September 2002 Gasification Archive

From venusengineers at eth.net Sun Sep 1 02:32:04 2002
From: venusengineers at eth.net (krishnaswamy)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:06 2004
Subject: GAS-L: A plague of criticism, any solutions?
In-Reply-To: <20020827114133.24916.qmail@web11704.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00de01c251a1$11972da0$8296fea9@trk>

Dear Luiz, Fred,
Kevin,Verma, et al,

I think we need to
take a nuanced approach and desist from making sweeping generalisations about
gasification economics which may not be valid for all countries. While it is
true that the cost of biomass harvesting (a labour intensive activity) in
developed economies may be quite high and the soil productivity lower thus
rendering the cost advantage unattractive, the situation in India (and other
tropical countries) is entirely different.
<FONT color=#000000 face="Century Gothic"
size=3>
For instance, we
have installed several gasification systems for both thermal and electrical
applications (replacing fossil fuels such as Light Diesel Oil, High Speed Diesel
& Heavy Furnace Oil) at various geographical locations in India, and in most
cases the total capital investment has been recovered from 12-18 months. The
brief economics are as follows. I have given the figures in US currency
(and in Indian Rs. in brackets) considering exchange rate of Rs. 48/00 per US
$.
<FONT color=#000000
face="Century Gothic">
1) Landed cost of
biomass/kg = 2.08 US cents (Re. 1.00)
2) Calorific
equivalence of High Speed oil Diesel (or other oil) to biomass = 1:3.5
(Considering cold gas efficiency 85%)
3) Equivalent cost of
biomass for 1 Lt. of = 2.08 x 3.5 = 7.29 cents (Rs. 3.50)
4) Cost of O & M on
the gasification system/ lt of oil equivalent = 3.65 cents ( Rs.
1.75)
5) Interest and
amortisation costs/lt. of oil equivalent = 4.06 cents(Rs. 1.95)(@ 17.5% p.a. on
straight-line basis)
6) Total cost of biomass
energy/ lt of oil equivalent = 15 cents (Rs. 7.20)
7) Landed cost of
oil/lt. = 40.21 US Cents (Rs. 19.30)
8) Savings in diesel in
switching to biomass gasification/lt of oil equivalent = 25.21 cents (Rs.
12.10)

You will therefore
find that biomass is extremely attractive on economic considerations alone
in this neck of the woods. The numbers are valid for both thermal and
electrical applications and, from 01-04-02, the delivered cost of fossil
fuels is benchmarked to world prices (barring cross subsidies to the transport
and domestic sectors). Since the cost of diesel is currently partly
cross-subsidised by gasoline, the real savings would certainly be brighter in a
more equitable world.

So all of us need
not spread doom and gloom about its future till the dawn of a golden era
when fossil fuel depletion, mandatory carbon trading, and other such extraneous
props will underpin the biomass economy.
<FONT color=#000000 face="Century Gothic"
size=3>
I also agree with
Fred that the biomass productivity based on per hectare yields are lower than
the ground reality.
<FONT color=#000000 face="Century Gothic"
size=3>

<FONT color=#000000
face="Century Gothic">Regards.

T R
Krisnaswamy,

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

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

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

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

From t.dixon at sri.org.au Sun Sep 1 10:48:54 2002
From: t.dixon at sri.org.au (Terry Dixon)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:06 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Engine Experience
Message-ID: <OFDBB0DE94.DABD7104-ON4A256C27.0065FF34-4A256C27.006706A6@sri.org.au>

Dear Tom and All,

Ah ah ah ah !!! The sobering questioning of hard (and harsh !) reality !
Excellent. The inevitable shift in focus from the R&D perspective to the
commercial reality perspective. I'll be very interested to read the
responses to this one. For me (in the Australian sugar industry context,
and I dare say in a similar context for many others), the issues that you
question, of annual operating hours and maintenance period hours, are
CRUCIAL for commercial reality and viability long term. Unless
gasification can deliver at 4500+ hours, maybe 8000+, continuous (no
shutdowns), and overhaul of 8000+ hours, then forget it !!!

Terry Dixon
Sugar Research Institute
AUSTRALIA

----- Forwarded by Terry Dixon/SRI on 02/09/2002 04:34 -----

"Tom Miles"
<tmiles@trmile To: <gasification@crest.org>
s.com> cc:
Subject: GAS-L: Engine Experience
01/09/2002
16:05

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

Tom Miles

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

This email message (including any file attachments transmitted with it) is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information. Any unauthorised alteration, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please
notify the sender by return email and destroy all copies of the original
message.

Any confidentiality or legal professional privilege is not waived or lost
by any mistaken delivery of the email.

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

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

From hseaver at cybershamanix.com Sun Sep 1 12:14:54 2002
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:06 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Engine Experience
In-Reply-To: <OFDBB0DE94.DABD7104-ON4A256C27.0065FF34-4A256C27.006706A6@sri.org.au>
Message-ID: <20020901191511.GA12389@cybershamanix.com>

Having rebuilt many engines, I'd think 8000 hours is really pushing it. You
might get that out of a diesel, but no where near that from a non-diesel and
even then there will be a lot of efficiency lost before anywhere near that many
hours. And that's not taking problems from tars, etc. into consideration at all.
My plan is to buy several used diesel engines, always keeping at least one
fully funtioning unit in reserve and then just rebuilding as need be. It's not
all that big a deal to rebuild -- unless, I suppose, you're paying a shop to do
it for you, which would be pretty expensive.
Also, expecting there to be *no* shutdowns is extremely unrealistic -- if you
don't do the proper periodic maintenance, your engines won't last long. Changing
oil, adjusting valves, etc. is crucial.
It might also be that using reciprocating IC engines just isn't a good idea in
the long run -- perhaps turbines, especially the Tesla turbine, could well prove
to be the most cost effective way to go, and perhaps also with the addition of
some steam.

On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 04:45:12AM +1000, Terry Dixon wrote:
> Dear Tom and All,
>
> Ah ah ah ah !!! The sobering questioning of hard (and harsh !) reality !
> Excellent. The inevitable shift in focus from the R&D perspective to the
> commercial reality perspective. I'll be very interested to read the
> responses to this one. For me (in the Australian sugar industry context,
> and I dare say in a similar context for many others), the issues that you
> question, of annual operating hours and maintenance period hours, are
> CRUCIAL for commercial reality and viability long term. Unless
> gasification can deliver at 4500+ hours, maybe 8000+, continuous (no
> shutdowns), and overhaul of 8000+ hours, then forget it !!!
>
> Terry Dixon
> Sugar Research Institute
> AUSTRALIA
>
> ----- Forwarded by Terry Dixon/SRI on 02/09/2002 04:34 -----
>
> "Tom Miles"
> <tmiles@trmile To: <gasification@crest.org>
> s.com> cc:
> Subject: GAS-L: Engine Experience
> 01/09/2002
> 16:05
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What has the experience been with engines and gasifiers? What are the
> maintenace requirements? What is the typical annual use, 2000 hours? Are
> there any that operate 6000 to 8000 hours per year? What is the expected
> life? What are the actual maintenance intrevals? What facilities and
> equipment are necessary for engine maintenance that are different than for
> automotive or diesel power generation? What engines (make and model) work
> well: Waukesha? Caterpiller? Lister?
>
> The most used engines for producer gas seem to be modified natural gas or
> LP engines or diesels that are run as dual fueled. Are oil and air filter
> change intrevals the same for producer gas as for LP? Every 150 hours? What
> other maintenance needs to be done?What is the expected engine life
> compared with actual engine life for LP or duel fueled diesels on producer
> gas? Can we expect an overhaul with producer gas after 2000 hours? Is
> engine life 10000 hours? After than what needs to be done?
>
> What has the experience been with converting existing diesels to dual
> fueled applications? Good? Bad? What works and what doesn't work?
>
> What is a practical genset size? Do the 500 kWe engine-gensets that we have
> seen promoted actually survive? If you were doing distributed generation at
> 200 kWe what would you use? Four 50 kWe or larger gensets?
>
> What's the experience with derating? What's the actual power production for
> an engine rated for LP or diesel? If you were sizing a new system for 200
> kWe how would you specify the engine?
>
> We understand from the more successful gasifier-genset suppliers that
> engine applications need a well organized "support system." What support
> does a 50-200 kWe gasogen need?
>
> Moisture in the fuel. If I make "bad" gas because of wet fuel does the
> engine care? What kinds of problems result from wet fuel? What range of
> gasifier fuel moisture can an engine tolerate without excessive derating?
>
> Where does one go for engine experience or information about the use of
> engines with gasifiers(what documents or web links)? Are there test block
> benchmark performance tests for producer gas?
>
> These are a lot of ignorant questions from one who is often asked for
> direction. Until I use a gasogen to keep my own electronics on standby I'll
> have to rely on the experience of others. Thank you for your contributions.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Tom Miles
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
>
> 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

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

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

From snkm at btl.net Sun Sep 1 12:52:20 2002
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:06 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Engine Experience
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20020902024227.009a6e90@wgs1.btl.net>

At 02:15 PM 9/1/2002 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> It might also be that using reciprocating IC engines just isn't a good
idea in
>the long run -- perhaps turbines, especially the Tesla turbine, could well
prove
>to be the most cost effective way to go, and perhaps also with the
addition of
>some steam.
>

Or --

How about a conventional biomass furnace/boiler and steam turbine??

What purpose gasification??

What difference between gasification and well designed combustion furnace??

What specific advantages are there to going gasification??

The goal is higher over all thermal efficiencies for a reasonable price
with at least the reliability of the system to be replaced -- no??

Tesla turbine superseding the steam turbine??

Seriously -- you joke -- right??

I can detail the problems with steam -- starts with exceptional
temperatures and pressures to get into the right ball park for high
"over-all" efficiencies.

Steam Turbines are only expensive when having to handle those high
temperatures.

You can marry an Ormat refrigerant working fluid turbine system to any
conventional bagasse fired boiler -- end up with double the thermal
efficiencies -- and double the reliability.

Ormat or any geothermal turbine system.

And at half the cost of a "gasifier" --

The name of this game is converting thermal energy in biomass to usable
"power" at an efficient rate -- reliability for extended periods.

I am presently accumulating old style Lister Diesels -- but built new from
India.

6 HP -- 650 RPM -- huge heavy reliable.

I will convert one to a uniflow steam engine operating with butane as
working fluid.

