he will light for you) and on up to 300
> kwh units, he speaks with authority.

(snip)

> I [Tom Miles] understand that Gus has about a dozen systems operating. A
> firm in the US is in the process of licensing the Johansson designs
> suitable for 100 kWe CHP at a pilot
> facility to be installed somewhere in the east.
> ******

About how large is a 100K gasifier and how much woodchips per hr would one
take?

--
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 tombreed at attbi.com Tue Oct 29 04:16:11 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier terminology clarification
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20021028153910.01b1ef00@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <022e01c27f23$94971f30$a48cfd0c@TOMBREED>

Dear Paul and aul:

Concerning the choice of "pyrolyser" of "gasifier" or "pyrolytic gasifier":

There are many kinds of gasifiers (>20,000 by my recent note). ALL
gasifiers (and combustors) by necessity include a pyrolytic stage as they go
through the heating from 20-500C which releases volatiles and sometimes
partially oxidized (to CH4, CO and H2) pyrolytic gases (in flaming
pyrolysis). Other gasifiers then (at higher temperatures) gasify the
charcoal for a higher production of gas, less charcoal.

So if we stop at the end of the flaming pyrolysis, Wendelbroe chooses to
call it a pyrolyser. We are talking about the same reality. These fine
points are more than the average user can absorb, so I choose to call it a
gasifier.