It will be reliable --

A simple combustion process is all that will be required.

No special fuel "conditioning" -- such a compressing (pellets) -- sizing
(chipping -- etc) or drying to within special limits for proper operation.

Marry a Hurst boiler to an Ormat -- and forget gasification running IC
engines.

Ormats run 30 years and more -- no maintenance!!

Hurst follows close behind --

Fuel is near anything -- to 55% humidity.

What are you beating your brains over??

Plus -- you can get quotes for all the above in a week or less -- from 100
kw to 10 megs worth of biomass power -- and up and running in less than 8
months!

We do not lack for solutions -- we lack the vision to apply them.

Peter Singfield
Belize

>
>On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 04:45:12AM +1000, Terry Dixon wrote:
>> Dear Tom and All,
>>
>> Ah ah ah ah !!! The sobering questioning of hard (and harsh !) reality !
>> Excellent. The inevitable shift in focus from the R&D perspective to the
>> commercial reality perspective. I'll be very interested to read the
>> responses to this one. For me (in the Australian sugar industry context,
>> and I dare say in a similar context for many others), the issues that you
>> question, of annual operating hours and maintenance period hours, are
>> CRUCIAL for commercial reality and viability long term. Unless
>> gasification can deliver at 4500+ hours, maybe 8000+, continuous (no
>> shutdowns), and overhaul of 8000+ hours, then forget it !!!
>>
>> Terry Dixon
>> Sugar Research Institute
>> AUSTRALIA
>>
>> ----- Forwarded by Terry Dixon/SRI on 02/09/2002 04:34 -----
>>

>> "Tom Miles"

>> <tmiles@trmile To:
<gasification@crest.org>
>> s.com> cc:

>> Subject: GAS-L: Engine
Experience
>> 01/09/2002

>> 16:05

>>

>>

>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What has the experience been with engines and gasifiers? What are the
>> maintenace requirements? What is the typical annual use, 2000 hours? Are
>> there any that operate 6000 to 8000 hours per year? What is the expected
>> life? What are the actual maintenance intrevals? What facilities and
>> equipment are necessary for engine maintenance that are different than for
>> automotive or diesel power generation? What engines (make and model) work
>> well: Waukesha? Caterpiller? Lister?
>>
>> The most used engines for producer gas seem to be modified natural gas or
>> LP engines or diesels that are run as dual fueled. Are oil and air filter
>> change intrevals the same for producer gas as for LP? Every 150 hours? What
>> other maintenance needs to be done?What is the expected engine life
>> compared with actual engine life for LP or duel fueled diesels on producer
>> gas? Can we expect an overhaul with producer gas after 2000 hours? Is
>> engine life 10000 hours? After than what needs to be done?
>>
>> What has the experience been with converting existing diesels to dual
>> fueled applications? Good? Bad? What works and what doesn't work?
>>
>> What is a practical genset size? Do the 500 kWe engine-gensets that we have
>> seen promoted actually survive? If you were doing distributed generation at
>> 200 kWe what would you use? Four 50 kWe or larger gensets?
>>
>> What's the experience with derating? What's the actual power production for
>> an engine rated for LP or diesel? If you were sizing a new system for 200
>> kWe how would you specify the engine?
>>
>> We understand from the more successful gasifier-genset suppliers that
>> engine applications need a well organized "support system." What support
>> does a 50-200 kWe gasogen need?
>>
>> Moisture in the fuel. If I make "bad" gas because of wet fuel does the
>> engine care? What kinds of problems result from wet fuel? What range of
>> gasifier fuel moisture can an engine tolerate without excessive derating?
>>
>> Where does one go for engine experience or information about the use of
>> engines with gasifiers(what documents or web links)? Are there test block
>> benchmark performance tests for producer gas?
>>
>> These are a lot of ignorant questions from one who is often asked for
>> direction. Until I use a gasogen to keep my own electronics on standby I'll
>> have to rely on the experience of others. Thank you for your contributions.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Tom Miles
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------
>>
>> 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
>
>--
>Harmon Seaver
>CyberShamanix
>http://www.cybershamanix.com
>
>-
>Gasification List Archives:
>http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
>
>Gasification List Moderator:
>Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com
>www.webpan.com/BEF
>List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
>List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>
>
>Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
>-
>Other Gasification Events and Information:
>http://www.bioenergy2002.org
>http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
>http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
>http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon
>
>

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

From hseaver at cybershamanix.com Sun Sep 1 15:46:13 2002
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:06 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Engine Experience
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020902024227.009a6e90@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <20020901224629.GB12389@cybershamanix.com>

On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:45:03AM -0500, Peter Singfield wrote:
> At 02:15 PM 9/1/2002 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> > It might also be that using reciprocating IC engines just isn't a good
> idea in
> >the long run -- perhaps turbines, especially the Tesla turbine, could well
> prove
> >to be the most cost effective way to go, and perhaps also with the
> addition of
> >some steam.
> >
>
> Or --
>
> How about a conventional biomass furnace/boiler and steam turbine??
>
> What purpose gasification??

To meet emission standards?

>
> What difference between gasification and well designed combustion furnace??
>

I don't know about large-scale industrial furnaces/boilers, but the only
really decent, clean-burning wood fired boilers for homes at least are
gasifiers. Like the Kuenzel and Tarm.

> What specific advantages are there to going gasification??
>
> The goal is higher over all thermal efficiencies for a reasonable price
> with at least the reliability of the system to be replaced -- no??
>
> Tesla turbine superseding the steam turbine??
>
The Tesla can be run on steam (most are, in fact) or combustion fired.

> Seriously -- you joke -- right??
>

Not at all.

> I can detail the problems with steam -- starts with exceptional
> temperatures and pressures to get into the right ball park for high
> "over-all" efficiencies.
>
> Steam Turbines are only expensive when having to handle those high
> temperatures.
>

Thats just one of the ways Teslas are better than conventional turbines --
cheaper to build and last longer.

> You can marry an Ormat refrigerant working fluid turbine system to any
> conventional bagasse fired boiler -- end up with double the thermal
> efficiencies -- and double the reliability.
>
> Ormat or any geothermal turbine system.
>

Tesla turbines are also run with fluids in this manner.

> And at half the cost of a "gasifier" --
>
> The name of this game is converting thermal energy in biomass to usable
> "power" at an efficient rate -- reliability for extended periods.
>
But you also have to meet clean air standards, at least in the US and Europe,
and I'd think you'd have a bit of trouble doing that if the biomass isn't
gasified, then the gas burned. Even in the small homesized wood burning boilers
you see pretty horrific pollution except with the gasifiers.

You may well be right about a closed fluid turbine system being the best
solution.

(rest snipped)

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

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

From d.rl at virgin.net Sun Sep 1 16:43:35 2002
From: d.rl at virgin.net (David Reynolds-Lacey)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Engine Experience
In-Reply-To: <00bf01c2517d$a6f940f0$0301a8c0@tomslaptop>
Message-ID: <3D72B3DA.BB181463@virgin.net>

Tom,

You've kind of taken the wind out of my sails with
your post because those are some of the questions
that I was going to ask as part of my next post. I
was also going to raise some questions about steam
turbines and flash steam as an viable? alternative
to gasification but now that seems to be being
covered briefly but are there any more comments on
steam?

I append the other questions that I was going to
ask.

What are the advantages of running a diesel engine
on gas if gas is to be the sole fuel (can it be?),
I presume the engine will need to be converted to
spark, so would it be better to use a petroleum
engine?
Is there a stage when a gas turbine becomes
preferable to a reciprocating engine?
What additional problems (if any) can one expect
with a gas turbine and does the gas need to be
pre-processed in any different way to gas for a
reciprocating engine?

Is it feasible to store producer gas?

David

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

From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Sun Sep 1 16:46:18 2002
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Engine Experience
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020902024227.009a6e90@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3D72B342.FCBE79D@ca.inter.net>

Dear Harmon

Harmon Seaver wrote:
>
>
> > Tesla turbine superseding the steam turbine??
> >
> The Tesla can be run on steam (most are, in fact) or combustion fired.
>
> > Seriously -- you joke -- right??
> >
>
> Not at all.
>
Is there anybody manufacturing Tesla Turbines? What is
their efficiency?

> > I can detail the problems with steam -- starts with exceptional
> > temperatures and pressures to get into the right ball park for high
> > "over-all" efficiencies.
> >
> > Steam Turbines are only expensive when having to handle those high
> > temperatures.
> >
>
> Thats just one of the ways Teslas are better than conventional turbines --
> cheaper to build and last longer.

I understand that as an "expansion engine" a
conventional steam turbine has an efficiency of about
85%. Would you agree or disagree with this?
What would be a comparable "expansion engine
efficiency" for a Tesla Turbine?
>
...del...>
> > And at half the cost of a "gasifier" --
> >
> > The name of this game is converting thermal energy in biomass to usable
> > "power" at an efficient rate -- reliability for extended periods.
> >
> But you also have to meet clean air standards, at least in the US and Europe,
> and I'd think you'd have a bit of trouble doing that if the biomass isn't
> gasified, then the gas burned. Even in the small homesized wood burning boilers
> you see pretty horrific pollution except with the gasifiers.

Small sized boiler and stove systems are exactly where
you expect the greatest pollution problems. Any decent
sized commercial boiler on biomass can be run with
virtually perfect combustion efficiency, and virtually
zero pollutant (unburned combustibles) escape.

In general, a gasifier requires a better fuel than does
a boiler which, in general, tends to raise the fuel
cost for a gasifier. Say we consider a 100 kW electric
output power plant: would anyone know the cost of a
"Gasifier + engine" system, in comparison to a "Boiler
+ steam turbine" system?