Only heavy duty steam reforming or oxidation can get rid of all tars, so all
gasifiers produce some char, some tar and some gas. Just a difference of
proportions. I suspect that the tars in our "inverted downdraft gasifiers"
might be as high as 1% and I hope to measure them soon.

~~~~~
Sounds like Wendelbroe and company have lost interest, since I haven't heard
since. Please see if you can find Per S. Nielson at Danish Technical
University and send him an Email. I'm curious too.

Onward, TOM REED

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders@ilstu.edu>
To: <stoves@crest.org>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 2:45 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: History of small gasifiers. Re: straw briquettes

> Tom Reed sent this great attachment about this 1996 gasifier.
>
> >Dear Paul:
> >
> >On my "World Odyssey Trip" in 1996 I heard the Wendelbro stove discussed
at
> >the Danish Technical University and tracked it down. Attached is a
> >description. They call it a pyrolysis stove - I call it a gasifier
stove,
> >but some deal as far as I can see.
> Tom, Can you say why you call it a gasifier, when in fact it seems to
> depend on pyrolysis?
>
> Also, is there any background about when he actually got started building
> it. You began in 1985 and published in 1995, but no indication in the
> bibliography of the attachment about how this Wendelbro got started.
>
> >Have they lost interest?
> >
> >TOM
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders@ilstu.edu>
> >To: <english@kingston.net>; <stoves@crest.org>
> >Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 9:06 AM
> >Subject: Re: History of small gasifiers. Re: straw briquettes
> >
> > > Stovers,
> > >
> > > Alex sent this informative message. I wonder if anyone can carry this
> >lead
> > > any further, such as to contact Per S. Nielsen.
> > >
>

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

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

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

> -
> 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 psanders at ilstu.edu Tue Oct 29 06:33:55 2002
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Re: Gasifier terminology clarification
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20021028153910.01b1ef00@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20021029085736.01c22100@mail.ilstu.edu>

Stovers and Gasifiers

Tom's recent message did not go to the Stovers, so I have left it in the
message below.

I have no problem understanding the term pyrolysis or pyrolyser or
pyrolytic. The problem come with the term "gasify" because it is so vague
in general usage and (see below) used so specifically by
professionals. (see below)

At 01:17 AM 10/29/02 -0700, Tom Reed wrote:
>Dear Paul and aul:
>
>Concerning the choice of "pyrolyser" of "gasifier" or "pyrolytic gasifier":
>
>There are many kinds of gasifiers (>20,000 by my recent note). ALL
>gasifiers (and combustors) by necessity include a pyrolytic stage as they go
>through the heating from 20-500C which releases volatiles and sometimes
>partially oxidized (to CH4, CO and H2) pyrolytic gases (in flaming
>pyrolysis). Other gasifiers then (at higher temperatures) gasify the
>charcoal for a higher production of gas, less charcoal.
SOMEHOW, substitute a different word for "gasify" in the previous
sentence. OR give us a modifier (adjective) to refer to "XYZ gasify". A
generic word that means "to make into a gas" cannot also mean a SPECIFIC
type of making into a gas. Even "high temperature gasification" is inadequate.

It is better that the experts give us the defining terms (complete with
adjectives or distinctive names for each "specific act of gasification")
than to let the laypersons give those labels.

>So if we stop at the end of the flaming pyrolysis, Wendelbroe chooses to
>call it a pyrolyser. We are talking about the same reality. These fine
>points are more than the average user can absorb, so I choose to call it a
>gasifier.

I can accept it either way, with the understanding that if asked what kind
of gasifier it is, we would need to say that it is a
pyrolysis-gasifier or a pyrolysis-based gasifier or some other equally
specific term.

Likewise, the big systems are also gasifiers, but if asked what kind of
gasifier they are, then they are "full-system biomass-to-ash
pyrolsysis-plus-XYZ reductive blah-blah-blah CO-generator
gasifiers" (shortened to be a "FSBTAPPXYZRBBBCG gasifier") NOTE the
humor intended, because this name is not user-friendly.

In other words, what do you call the type of gasification that occurs in
the big gasifiers AFTER the pyrolysis process takes place?

Paul

>Only heavy duty steam reforming or oxidation can get rid of all tars, so all
>gasifiers produce some char, some tar and some gas. Just a difference of
>proportions. I suspect that the tars in our "inverted downdraft gasifiers"
>might be as high as 1% and I hope to measure them soon.
>
>~~~~~
>Sounds like Wendelbroe and company have lost interest, since I haven't heard
>since. Please see if you can find Per S. Nielson at Danish Technical
>University and send him an Email. I'm curious too.
>
>Onward, TOM REED

From tmiles at trmiles.com Tue Oct 29 08:49:24 2002
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier Annual Use and Engine Life
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20021025172914.01c16d10@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <019001c27f72$f891f6f0$6601a8c0@tommain>

Paul,

Thanks for the update and kind regards to Gus, who has inspired many of by his
example.

During a visit to his farm in 1985 (Tom Reed and other attendees from a conference,
Forest Products International, hosted by the South African CSIR) I were impressed by
the fact that Gus had generated power with a gasifier for more than 1200 hours. At
that time the longest monitored testing that I knew of was by TPS (Sweden) at 900
hours. The requirement for most CHP systems would be 4,000-6,000 hours per year.

What would Gus, or others on the list, consider to be a reasonable annual operation
and engine life for a 200 kWe system?

The answers of course will be subject to the degree of gas cleaning as Doug Williams
and others have commented. See