Another very important consideration is the likely need
for a Stationary Engineer to operate the 100 kW steam
gtenerating plant, while it may be possible to automate
teh gasifier and engine system, to the point that
continuous Staff presence is not required. This would
make a big difference in the cost of power output.
>
Kindest regards,

Kevin CHisholm

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

From LINVENT at aol.com Sun Sep 1 17:08:45 2002
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Engine Experience
Message-ID: <ea.2d1d20ee.2aa41395@aol.com>

There are engine manufacturers who offer engines with 20,000 hours between
overhauls providing the producer gas meets their stringent contaminant
analysis. Just the cost of conducting the analysis is probably $15,000. They
also offer a contract maintenance agreement with $.08/kwhr fee, they ship a
replacement engine, take the old one and slide it out and bolt up a new one
in a few hours.
Acid and alkali neutralization filters are good answers if you can't
clean the gas well enough to remove these contaminants. They are put in
series with the existing filters.
Gas cleaning is the key. Derating is 25-35%, depending upon the
manufacturer and I am of the opinion that less derating can be achieved by
customizing the engine appropriately. Caterpiller says 25% on 120 btu gas,
but the dealers will not quote this.
We have run engines for many hours and as long as the gas is clean and
cool, and has most of the water removed, they show no execessive wear. Tires
are a great fuel as the gas heating value is high and without sulfur, has no
adverse impact upon the engine. We start the engine on the gas and run it on
the gas. Wood and other fuels have also been used successfully.

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

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

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Sun Sep 1 18:46:09 2002
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Doom and gloom for gasification.
Message-ID: <000f01c2522a$d2477e40$1eff58db@newpc>

Hello David

Thank you for presenting an excellent overall view of gasification, as even
to express your own thoughts on a subject sometimes clarifies issues in the
minds of others.

I agree almost entirely with your observations as these concern everyone
involved in this field of technology, especially me.

Since we began 26 years ago, target markets, or specific applications has
been the only market for gasifiers and no mass market has existed. The only
determining factor has been too big or too small, so the eventual sales were
again reduced to what we could guarantee to work. In making these sales, I
personally went to each country (except South Africa and Mozambique) to
install and train the local people, gradually acquiring the knowledge of
what is important.

This was of course after conducting a two year test on four units around the
world. Before that, we spent nearly seven years perfecting our design.

Without malice, how do you think I feel about you or anyone else copying
our design without some exchange of licence fee? Furthermore having built
your copy, where is your knowledge going to come from to operate the whole
system, out of a book! Have you personally seen or worked with an engine
gasifier?
I ask these questions because this is the simplistic view so many observers
have about gasification, and you cannot get a bunch of enthusiasts together
to make it work because of perceived opportunity. Unfortunately the saddest
thing about gasification is misplaced enthusiasm without the control of
commercial realities.
Personally I see nothing wrong with pockets bulging with cash, as it will
be a new experience for me if and when it happens, and I also like the idea
of being a monopoly in some sector of the market! Gasification is an
evolving technology that gives its secrets up very reluctantly, but only in
a staged sequence of equipment development.

In May this year I spent the whole month hunched over my steam driven
drawing board, and with indian ink and draughting pens, produced 28 detailed
drawings. These were for every component needed to build the latest version
of Fluidyne's Mega Class gasifier. How much do you think such a set of
drawings would be worth to all those who know nothing about gasification?
So I'll wrap up my concerns etc. with this thought.
"If your technology is founded on public sector information or is copied
instead of being developed by understanding the logic behind the need, you
are likely to fail"

There are plenty of places that can use gasifiers but it won't happen until
the right equipment package is assembled and the suppliers have the
knowledge to do it right. We do project negativity mainly from ignorance of
what is going on elsewhere, which is a sound reason for this discussion
group to stay focussed and supportive of each other where possible.
You have my support if required.
Regards,
Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification.

NEW Death of an Eco-system Fluidyne Archive www.fluidynenz.250x.com

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

From hseaver at cybershamanix.com Sun Sep 1 20:21:57 2002
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Engine Experience
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020902024227.009a6e90@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <20020902032211.GA12768@cybershamanix.com>

On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 09:39:30PM -0300, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> Dear Harmon
>
> Harmon Seaver wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Tesla turbine superseding the steam turbine??
> > >
> > The Tesla can be run on steam (most are, in fact) or combustion fired.
> >
> > > Seriously -- you joke -- right??
> > >
> >
> > Not at all.
> >
> Is there anybody manufacturing Tesla Turbines? What is
> their efficiency?

Nothing in commercial production that I know of at this point. Tesla was
having Allis-Chalmers build them originally, but unforturnately he was one of
the world's worst businessmen, and they faded into obscurity, despite being more
efficient and cheaper to build than anything on the market at that time. There
is a company which sounds as if it might begin production sometime soon --
www.bladeless.com. There are quite a few other people building prototypes,
however.
Here's one that says they'll be in production with a 200kw unit "end of
2002" http://www.geocities.com/viscotherm/tesla.htm

>
> > > I can detail the problems with steam -- starts with exceptional
> > > temperatures and pressures to get into the right ball park for high
> > > "over-all" efficiencies.
> > >
> > > Steam Turbines are only expensive when having to handle those high
> > > temperatures.
> > >
> >
> > Thats just one of the ways Teslas are better than conventional turbines --
> > cheaper to build and last longer.
>
> I understand that as an "expansion engine" a
> conventional steam turbine has an efficiency of about
> 85%. Would you agree or disagree with this?
> What would be a comparable "expansion engine
> efficiency" for a Tesla Turbine?

Tesla claimed over 90%, check out the ViscoTherm site, they seem to be
claiming much higher.

> ...del...>
> > > And at half the cost of a "gasifier" --
> > >
> > > The name of this game is converting thermal energy in biomass to usable
> > > "power" at an efficient rate -- reliability for extended periods.
> > >
> > But you also have to meet clean air standards, at least in the US and Europe,
> > and I'd think you'd have a bit of trouble doing that if the biomass isn't
> > gasified, then the gas burned. Even in the small homesized wood burning boilers
> > you see pretty horrific pollution except with the gasifiers.
>
> Small sized boiler and stove systems are exactly where
> you expect the greatest pollution problems. Any decent
> sized commercial boiler on biomass can be run with
> virtually perfect combustion efficiency, and virtually
> zero pollutant (unburned combustibles) escape.

Interesting. is it simply a matter of a bigger fire, more heat so nothing
escapes? I guess that makes sense, most of the smaller boilers are usually kept
smoldering away rather than hot enough for gasification.

>
> In general, a gasifier requires a better fuel than does
> a boiler which, in general, tends to raise the fuel
> cost for a gasifier. Say we consider a 100 kW electric
> output power plant: would anyone know the cost of a
> "Gasifier + engine" system, in comparison to a "Boiler
> + steam turbine" system?
>
> Another very important consideration is the likely need
> for a Stationary Engineer to operate the 100 kW steam
> gtenerating plant, while it may be possible to automate
> teh gasifier and engine system, to the point that
> continuous Staff presence is not required. This would
> make a big difference in the cost of power output.
> >
> Kindest regards,
>
> Kevin CHisholm
>
> -
> 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

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

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

From Tk at tke.dk Mon Sep 2 03:19:32 2002
From: Tk at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Engine Experience
In-Reply-To: <OFDBB0DE94.DABD7104-ON4A256C27.0065FF34-4A256C27.006706A6@sri.org.au>
Message-ID: <006101c25273$4f384680$6801a8c0@image.dk>

Dear All

I dont think there are big problems on the engine side.
If the gas is clean the engine can operate as long as on natural gas.

If you need references contact Jenbacher.

I think the effort should be concentrated on gas quality and handling.

Thomas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Dixon" <t.dixon@sri.org.au>
To: <gasification@crest.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 8:45 PM
Subject: GAS-L: Engine Experience

> Dear Tom and All,
>
> Ah ah ah ah !!! The sobering questioning of hard (and harsh !) reality !
> Excellent. The inevitable shift in focus from the R&D perspective to the
> commercial reality perspective. I'll be very interested to read the
> responses to this one. For me (in the Australian sugar industry context,
> and I dare say in a similar context for many others), the issues that you
> question, of annual operating hours and maintenance period hours, are
> CRUCIAL for commercial reality and viability long term. Unless
> gasification can deliver at 4500+ hours, maybe 8000+, continuous (no
> shutdowns), and overhaul of 8000+ hours, then forget it !!!
>
> Terry Dixon
> Sugar Research Institute
> AUSTRALIA
>
> ----- Forwarded by Terry Dixon/SRI on 02/09/2002 04:34 -----
>
> "Tom Miles"
> <tmiles@trmile To: <gasification@crest.org>
> s.com> cc:
> Subject: GAS-L: Engine Experience
> 01/09/2002
> 16:05
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What has the experience been with engines and gasifiers? What are the
> maintenace requirements? What is the typical annual use, 2000 hours? Are
> there any that operate 6000 to 8000 hours per year? What is the expected
> life? What are the actual maintenance intrevals? What facilities and
> equipment are necessary for engine maintenance that are different than for
> automotive or diesel power generation? What engines (make and model) work
> well: Waukesha? Caterpiller? Lister?
>
> The most used engines for producer gas seem to be modified natural gas or
> LP engines or diesels that are run as dual fueled. Are oil and air filter
> change intrevals the same for producer gas as for LP? Every 150 hours? What
> other maintenance needs to be done?What is the expected engine life
> compared with actual engine life for LP or duel fueled diesels on producer
> gas? Can we expect an overhaul with producer gas after 2000 hours? Is
> engine life 10000 hours? After than what needs to be done?
>
> What has the experience been with converting existing diesels to dual
> fueled applications? Good? Bad? What works and what doesn't work?
>
> What is a practical genset size? Do the 500 kWe engine-gensets that we have
> seen promoted actually survive? If you were doing distributed generation at
> 200 kWe what would you use? Four 50 kWe or larger gensets?
>
> What's the experience with derating? What's the actual power production for
> an engine rated for LP or diesel? If you were sizing a new system for 200
> kWe how would you specify the engine?
>
> We understand from the more successful gasifier-genset suppliers that
> engine applications need a well organized "support system." What support
> does a 50-200 kWe gasogen need?
>
> Moisture in the fuel. If I make "bad" gas because of wet fuel does the
> engine care? What kinds of problems result from wet fuel? What range of
> gasifier fuel moisture can an engine tolerate without excessive derating?
>
> Where does one go for engine experience or information about the use of
> engines with gasifiers(what documents or web links)? Are there test block
> benchmark performance tests for producer gas?
>
> These are a lot of ignorant questions from one who is often asked for
> direction. Until I use a gasogen to keep my own electronics on standby I'll
> have to rely on the experience of others. Thank you for your contributions.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Tom Miles
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
>
> 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/

From Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk Mon Sep 2 03:47:35 2002
From: Gavin at roseplac.worldonline.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Engine Experience
In-Reply-To: <20020902032211.GA12768@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGKEDICGAA.Gavin@roseplac.worldonline.co.uk>

I have snipped all the text to save space and time.
Small wood burners do not run as cleanly and efficiently as gasifiers
because to control gasification you need controlled air supplies and
consequently some sort of feedback . Gasification boilers like Kuenzel, tarm
and Kob are much more expensive than a "conventional" boiler because of this
control and feedback loop however they can achieve much higher efficiencies
and clean combustion= less logs to haul and less smoke to pollute so they
are worth the money- if only you can convince the customers. In the UK
people either burn wood because they like a pretty fire, or because they are
too poor to pay for fossil fuels- preferring to pay in their own labour for
"free" wood fuel The first type want an attractive stove with nice flames
(the heat output is not an issue) the second cannot afford a sophisticated
boiler even if it would halve their labour (of love?) cutting logs.