http://www.repp.org/discussion/gasification/200208/msg00032.html and Fluidyne Website
>Engine Tables www.fluidynenz.250x.com and
http://www.repp.org/discussion/gasification/200201/msg00004.html

So far on this list some have quoted manufacturer's nameplate periods like 10,000
hours between overhauls. What has the practical experience been with annual operation
and engine life for spark ignition and dual fuelled diesel engines?

What are the annual use and engine life targets for companies building gasogensets?

Regards,

Tom Miles

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders@ilstu.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 2:58 PM
Subject: GAS-L: Great persons in gasification - Gus Johansson

> To have breakfast with Gus is an educational experience. He has first-hand
> stories about motor vehicles in Europe running on gasification during World
> War II. For example, because of tars, etc, in the gases, the internal
> combustion engines could only run for about 500 hours before needing a
> complete overhaul, if not actual rebuilding of key parts. That helped me
> understand why gasification vehicles did not become a success after that war.

From andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Tue Oct 29 11:56:04 2002
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (AJH)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier Annual Use and Engine Life
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20021025172914.01c16d10@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <2fstrus9igpcjr0uodhle5d4a1f7e81s23@4ax.com>

On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:45:25 -0800, "Tom Miles" <tmiles@trmiles.com>
wrote:

> The requirement for most CHP systems would be 4,000-6,000 hours per year.

The figure of 8000 is more generally used here in UK.

Now with regard to micro chp (which I will hazard a definition as "chp
for personal use" rather than chp for onward sale of heat and
electricity):

Our little diesel genset runs 8 hrs, 5 days a week, It replaced one
that ran 20k hours without major overhaul.

>What are the annual use and engine life targets for companies building gasogensets?

This must also depend on the capital cost of the engine, e.g. our
10kVA genset cost us GBP6000, we anticipate an engine life of > 20k
hours, however there are considerable servicing costs of labour and
parts. Ford licensed an engine designed for outboard use, this was a
total loss lubrication 2 stroke engine. The theory was that a total
loss engine had a constant oil use throughout its life, whereas a
recycled lubrication system burned more oil as the engine became worn.
It contained no serviceable parts, I never did hear what happened to
it. So at what stage would it be worth using a 13hp Honda engine at
GBP400 and replacing it each year?

I know NRI did an analysis of engine wear on 2 engines run on producer
gas (CO and Nitrogen) from a char gasifier and concluded engine life
was not noticeably altered.

Can anyone cite the mechanisms for reduced engine life? I can see
condensation of tars and contamination of oil as reasons for frequent
overhauls and oil changes but the only wear mechanism I can see ( as
long as the lubricant remains in spec)is ash getting into the engine.
IIRC this only becomes a problem when the ash particles are greater
than the depth of lubricant film on the part affected.

AJH

From tmiles at trmiles.com Tue Oct 29 17:39:05 2002
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier Annual Use and Engine Life
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20021025172914.01c16d10@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <001501c27fbc$f6543c50$6601a8c0@tommain>

Andrew,

8,000 hours per year makes the payback look good but is it realistic for small scale
CHP?

When I have visited CHP plants in Denmark, or looked at the duty of CHP in other
locations, it appears that the heat loads and actual run time of the small scale
plants is about 4000-5000 hour per year. Some even shut down on weekends.

If you're running a CHP gasifier do you generate power when you have no heat load?
Our sawmills often use an air cooled condenser to waste heat for balancing dry kiln
loads with turbine demand for full power generation. I suppose that could easily be
done with a gasifier CHP. In northern latititudes it would be pretty easy to waste
heat for a small scale system.

Tom

----- Original Message -----
From: "AJH" <andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com>
To: "gasification" <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Gasifier Annual Use and Engine Life

> On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:45:25 -0800, "Tom Miles" <tmiles@trmiles.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The requirement for most CHP systems would be 4,000-6,000 hours per year.
>
> The figure of 8000 is more generally used here in UK.

From contacto at calipso.com.co Tue Oct 29 17:42:34 2002
From: contacto at calipso.com.co (Contactos Mundiales)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE: Looking for small coal gasifiers
Message-ID: <000101c27fbd$217a39c0$84cb0dc8@luiscalz>

Hi list members:

We are looking for manufacturers of small
coal
gasifiers to feed boilers in the range of 30 to
50
million BTU/hr and wonder if any member can
suggest names of manufacturers.

Many thanks in advance,

Luis R. Calzadilla
<A
href="mailto:contacto@calipso.com.co">contacto@calipso.com.co

From andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com Wed Oct 30 00:00:17 2002
From: andrew.heggie at dtn.ntl.com (AJH)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gasifier Annual Use and Engine Life
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20021025172914.01c16d10@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <vp6vrugkhu3msrvt0s6sh5c55b08e3uno6@4ax.com>

On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 18:35:04 -0800, "Tom Miles" <tmiles@trmiles.com>
wrote:

>Andrew,
>
>8,000 hours per year makes the payback look good but is it realistic for small scale
>CHP?

It must depend on you definition of small scale. Our town centre is
run on a natural gas chp system and ic engines. 6 months of the year
it provides heat from exhaust and coolant and summer time it runs an