Gavin

Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
3G Energi,

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

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

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

From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Mon Sep 2 04:07:17 2002
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Engine Experience
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020902024227.009a6e90@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <3D7352C8.3DF5C023@ca.inter.net>

Dear Harmon

I am one of the elder fellas that believes Carnot, and
who also believes, thermodynamically speaking, that:
1: You can't get something for nothing
and
2: As a matter of fact, you can't even break even.

When one sees a machine that runs at 85% efficiency,
there is not much potential for improvement..... thats
where the "conventional" gas or steam turbine stands.
When Tesla Advocates claim 101% to 105% turbine
efficiency, warning bells go off.

Then when Viscotherm claim an "engine efficiency" of
89% to 114%, in comparison to about 35% for a
conventional gas turbine that respects Carnots
Constraints, I sort of lose interest. It does not
appear to me that there is much of a future in
perpetual motion.

I would suggest that biomass gasification is being done
a great disservice by attaching it to the Tesla Turbine
with its claims of greater than 100% efficiency.

Harmon Seaver wrote:
>
...del...
time. There
> is a company which sounds as if it might begin production sometime soon --
> www.bladeless.com. There are quite a few other people building prototypes,
> however.
> Here's one that says they'll be in production with a 200kw unit "end of
> 2002" http://www.geocities.com/viscotherm/tesla.htm
>
ViscoTherm is claiming to have a turbine system whuich
has an efficiency of greater than 100%. Perpetual
Motion does not work.

...del...
> > > gasified, then the gas burned. Even in the small homesized wood burning boilers
> > > you see pretty horrific pollution except with the gasifiers.
> >
> > Small sized boiler and stove systems are exactly where
> > you expect the greatest pollution problems. Any decent
> > sized commercial boiler on biomass can be run with
> > virtually perfect combustion efficiency, and virtually
> > zero pollutant (unburned combustibles) escape.
>
> Interesting. is it simply a matter of a bigger fire, more heat so nothing
> escapes? I guess that makes sense, most of the smaller boilers are usually kept
> smoldering away rather than hot enough for gasification.
>
As Sherlock Holmes would often say "Elementary, my dear
Watson." Any competent Combustion Engineer can easily
set up a boiler to give high efficiencies and low
pollutant outputs.

Kevin Chisholm

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

From ZBihari at ormat.com Mon Sep 2 04:50:28 2002
From: ZBihari at ormat.com (Zoli Bihari)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Efficiency
Message-ID: <727CFCBBE1C3D41181FC005004201AA0018C2FFB@ormat-nt>

Dear Kevin and all,

Younger fellows, like me, still believe in Carnot and the Laws of Thermodynamics.
The expression "efficiency" is so widely used and can be defined in so many ways :-))
As for me, till I'll see the definition of what they call "efficiency" I'll stay skeptic.

BTW, I didn't noticed any real answer to the very real-life questions referred by Tom Miles.

Regards

Zoli

Zoli Bihari
R&D - Ormat Ltd. - Israel
Tel: 972 (8) 9433894
Fax: 972 (8) 9439901
E-mail: zbihari@ormat.com

**********************************************************************************
Confidentiality Warning.

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and subject to certain laws pertaining to the protection of proprietary information. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message in not the intended recipient, or the authorized agent thereof, the reader is hereby notified that retention or any dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail or by telephone, and delete

all copies of the original message.

Thank you.
**********************************************************************************

From hseaver at cybershamanix.com Mon Sep 2 06:15:07 2002
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Engine Experience
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020902024227.009a6e90@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <20020902131512.GB13027@cybershamanix.com>

I'm not sure where Viscotherm is getting their figures, the other site I
posted was much more conservative, as are most. The primary advantage of Tesla
turbines, I think, is that they are both cheaper to build and longer lasting --
conventional bladed gas turbines have a fairly high burnout rate -- and most all
recent work with them shows better efficiency as well.

On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 09:00:08AM -0300, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> Dear Harmon
>
> I am one of the elder fellas that believes Carnot, and
> who also believes, thermodynamically speaking, that:
> 1: You can't get something for nothing
> and
> 2: As a matter of fact, you can't even break even.
>
> When one sees a machine that runs at 85% efficiency,
> there is not much potential for improvement..... thats
> where the "conventional" gas or steam turbine stands.
> When Tesla Advocates claim 101% to 105% turbine
> efficiency, warning bells go off.
>
> Then when Viscotherm claim an "engine efficiency" of
> 89% to 114%, in comparison to about 35% for a
> conventional gas turbine that respects Carnots
> Constraints, I sort of lose interest. It does not
> appear to me that there is much of a future in
> perpetual motion.
>
> I would suggest that biomass gasification is being done
> a great disservice by attaching it to the Tesla Turbine
> with its claims of greater than 100% efficiency.
>
>
>
> Harmon Seaver wrote:
> >
> ...del...
> time. There
> > is a company which sounds as if it might begin production sometime soon --
> > www.bladeless.com. There are quite a few other people building prototypes,
> > however.
> > Here's one that says they'll be in production with a 200kw unit "end of
> > 2002" http://www.geocities.com/viscotherm/tesla.htm
> >
> ViscoTherm is claiming to have a turbine system whuich
> has an efficiency of greater than 100%. Perpetual
> Motion does not work.
>
> ...del...
> > > > gasified, then the gas burned. Even in the small homesized wood burning boilers
> > > > you see pretty horrific pollution except with the gasifiers.
> > >
> > > Small sized boiler and stove systems are exactly where
> > > you expect the greatest pollution problems. Any decent
> > > sized commercial boiler on biomass can be run with
> > > virtually perfect combustion efficiency, and virtually
> > > zero pollutant (unburned combustibles) escape.
> >
> > Interesting. is it simply a matter of a bigger fire, more heat so nothing
> > escapes? I guess that makes sense, most of the smaller boilers are usually kept
> > smoldering away rather than hot enough for gasification.
> >
> As Sherlock Holmes would often say "Elementary, my dear
> Watson." Any competent Combustion Engineer can easily
> set up a boiler to give high efficiencies and low
> pollutant outputs.
>
> Kevin Chisholm

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

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

From LINVENT at aol.com Mon Sep 2 06:25:20 2002
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Viscotherm/Tesla Turbine
Message-ID: <da.1d3aff75.2aa4ce3d@aol.com>

Dear all,
The claims of over 100% efficiency by Viscotherm need to be explained. I
believe that their math is flawed. 30 lbm/hour of propane sounds like a lot
more than 254 hp. From the size, however, there would be a lot of
applications anyhow. Pollution claims are not backed up with emission data.
That should be easy to do if they have proof of it.

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

From hseaver at cybershamanix.com Mon Sep 2 06:27:50 2002
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Engine Experience
In-Reply-To: <ea.2d1d20ee.2aa41395@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20020902132806.GA13528@cybershamanix.com>

On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 09:06:29PM -0400, LINVENT@aol.com wrote:
> There are engine manufacturers who offer engines with 20,000 hours between
> overhauls providing the producer gas meets their stringent contaminant
> analysis. Just the cost of conducting the analysis is probably $15,000. They
> also offer a contract maintenance agreement with $.08/kwhr fee, they ship a
> replacement engine, take the old one and slide it out and bolt up a new one
> in a few hours.

And how much do the engines cost? What's their power rating and size? For the
$15K analysis fee I could buy at least 5 large diesel truck engines in good
shape, each capable of 100kw even with derating.

(rest snipped)

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

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

From hseaver at cybershamanix.com Mon Sep 2 06:42:27 2002
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Engine Experience
In-Reply-To: <00bf01c2517d$a6f940f0$0301a8c0@tomslaptop>
Message-ID: <20020902134245.GB13528@cybershamanix.com>

On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 01:42:02AM +0100, David Reynolds-Lacey wrote:
> Tom,
>
> You've kind of taken the wind out of my sails with
> your post because those are some of the questions
> that I was going to ask as part of my next post. I
> was also going to raise some questions about steam
> turbines and flash steam as an viable? alternative
> to gasification but now that seems to be being
> covered briefly but are there any more comments on
> steam?
>
> I append the other questions that I was going to
> ask.
>
>
> What are the advantages of running a diesel engine
> on gas if gas is to be the sole fuel (can it be?),
> I presume the engine will need to be converted to
> spark, so would it be better to use a petroleum
> engine?

No, you want the higher compression of the diesel. You can either convert to
spark or just run small amounts of biodiesel (or straight waste vegetable
oil) to provide ignition.

> Is there a stage when a gas turbine becomes
> preferable to a reciprocating engine?

The gas turbines in sizes comparable to diesel truck engines (or even car
engines) don't seem to be anywhere nearly as efficient, and although they have a
lot less moving parts to wear out, the blades suffer badly from erosion and are
very expensive to replace. That's why so many people are interested in building
Tesla turbines -- obviously a turbine, if it were cheaper, longer lasting, and
even just as efficient (35%) as a diesel engine would be more desirable.

> What additional problems (if any) can one expect
> with a gas turbine and does the gas need to be
> pre-processed in any different way to gas for a
> reciprocating engine?
>
> Is it feasible to store producer gas?
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> 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

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

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

From d.rl at virgin.net Mon Sep 2 18:46:27 2002
From: d.rl at virgin.net (David Reynolds-Lacey)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Now some gas experience questions.
Message-ID: <3D74222D.8738E819@virgin.net>

Dear All,

As a follow up to Tom's questions plus a couple
of my own about engines, I have a few gas
questions.

Is there an optimum temperature at which to
produce gas i.e. if you make it a too low a temp
or too high a temp what happens to the quality of
the gas ? (I do realise that at a much too high
temperature it would spontaneously ignite)

What pre-processing of the gas is required before
use in a reciprocating engine?

Is it cost effectively possible to recover any
other wood by-products (apart from char) from the
process?

I am particularly interested in ending up with
gas, lumpwood charcoal and heat all of which I
have use, in fact, a need, for. Would I therefore
require to use small wood "lumps" to produce
minimum charcoal fines. Is there a optimum size
for the "lumps" and could say, 150 mm X 400 mm
long logs split into 4, be used. I produce
charcoal from logs of the size stated and larger
at the moment and find that most fines are created
when physically breaking the charred logs into the
required sizes for charcoal. To what size would
these (lumps or logs) naturally break down in the
process, assuming careful handling when emptying?
It seems that the production of smaller wood lumps
is quite labour and energy intensive how ESSENTIAL
is it.

What is the optimal desired mc of the wood I
presume bone dry - but what is the drying trade
off considering drying costs.

I am considering indirect heating of the wood in
a retort type process by using the flue output
(around 700C) of a lightly forced draft ,woodchip
(or forest debris) burner. The burner, based on a
Andrew Heggie design, will burn woodchip at up to
50 percent mc and give an output of >50kW(t) with
CO at around 150ppm, will burn for around 5/6
hours on a batch feed. This will dispose of my
forest debris in a useful way whilst keeping
separated from my lumpwood charcoal. I have done
this on a small (200 litre oil drum) scale with
good results but in this case the container was
housed inside the burner. I now propose to upscale
to a 1.5 M diam X 1.5 M high container made from
8mm thick steel housed in an insulated "cosy"
about of about 15 percent greater volume. Has
anyone done anything like this? It would be good
to know of any problems especially with the
transfer of heat into a container of this size
with a total surface area of about only 12 Sq M.
Any available heat transfer figures would be
invaluable.

I also take this opportunity to set out below my
plans, aspirations and implementation ideas
referred to in my recent (also lengthy) post

Unlike many off you, my Web site is not up and
running yet, thus I have nowhere to refer you,
therefore permit me to give below a brief details
of who I am and what I am doing in order that you
can get a " feel" for what I am all about.

I retired from business 10 years ago at the age of
48 and since this time I have engaged in
restoration, conservation and environmental
activities. Most of my own work now is of an
altruistic nature. I am well known locally to be
passionate and outspoken about environmental
matters and appear occasionally in the press but
rarely on TV, preferring the visual anonymity
(most valuable in a small community) of radio
where I have recently completed a short series ("A
walk in the woods") with the BBC. I am currently
preparing another series "Woodland Biomass Energy
- the real world" (working title), thus my
interest in getting a combined charcoal, heat and
power system up and running, although I do have a
personal need for such a system in any event. I
am (inter alia) a competent amateur (some say
frustrated) mechanical engineer and have a well
equipped CNC toolroom and fabrication shop.

Five years ago I purchased a 60 ha much neglected
and derelict Ancient semi-natural woodland and
Site of Special Scientific Interest on the edge of
the Wyre Forest in Worcestershire, England, I am
hoping to acquire a further 100 ha shortly. I
have set about restoring and conserving this
woodland using traditional methods including short
rotation coppicing. The work is being carried out
through a not-for-profit organisation (Areley Wood
Enterprises) founded and funded by me. The Wood
has a long history in charcoal production,
especially for use in iron making when the
Industrial Revolution started a few miles away
and gunpowder production, along with other
traditional woodland products. Later coal was
produced from the several mines in the wood, one
of which was worked until the late 1920's and is
believed to still have a workable seam. Charcoal
and later, coal was also used to fire the brick
kilns in the Wood, bricks and tiles made from the
clay on the site were widely distributed
throughout Worcestershire from the 16th C until
the late 19th C.

My own energy requirement and current plans.

I require to produce 72.5 kVA, 415V, 3 phase (100
amps/phase) to run my toolroom and fabricating
shop, which I intend to move from my home to a
building at Areley Wood, I also require heating
for the shop and for glasshouses. I have 6
dwellinghouses within 300M of the Wood and I hope
to be able to supply them with hot water for
heating etc. and possibly electrical power at a
later date. This system will be my proving ground
prior to moving on to my next scheme, which is to
build 5 or 6 small industrial units with adjacent
dwellings near to the Wood, all of which will (I
envisage) be powered with biomass sourced from the
Wood. I realise that small scale systems with the
fuel source on the doorstep is the best, perhaps
only at present, way forward. We have 1000's of
hectares of land in the UK for which farmers are
being paid to do nothing with and this land could
be planted out with woodland, managed as coppice
with standards and small "green field" light
industrial developments with adjacent dwellings,
of the type I plan to build, could be built
alongside. This entire enterprise will be
established and run as a not-for-profit
enterprise, funded entirely from my own resources
as I want no restrictions, bureaucracy, boards of
Trustees or committees to waste valuable time
pondering and deciding at these early stages, when
manufacturing by committee just does not work, I
just want to do it, I want to do it quickly and I
want to do it myself. I hope to end up with a
product that is easy for a competent person to
build from supplied component parts and in which
many parts can be easily fabricated on site from
detailed drawings by the person/organisation, in
order to keep bought in ready made parts, thus
ownership cost, to the minimum. A value added
advantage of the system that I envisage is that I
could buy back the charcoal (from UK based users)
if this was not required by them, as I have a
ready market for it. The UK barbecue charcoal
market is around GBP40M per annum, with (I
believe) 97 percent percent imported, some from
not very environmentally or ecologically friendly
sources.

Future implementation plans:

If a usable and reliable product results from this
exercise it is my intention, in the latter part of
2003 early 2004, to set up a fund (The
Reynolds-Lacey Bioenergy Trust) starting with
circa GPB1M which will provide targeted, strictly
controlled (maybe in some instances matched)
funding for the construction of the system by
"qualifying" individuals or organisations. The
funding may only be used for the purchase of
components and materials for the construction of
the equipment i.e. not for salaries, research
fees, consultancy fees, feasibility studies and
the like. Certain special tools and equipment,
like welding equipment etc., to directly aid
construction may qualify for funding, this could
even be supplied on a loan basis and moved on to
another "builder" on completion. The equipment
must be operated from woodland produce, such as
short rotation coppicing and the like, on or near
the site. Priority would be given to projects
where new woodland is to be planted and managed
and funding would then be available for
planting. Funded "Builders" may build the
equipment for other "qualifiers" who do not have
the resources, at a reasonable charge for the area
(again audited), this would provide a small
business opportunity for someone whose financial
aspirations were not great, i.e someone who is
happy to simply make a reasonable living. I
emphasise that this is "hands on" funding, all
funded projects will be strictly supervised and
audited to maximise the spending of funds on ONLY
the actual production of a REAL WORKING product.
Obviously the drawings and components etc would be
available for purchase by any other non qualifying
person/organisation through a not-for -profit
company or any other company that wished to
manufacture under licence. The only reason that
any arising Property Rights or copyrights etc.
would be protected would be only to prevent
exploitation of the design etc. for purely
commercial reasons, the licence fee would be low
and based on an reasonable percentage (audited)
of the profit generated which would have to be
deemed and proved reasonable. There is much fine
tuning to do on this and I would consider any
suggestions that you may wish to put forward. I
would also invite interested parties who may be
interested in acting as future Trusties,
supervisors/ project auditors to make themselves
known. However, please don't apply for funds yet
there is a lot to do before we get to that stage!

Rather than clutter up the list with this matter
perhaps it may be better to contact me off list,
especially if you already have a product (or an
idea for one) or could make components that would
fit the bill, but I don't want to buy the product
ready built, I want to build it myself to start
with, that way I learn very quickly. I do have a
diesel 72.5 kVA, 3 phase generator with a six
cylinder Perkins engine, I don't know if it will
be usable for gas conversion but it works
perfectly well on diesel.

This is my proposed contribution to try to further
biomass gasification usage. Other contributors,
where possible, may also consider making a
philanthropic gesture, perhaps if only to get
their own idea off the ground via my scheme or to
further their own research or " market ready"
product profile (especially if it could be easily
supplied in kit form), or maybe even just to
further the gasification cause. With this in mind,
I welcome any initially free contributions/ideas
and/or physical help.

I look forward to your responses.

Incidentally, if you think it won't work, please
say so and why, I do need to know.

Regards,

David

PS
It's 3.35 AM and I've only just seen the latest
news from the Earth Summit - very sad. I would
suggest that the compromise on the renewable
energy target certainly has the fingerprints of
the fossil fuel industry all over it. Well, maybe
in another 10 years, who knows?

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

From FMurrl at aol.com Tue Sep 3 11:27:11 2002
From: FMurrl at aol.com (FMurrl@aol.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: A plague of criticism, any solutions?
Message-ID: <116.167eabc0.2aa66646@aol.com>

I think we need to take a nuanced approach and desist from making sweeping generalisations about gasification economics which may not be valid for all countries. While it is true that the cost of biomass harvesting (a labour intensive activity) in developed economies may be quite high and the soil productivity lower thus rendering the cost advantage unattractive, the situation in India (and other tropical countries) is entirely different.

For instance, we have installed several gasification systems for both thermal and electrical applications (replacing fossil fuels such as Light Diesel Oil, High Speed Diesel & Heavy Furnace Oil) at various geographical locations in India, and in most cases the total capital investment has been recovered from 12-18 months. The brief economics are as follows. I have given the figures in US currency (and in Indian Rs. in brackets) considering exchange rate of Rs. 48/00 per US $.

Mr. Krisnaswamy:

Thanks for your note. I am glad that you ignored your own advice, and provided the details on your specific application. I personally feel that we need such specifics, rather than just generalizations. In fact, I disagree that my comments were generalizations. In fact, I believe that I said that my comments were limited to our experience in North America, based on North American costs and US tax structure.

On the other hand, I am always interested in hearing about other jurisdictions where biomass is currently viable. It gives one hope.

For those of us in the US, we will have to await the will of Congress and the pending energy legislation.

Right now, it appears that large megawatt biomass systems await either the right tax structure (e.g. Section 45, IRC) or the right Renewable Portfolio Standard (currently in a handful of states, and under consideration by the federal congress).