absorbtion cooling system, mind you hot here is about 25C, not the 40C
I experienced when Macys were spilling 19C air out onto the sidewalk
via their garage, not to mention all the taxis and police parked up
with engines running spilling heat onto the sidewalk!
>
>When I have visited CHP plants in Denmark, or looked at the duty of CHP in other
>locations, it appears that the heat loads and actual run time of the small scale
>plants is about 4000-5000 hour per year. Some even shut down on weekends.

This is not a big problem to me, once the amortisation of capital is
budgeted for. In uk it is not unusual for a farmer to have a capital
spend on grain harvesting systems that are only used 50hrs a year.

>
>If you're running a CHP gasifier do you generate power when you have no heat load?

We are running a *diesel* powered chp genset, it dumps heat to a
radiator when the heat is not required. The additional cost of a
gasifier would not be justified in our private wire system as none of
the renewable incentives apply. Gasoil costs ~GBP0.02/kWhr and dry
wood chips would approach this price.

>Our sawmills often use an air cooled condenser to waste heat for balancing dry kiln
>loads with turbine demand for full power generation. I suppose that could easily be
>done with a gasifier CHP. In northern latititudes it would be pretty easy to waste
>heat for a small scale system.

I know some of our furniture factories in developed areas have "wood
Heating" systems, they consist of a few hot air units and rows of
calorifiers on the roof, my take on this has been that the regulations
for wood heating systems are easier to comply with than those for
incinerators ;-).

AJH

From gregandapril at earthlink.net Wed Oct 30 08:41:58 2002
From: gregandapril at earthlink.net (Greg and April)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: Fw: GAS-L: livestock gasification
Message-ID: <00ad01c28039$891a7960$0100a8c0@maincomputer>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg and April" <gregandapril@earthlink.net>
To: "Guillaume Brouillard" <guillaume.brouillard@sympatico.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 13:13
Subject: Re: GAS-L: livestock gasification

> One thing for sure, you would have a lot more ash to deal with. By useing
> the fat/tallow/lard, you use something might otherwise be tossed out.
With
> the bone, you have a lot of ash to deal with, despite the oils in it. If
you
> toss a large bone into the fireplace, you will find it takes a bit before
it
> releases it's oils and after it has 'burned' out, you still have a large
> chunk of material left, and you have to deal with that.
>
> Greg H.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Guillaume Brouillard" <guillaume.brouillard@sympatico.ca>
> To: <gasification@crest.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 19:36
> Subject: GAS-L: livestock gasification
>
>
> I have been looking towards bio-oil lately and wondered if one of you
might
> have an idea as to how much more energy could be taken from gasification
of
> whole animal carcases such as bovines and swine than from converting the
> melted fat into bio-oil for firing up a furnace or operating a diesel
> engine. Is there such a project going on somewhere in your knowlwdge?
Would
> the extra BTUs gained from the bone, hair, skin and muscle tissue burning
be
> worth the extra effort? Sorry, it may sound morbid but at least Babe and
> Barney the beef's mortal remains might just serve science one last time
and
> even heat and light our homes!
> Greetings
> Bill Fohg
>
>

From Tkbe00 at aol.com Wed Oct 30 19:33:15 2002
From: Tkbe00 at aol.com (Tkbe00@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: cancel subscription to list
Message-ID: <77.115c7a5.2af20bb8@aol.com>

From tombreed at attbi.com Thu Oct 31 13:50:59 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: virus
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021031202419.00a507c0@pop3.oninet.pt>
Message-ID: <003b01c2812f$830787b0$a48cfd0c@TOMBREED>

Dear Valentino:

I use Norton Antivirus and it checks all my
outgoing mail and incoming. I get 1-2 Klez viruses a day, but am fully
immune.

Yours truly, TOM REED
<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:
valentino
barroso
To: <A title=tombreed@attbi.com
href="mailto:tombreed@attbi.com">Tom Reed
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 1:30
PM
Subject: GAS-L: virus
Dear Mr. Tom Reed,I affraid that group
GAS-L was sending klez.eml.Yours trulyValentino
Barroso

From tmiles at trmiles.com Thu Oct 31 16:16:51 2002
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:09 2004
Subject: GAS-L: virus
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021031202419.00a507c0@pop3.oninet.pt>
Message-ID: <01af01c28143$cf398340$6601a8c0@tommain>

Valentino,

Thanks for the warning.

Did you receive a message from Gas-L with a
Klez.eml virus attached? Or did you receive a message (allegedly from) from
a Gas-L member that had a klez.emul virus? Klez is capable of making a message
look like it came from anyone in someone's address list.

Like Tom my anti-virus cleans several
messages a day. Sometimes the apparent sender is a list member. I
don't know if I have received one from the server. If you have received one
send the cleaned copy of the message with the full header to Damian Kostiuk
at CREST dkostiuk@repp.org

Thanks

Tom Miles

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

To: <A title=v.barroso@oninet.pt
href="mailto:v.barroso@oninet.pt">valentino barroso ; <A
title=gasification@crest.org
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 2:47
PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: virus

Dear Valentino:

I use Norton Antivirus and it checks all my
outgoing mail and incoming. I get 1-2 Klez viruses a day, but am fully
immune.

Yours truly, TOM REED
<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:
valentino
barroso
To: <A title=tombreed@attbi.com
href="mailto:tombreed@attbi.com">Tom Reed
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 1:30
PM
Subject: GAS-L: virus
Dear Mr. Tom Reed,I affraid that group
GAS-L was sending klez.eml.Yours trulyValentino
Barroso

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

October 2002 Gasification Archive