Regards,
Fred Murrell
Biomass Development Co.
Bradenton Florida
www.biomassdev.com

From d.rl at virgin.net Tue Sep 3 13:59:47 2002
From: d.rl at virgin.net (David Reynolds-Lacey)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Thankyou
Message-ID: <3D75303A.DBC63790@virgin.net>

Thanks to all that have responded to date with
suggestions and offers, some of whom I have
replied to already. I hereby thank, on list, those
to whom I haven't yet replied as I will be
unexpectedly unavailable for short while but I
will also respond to each of you direct on my
return.

I note with some surprise that several of you are
Lurkers on this list, yet you appear to have a
great deal to offer, perhaps you should be posting
also.

Thanks again for the encouraging support.

David

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

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Wed Sep 4 01:16:57 2002
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: RE; Engine Experience
Message-ID: <001401c253f3$ae6c80e0$14ff58db@newpc>

Dear Tom M,

Here is an attempt to answer your questions which I can only provide from
experience we have acquired over the years. I appreciate you ask specific
questions, but if you want to do it right, then the whole exercise begins
with where the installation is to be located.

Given we are talking about a gasifier that delivers tar free gas without
some sort of exotic clean up system, almost any engine built as a generator
set will do the job.

Engine:
The choice of engine should be one that is the most popular used locally, so
that the servicing and spare parts are available if required. Outside of the
USA, spark ignition gas engines as used for natural gas are not thick on the
ground, making it necessary to carry consumable spares, usually two years
supply. Spark plugs can be a major problem if dirty gas gets to the engine,
or the engine is converted from diesel where the plug is deep in the head
causing it to cook. Ceramic H.T ignition connectors can also be a problem
and they don't like rough handling.

Maintenance:
Even though the gas can be very clean, the presence of moisture will ensure
carbon blacks reach the engine. These are not harmful, but they do reach
the oil, as does the moisture. Time or distance has never been the criteria
for oil changes, and with producer gas, it is more important to monitor the
oil condition and change it before the failure of its additive package
causes acid erosion and excessive friction from loss of boundary
lubrication.

Because we used to make them, the addition of a bypass oil filter will
control the moisture and keep the insoluble levels down; all of which can be
monitored using the Blotter Spot Test. Unless excessive heating becomes a
problem, oil filters are changed at the interval recommended by the
manufacturer. Oil filter replacement should ensure the engine maker
supplies them as replacement brands often have less filtering surface
shortening service life. Air cleaner life can be monitored and determined
by the pressure drop, which should not exceed 10" W.G. This is a choice you
can opt for in places where dust isn't a problem.

Best Choice of Engine:
Dual Fuel:
Where the genset is the only source of power, my choice is to recommend dual
fuel diesels as there will always come a time for the gasification to stop.
Where this option is preferred, the engine pistons should have austentic
steel crowns for the top rings. Aluminium pistons do suffer from top groove
hammering caused by reduced diesel flows on dual fuel. Valve seat recession
can be a problem with cheap engines. Inlet manifolds with entry at one end
will cause uneven gas flows to the cylinders and this results in unnatural
bearing wear on the crankshaft.

With appropriate modifications, this would be the cheapest option if you
were buying new engines.

Spark Ignition:
Any of the engines made for natural gas are appropriate for producer gas,
but most rely on turbo charging to get the power up and this introduces a
potential problem in the after cooler if fitted. If dirty gas reaches the
engine, the fine tubes on the cooler block with condensed tar. Not a
problem 'if' your gas quality never changes. The same applies if the engine
is a C.H.P system where the exhaust heat exchanger also blocks.

Engine Life:
Because producer gas derates the engine, it can never be pushed to reach the
maximum output levels established with other fuels. Under these
circumstances, the engine life should at least be equal to fossil fuel use,
given the oil is monitored as previously mentioned.

Engine Size:
For 200kWe, you also must remember to add 50 or 60 cycle as one runs at
1500rpm and the other 1800rpm. This also highlights the need to ensure the
ancillary electrical system of the gasifier matches the electrical frequency
if the two are from separate supply. These are figures for naturally
aspirated engines, as turbo engines were not considered appropriate for
remote installations.

Spark Ignition 50 Cycle 43 litre cylinder volume
60 Cycle 36 litre cylinder volume

Diesel Dual Fuel 50 Cycle 35 litre cylinder volume
60 Cycle 29 litre cylinder volume

As you can see, the cylinder volumes are considerable for a singular engine,
so twin engines could offer a cost alternative. If you can take a risk,
turbo engines seem to be the way to go, but until my associates show me
their results from current testing, I will stick to that which I know best.

The Dilemma:
There are no engines specifically built for producer gas, and I would avoid
any that have been modified internally for the purpose. The standard
engine, other than pistons and valve seats is perfectly okay, if we just
size them larger for our needs. Any internal modifications to a standard
engine makes it an orphan and difficult to service if parts are required.

In a do it yourself project, there are many opportunities to use old
engines, but if you implement a commercial project, junking a new engine
will kill your project and most likely your reputation.

The engine remember, is part of an integrated system and it will only be as
good as the gasifier. To interface the gasifier and engine is another
system again - not so hard with a base load, but tricky with stand alone
systems. For me to skip over the main points regarding engines fuelled with
producer gas just doesn't do the subject justice. It should I hope indicate
that there are plenty of engines to choose from for every size of project
and they can work like 'Swiss Watches'.

8,000 Hours:
I have not heard of any ordinary gasification system where the engine
operates 24 hours a day, but there shouldn't be a problem if the gasifier
can deliver an uninterrupted gas supply. This amounts to a 100% duty cycle
for the gasifier, not impossible, but pretty demanding on components.
Realistically I think you could certainly operate an engine to the maximum
less the servicing requirement, with possibly improved life from never
starting from cold.

Fuel Moisture:
The danger of high moisture levels in the fuel is that it can slow down the
oxidation zone temperature and watery hydrocarbons (tar) enters the gas
coolling and cleaning system (pretty messy).

If the gasifier is of reasonable design, the oxidation temperature will stay
high enough to handle say, up to 30% M.C. All this does is increase the
amount of water condensate without the tar coming through the system.

The engine might slow if the condensing moisture is carried through an
undersized gas cooler in which case saturation of the filter system will
reduce gas flows. It's better to have good fuel quality!

Finally, if we accept that engines can do a great job generating power from
a gasifier, given we do have to pay attention to detail, what's the problem?

Without a doubt, it's the people we attempt to help to use their own
resources. They don't follow operating procedures, change fuel
specifications and become greater experts than those who supply the
equipment. We do our best and they do their darndest!

Hope this helps

Regards
Doug Williams
FLUIDYNE GASIFICATION

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

From tbollman at twlakes.net Wed Sep 4 13:03:53 2002
From: tbollman at twlakes.net (tbollman)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas concentration and storage
Message-ID: <01KM3Z9H57B88ZF8DO@SMTP00.InfoAve.Net>

I was wondering if anyone on this list could address the possiblity of compressing producer gas and storing it in LP style gas cylinders?

Also, I am curious wether or not anyone has addressed the possibility of filtering ? producer gas with the goal of removing (or reducing) the inert nitrogen.

It seems to me that the BTU/Cubic meter could be greatly enhanced if the inert compounds in the gas could be eliminated/reduced.

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

From dschmidt at undeerc.org Wed Sep 4 13:16:55 2002
From: dschmidt at undeerc.org (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gas concentration and storage
Message-ID: <601A55066596D211A7AD00104BC6FB25010D6D66@BACKOFFICE>

I do not have the numbers off the top of my head, but it requires extremely
high pressures to liquefy syngas (H2, CH4, CO, CO2, N2)

LP (C3H8) works great in tanks because it is densified as a liquid under
reasonable pressures in a tank. As the tank nozzle is opened to the
atmosphere, useable vapor is produced.

I think if you run the numbers you will find that it would not be practical
to provide storage tanks due to high pressure requirements or lack of
sufficient storage density to be economically attractive.

Anyone want to run the numbers and post?

-----Original Message-----
From: tbollman [mailto:tbollman@twlakes.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 5:07 PM
To: gasificationcrestorg
Subject: GAS-L: Gas concentration and storage

I was wondering if anyone on this list could address the possiblity of
compressing producer gas and storing it in LP style gas cylinders?

Also, I am curious wether or not anyone has addressed the possibility of
filtering ? producer gas with the goal of removing (or reducing) the inert
nitrogen.

It seems to me that the BTU/Cubic meter could be greatly enhanced if the
inert compounds in the gas could be eliminated/reduced.

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

From Schultz.Karl at epamail.epa.gov Wed Sep 4 13:35:49 2002
From: Schultz.Karl at epamail.epa.gov (Schultz.Karl@epamail.epa.gov)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: nitrogen rejection
Message-ID: <OFD9CC0AC1.E28796F7-ON85256C2A.00754E48-85256C2A.0076172C@rtp.epa.gov>

Visit our website for information on nitrogen rejection. Go to the
"library" and download our report (now somewhat dated) entitled:
Technical and Economic Assessment of Potential to Upgrade Gob Gas to
Pipeline Quality. The gas is different but the main contaminant is
nitrogen. Technologies have advanced since this publication and costs
have gone down.

Karl H. Schultz
Coalbed Methane Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

www.epa.gov/coalbed

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

From cicbcal at cal2.vsnl.net.in Wed Sep 4 23:30:52 2002
From: cicbcal at cal2.vsnl.net.in (Kollol Dey)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Rice - Husk
Message-ID: <016501c254ae$226e6ca0$486dc5cb@kdey>

I wish to know if any study has been done on gasifying rice - husk using a
fluidised bed gasifier - say of the Winkler type?

Understand in a moving bed gasifier (updraft / downdraft / crossdraft) if
one has to use rice-husk as feed stock, then it has got to be briquetted as
otherwise (that is if used directly without briquetting) consistence
in gas quality and quantity from large gasifiers (say 500 KWe and
above) is difficult to ensure, which makes power generation virtually
impossible.

Comments please.

Regards

K.Dey.

From tombreed at attbi.com Thu Sep 5 10:12:40 2002
From: tombreed at attbi.com (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Rice - Husk
In-Reply-To: <016501c254ae$226e6ca0$486dc5cb@kdey>
Message-ID: <006401c254c7$95898d00$9888fd0c@TOMBREED>

Dear Kollol:

There have been lost of gasifiers, FB and bubbling
bed for rice hulls. See..

"A Study of ...Rice Huk-to-Energy Systems and
Equipment" by L. Velupillai et al, Lousiana State Univ. Ag Center Press,
(1997) call 225 388 8349. Also visit Prime Energy Systems at

<A
href="http://www.prmenergy.com">http://www.prmenergy.com

Also our site at <A
href="http://www.woodgas.com">www.woodgas.com

Yours truly,

TOM
REED
BEF 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:
<A title=cicbcal@cal2.vsnl.net.in
href="mailto:cicbcal@cal2.vsnl.net.in">Kollol Dey
To: <A title=gasification@crest.org
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 1:26
AM
Subject: GAS-L: Rice - Husk

I wish to know if any study has been done on gasifying rice - husk using
a fluidised bed gasifier - say of the Winkler type?

Understand in a moving bed gasifier (updraft / downdraft / crossdraft) if
one has to use rice-husk as feed stock, then it has got to be briquetted as
otherwise (that is if used directly without briquetting) consistence
in gas quality and quantity from large gasifiers (say 500 KWe and
above) is difficult to ensure, which makes power generation virtually
impossible.

Comments please.

Regards

K.Dey.

From tmiles at trmiles.com Fri Sep 6 07:32:47 2002
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Draft Specs for 200 kWe CHP
Message-ID: <00a701c255ba$4a078500$0301a8c0@tomslaptop>

Thank you for the varied responses to my engine
questions. I see in many areas the potential for cost effective CHP
systems in the 200 kWe size range. 100-200We is probably the most common
size for diesel generation in the northern tier logging and sawmill communities
from Canada-Alaska-East and NW RUssia, Scanadinavia, N Ireland and back
to the Canadian maritimes. It is a size that is probably less fequently
found, but suitable for application, in Asia, Africa and Latin America. It is
also probably a common size for LP and gas engines in remote communites in North
America. 200 kWe is a size suitable for commercial applications in North
America. Wood pellet producers are looking for new bulk markets. The
recent increase in wood pellet production in Europe (2 million tons
per year) and North America (1 million tons per year) makes a convenient
bulk fuel available at an affordable cost. (A hospital in Quebec is
burning wood pellets from Western Canada for less than $100/ton delivered.) So
fuels could include sawdust, shavings, chips, pellets,
etc.

There are several suppliers on this list that
either have delivered systems of this size or would like to. But we have very
few working examples of working gasifiers with heat recovery that are in
productive operation. There's the Volund project, Ankur, Energreen and some
others that have been mentioned. I heard that System Johannson had installed a
community CHP system in South Africa but I can not find anything about their
systems.

I'd like to develop draft specifications here
online for a 200 kWe CHP system that we could use to discuss what we
could expect in cost and performance from various parts of the system:
engine-generator, gas cleaning (wet and dry), wastewater water treatment,
gasifiers, fuel preparation and handling, heating systems, controls for various
applications, etc. I don't think anyone's business is threatened by this kind of
discussion. In fact some may find opportunities. Several companies -
Ankur, Energreen, Fluidyne, Thermogenics - have been generous in sharing
information to date. I will post any suitable links or information on
the CREST Gasification website <A
href="http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html">http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html

The biggest risk is keeping anyone on topic. This
group is more volatile than any of the fuels we're dealing
with.

Tom

From tmiles at trmiles.com Sun Sep 8 13:31:38 2002
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Draft Specs for 200 kWe CHP
In-Reply-To: <00a701c255ba$4a078500$0301a8c0@tomslaptop>
Message-ID: <003601c2577e$b4d1cf60$6601a8c0@tommain>

All,

After receiving several notes of encouragement I
have created a web page for information, links, documents or images related
to discussing specifications for a 200 kWe CHP system. Any one who wants to put
up their project for comment or showcase an operating system is welcome to
contribute.

<A
href="http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html">http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html

It is a "blank page" with a list of categories for
discussion and links to suppliers and publications.

Based on operating experience, what are the
performance requirements or benchmarks we should look for in a 200 kWe CHP
system on both the heat side and the power side? What capacity, how many
hours of operation, availability, etc.

Tom Miles

From ascent at wilnetonline.net Mon Sep 9 00:44:09 2002
From: ascent at wilnetonline.net (ascent@wilnetonline.net)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Glow Plugs
Message-ID: <04f401c257dd$91fa8ae0$a379a4ca@wilnetonline.net>

Dear All,

We are looking for specific information and
experience on use of glow plugs instead of spark plugs for 1500 rpm
engines. Any feedback will be very welcome. We are particularly
interested in knowing recent experience with use of glow plugs in natural gas
engines.

Thanks,

Ms Ingrid Fernandes -
Manager

Ankur Scientific Energy Technologies Pvt.
Ltd.,"Ankur", Near Old Sama Jakat Naka<FONT
face=Arial>Baroda 390 008, India<FONT
face=Arial>Phones : 0265 793098/794021 * Fax : 794042 Web Site : <A
href="http://www.ankurscientific.com">www.ankurscientific.com

From selva at me.iitb.ac.in Mon Sep 9 04:00:30 2002
From: selva at me.iitb.ac.in (N.Selvakumar (PE/PPP))
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Self Ignition Teperature of Producer Gas
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0209091723310.16363-100000@epsilon.me.iitb.ac.in>

Dear All,
What will happen if I mix hot Producer Gas (Temperature of gas
around 400-450C) with air (room temperature).
1. Presence of H2 specie in producer gas will self ignite the gas at what
temperature.
2. The dilution ratio of gas to air 3 to 5 (by volume), will this
dilution ratio avoid self ignition (Since stochiometric A/F ratio for
Producer gas is 0.98 by volume). Mixing of air to hot producer gas in
this range of dilution ratio will avoid danger of explosion, Am I
correct?..

What I have doubt is
Fundamentals of premixing of high temperature producer gas with room
Temperature of air.

I welcome all healthy discussion.

With Regards,
Selvakumar

==============================================================================
| Teleph:022-5722545 Extno:8378/8385/7386
N.Selvakumar PE |
C/O Prof.(Mrs.) P.P.Parikh.|
Dept of Mech Engg. | Want to Know more about My Work, Plz Visit
IITB, Mumbai. 400 076. |
India | www.me.iitb.ac.in/garp
==========================================================================
Renewable energy is green, clean and is the future energy source.

So join us in developing sophisticated technology package .

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 hseaver at cybershamanix.com Mon Sep 9 05:12:03 2002
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Glow Plugs
In-Reply-To: <04f401c257dd$91fa8ae0$a379a4ca@wilnetonline.net>
Message-ID: <20020909121200.GB1235@cybershamanix.com>

As far as I know, glow plugs are only used to pre-heat the combustion
chambers of diesel engines, they do not provide ignition. There are, of course,
model airplane engines that use glow plugs for ignition, but that is a totally
different concept, and, I might add, they don't last long.

On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 01:51:50PM +0530, ascent@wilnetonline.net wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> We are looking for specific information and experience on use of glow plugs instead of spark plugs for 1500 rpm engines. Any feedback will be very welcome. We are particularly interested in knowing recent experience with use of glow plugs in natural gas engines.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Ms Ingrid Fernandes - Manager
> Ankur Scientific Energy Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,
> "Ankur", Near Old Sama Jakat Naka
> Baroda 390 008, India
> Phones : 0265 793098/794021 * Fax : 794042
> Web Site : www.ankurscientific.com

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

From pbadger at bioenergyupdate.com Mon Sep 9 05:34:44 2002
From: pbadger at bioenergyupdate.com (Phillip C. Badger)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Prototype and Intellectual Property for sale
Message-ID: <NDBBLFMLILPCDBFGNAACMEDFIAAA.pbadger@bioenergyupdate.com>

FOR SALE
6-MW Aero-derivative Turbine BIOPOWER PLANT

The BIOTEN power plant is a third generation, modular system based on an
aero-derivative turbine fueled with powdered wood burned in a pressurized
combustion chamber. The present owners of the plant are selling the plant
due to the lack of a Green Power Purchase Agreement. The plant and
intellectual property represent over a $25 million investment.

Main Equipment:
· GE LM 1500 generator and power turbine modified from gas to biomass fuel,
model LM 1500 PB104.E417-120GE-E 1552335
· Power Turbine 7 LM 1500 PB 104 s/n 417-120 10 coupling corp. Turbine
shaft, 400C high speed

The BIOTEN process will be sold as is at Red Boiling Springs, Tennessee,
with a one plant license and access to BIOTEN’s intellectual property for
you use by the one plant. The price for the plant and accompanying
intellectual property license for the plant is US$850,000. It will be the
responsibility of the purchasing party to dismantle and move the power plant
and equipment at the purchaser’s expense.

In addition, BIOTEN will also consider sale of BIOTEN Corporation and the
BIOTEN process patents and proprietary knowledge.

For additional information and a complete listing of the equipment contact
Phillip C. Badger, General Bioenergy, Inc., P.O. Box 26, Florence, Alabama
35630 USA, phone +1 256 740 5634, fax +1 256 740 5635, email
pbadger@bioenergyupdate.com. Normal office hours are 8:00am until 5:00pm,
Central Daylight Time, Monday through Friday.

This offer is for a limited time. If you are interested in this opportunity,
do not delay.
Other terms and conditions apply.

From dschmidt at undeerc.org Mon Sep 9 07:43:21 2002
From: dschmidt at undeerc.org (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Self Ignition Temperature of Producer Gas
Message-ID: <601A55066596D211A7AD00104BC6FB25010D6D78@BACKOFFICE>

Good question. Work we have done in this area is confidential. However
what I can tell you is that your conditions are close to the borderline of
ignition vs no ignition. I do not know if there is any public data
available to help you. You may need to do some experiments to prove it to
yourself. I can assure you that when hydrogen is mixed with other gasses
the potential for auto ignition changes, and your statement about avoiding
autoignition is likely correct. However your concentrations of hydrogen are
higher than the concentrations I am familiar with. I cannot say for sure
whether you are at the autoignition temperature or not.

-----Original Message-----
From: N.Selvakumar (PE/PPP) [mailto:selva@me.iitb.ac.in]
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 6:56 AM
To: gasification@crest.org
Subject: GAS-L: Self Ignition Teperature of Producer Gas

What I have doubt is
Fundamentals of premixing of high temperature producer gas with room
Temperature of air.

I welcome all healthy discussion.

With Regards,
Selvakumar

============================================================================
==
| Teleph:022-5722545 Extno:8378/8385/7386
N.Selvakumar PE |
C/O Prof.(Mrs.) P.P.Parikh.|
Dept of Mech Engg. | Want to Know more about My Work, Plz Visit
IITB, Mumbai. 400 076. |
India | www.me.iitb.ac.in/garp
==========================================================================
Renewable energy is green, clean and is the future energy source.

So join us in developing sophisticated technology package .

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 Sep 9 13:29:58 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: A plague of criticism, any solutions?
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020827210121.00a74e38@shawmail>
Message-ID: <20020909232820.4eb5fb3e.arnt@c2i.net>

On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:17:57 +0200,
"Thomas Koch" <Tk@tke.dk> wrote in message
<005201c257d9$c9a44160$6801a8c0@image.dk>:

> Dear Ingrid
>
> I just browsed through your web page.
>
> To me it is not clear how many gasifiers you have build and how well
> they work. To me it looked very much like "sales talk".
> As an example:
> Your FBG system has exately the same relative specification for a 40
> kw and a 335 kw unit. It is a down draft system that can handle down

..url to these? How did you find them?

> to 2mm particles and it produces 4 % CH4 and it have a gas washer with
> recirkuiation of water. Is it possible that you could provide us with
> some more technical data?
>
> Best regards
>
> Thomas Koch
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <ascent@wilnetonline.net>
> To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>; "Laszlo Paszner"
> <lpaszner@shaw.ca> Cc: <Carefreeland@aol.com>;
> <agniesco@hd2.dot.net.in>; <stoves@crest.org>;
> <gasification@crest.org>; <bioenergy@crest.org>; <LINVENT@aol.com>
> Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 12:10 PM Subject: Re: GAS-L: A
> plague of criticism, any solutions?
>
>
> > Dear Sir,
> >
> > I am Ingrid Fernandes, Sr. Manager, Ankur Scientific, India. We
> > are basically a Biomass Gasification company and have been in the
> > business for a number of years now, making enough money not only to
> > support ourselves but also to support further technology development
> > work through our own resources. Do visit our web site
> > www.ankurscientific.com .

..Ingrid, I hope you did not pay money for this crap:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.ankurscientific.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline
My opinion is you may have been ripped off.

> > Regards,
> >
> > Ingrid
> >

--
..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 arnt at c2i.net Mon Sep 9 13:54:51 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:07 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Glow Plugs
In-Reply-To: <04f401c257dd$91fa8ae0$a379a4ca@wilnetonline.net>
Message-ID: <20020909235301.7e8faecd.arnt@c2i.net>

On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 07:12:00 -0500,
Harmon Seaver <hseaver@cybershamanix.com> wrote in message
<20020909121200.GB1235@cybershamanix.com>:

> As far as I know, glow plugs are only used to pre-heat the
> combustion chambers of diesel engines, they do not provide ignition.
> There are, of course, model airplane engines that use glow plugs for
> ignition, but that is a totally different concept, and, I might add,
> they don't last long.

..these are actually coiled or spiralled platinium wire _catalyzers_,
the methanol vapor-and-air cylinder charge fires from the _combined_
effect of compression and the catalyzer.

>
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 01:51:50PM +0530, ascent@wilnetonline.net
> wrote:
> > Dear All,
> >
> > We are looking for specific information and experience on use of
> > glow plugs instead of spark plugs for 1500 rpm engines. Any

..these are the "semi-diesel" kinda engines? Slow turning monsters,
more like 300-500 rpm. I'd get some used Japanese auto engines instead,
for throw-away service.

> > feedback will be very welcome. We are particularly interested in
> > knowing recent experience with use of glow plugs in natural gas
> > engines.

..the most recent use I'm aware of, is WWII fishermen bleeding the
combustion chamber for idle on those "semi-diesels" on wood gas,
is this "idle-valving" in "Gengas", or do I remember it from my
own version?

--
..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 arnt at c2i.net Mon Sep 9 13:58:08 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Engine Experience
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20020902024227.009a6e90@wgs1.btl.net>
Message-ID: <20020909235600.0058f497.arnt@c2i.net>

On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 22:22:11 -0500,
Harmon Seaver <hseaver@cybershamanix.com> wrote in message
<20020902032211.GA12768@cybershamanix.com>:

> Here's one that says they'll be in production with a 200kw unit
> "end of
> 2002" http://www.geocities.com/viscotherm/tesla.htm

..step up one level to http://www.geocities.com/viscotherm/ ;-D

> Tesla claimed over 90%, check out the ViscoTherm site, they seem to
> be claiming much higher.

..riiiiiight, 111.5%, I _could_ have bought a 90% figure. ;-)

--
..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 arnt at c2i.net Mon Sep 9 14:00:10 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Engine Experience
In-Reply-To: <ea.2d1d20ee.2aa41395@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20020909235634.356aaa8d.arnt@c2i.net>

On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 21:06:29 EDT,
LINVENT@aol.com wrote in message
<ea.2d1d20ee.2aa41395@aol.com>:

> We have run engines for many hours and as long as the gas is clean
> and
> cool, and has most of the water removed, they show no execessive wear.
> Tires are a great fuel as the gas heating value is high and without
> sulfur, has no adverse impact upon the engine.

..ok, where does the rubber sulphur wind up?

--
..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 arnt at c2i.net Mon Sep 9 14:02:06 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Essay: Wood/Coal/Oil/Gas/RB
In-Reply-To: <000f01c25026$9f2d7150$9888fd0c@TOMBREED>
Message-ID: <20020909235706.3238a1af.arnt@c2i.net>

On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 19:08:24 -0500,
"Harry W. Parker" <Harry.Parker@coe.ttu.edu> wrote in message
<000401c252de$05ef9580$b6e50144@dl.cox.net>:

> Hello Tom and all,
>
> Thanks for your document regarding effective management of biomass as
> an energy source.
>
> I have published a paper that regards the whole of energy utilization
> last spring, "The Essentials of Essential Energy Consumption."
>
> I would be pleased to send individuals this paper as a word document.

..try make it an as early version as possible, I for one,
I am _not_ going to buy Microsoft Office XP to wiew it. ;-)

..try save is as an html file, if that fails in
'http://validator.w3.org/', run it thru "HTML Tidy", find
one for your system at "http://tidy.sourceforge.net/".
These 2 wee steps, yields a web document which looks exactly
the same in _all_ (gui) web browsers.

..two other options: save it in rtf or pdf file format,
these 2 too are portable between systems, and all 3 save a lot
of bandwidth compared to the binary "word" format, which, also
happens to be the _primary_ virus carrier.

> I would also be pleased for hardcopy or online journals to consider
> republishing it.

..why not put it online on your own website?

> Sorry I have been too busy to participate in the various "Crest"
> energy groups. I note some interesting things are happening.
>
> Harry
>
> Harry W. Parker, Ph.D., P.E.
> Professor of Chemical Engineering
> & Consulting Engineer
> Texas Tech University
> Lubbock, TX 79409-3121
> 806.742.1759 fax 742.3552

--
..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 Sep 9 19:33:10 2002
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Spontaneous Ignition Temperature Of Producer Gas
Message-ID: <000d01c2587a$a3a2b900$11ff58db@newpc>

Hello Selvakumar

It is unlikely that spontaneous ignition will take place by adding cold air
to hot gas. If it did, all that would happen is that it would flash back to
the point where the air is being mixed with the gas.

The spontaneous ignition temperature of producer gas is about 570 degrees C,
but the hydrogen content does change this as you would expect. The key
factor is the temperature, not the air/gas ratio which surprised me when I
first saw this demonstrated last year.

In the presence of excess air the ignition didn't initiate until we had
630 degrees C on the gauge. The gas/air ratio only becomes critical when
the gas is cold as you experience with engines.

Another factor to consider in your research is that your hot gas is likely
to contain soot or char particles. These are always hotter than the gas
stream and could cause ignition when they come into contact with air.

Hope this is of assistance to your understanding.

Regards
Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification.

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Sep 10 04:41:17 2002
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: A plague of criticism, any solutions?
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020827210121.00a74e38@shawmail>
Message-ID: <20020910143858.545507b2.arnt@c2i.net>

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:28:32 +0200,
"Thomas Koch" <Tk@tke.dk> wrote in message
<004c01c258ac$6e99fd40$6801a8c0@image.dk>:

> I double clicked on the link
> www.ankurscientific.com .

..I also tried that and a lot of other trixes. ;-)
Which web browsers can get you past their index page, until they fix it?
I could only use Mozilla, the other browsers (Galeon, Konqueror) I tried
would not show their site menu, only their
http://www.ankurscientific.com/index.html
http://www.ankurscientific.com/script31_demo.html
(I am _far_ from impressed by the job done by Thomas Brattli.)
http://www.ankurscientific.com/Introduction.html
http://www.ankurscientific.com/images/pp.swf

..diagnosis:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.ankurscientific.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline

..fix: http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/tidy/

..all I've seen until now, is
http://www.ankurscientific.com/techwbg1.htm,
which is available from
http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.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 hseaver at cybershamanix.com Tue Sep 10 05:51:52 2002
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: A plague of criticism, any solutions?
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020827210121.00a74e38@shawmail>
Message-ID: <20020910125148.GA2931@cybershamanix.com>

Huh, the http://www.ankurscientific.com/ site works for me with mozilla
running on linux, and all the links work. Including the M$-Word documents that
they are using instead of forms. Can't imagine why people put Word documents in
web pages, it certainly is slow and cumbersome, and a lot of people can't read
them.
I did note earlier tho that Crispin's page at
http://www.newdawn-engineering.com was seriously broken. It appeared to be set
up for windoz only (I tried it on two browsers, mozilla and opera under linux
and also three browsers on a Mac, to no avail), but I see now that it is at
least somewhat fixed. The graphics on the entrance page now work and I don't get
error pages when I click on the links, but the graphics are still broken on many
of the other pages.
I've always given my staff strict orders that *every* page has to be checked
with several browsers, including lynx, before they are published. It's amazing
how many companies there are now who don't follow that practice. Sometimes I do
them the curtesy of telling them about it, other times I just don't bother as I
figure they're probably too clueless to want to do business with them
anyway. What really gets me are the e-commerce sites that are not only exploder
only but also add all sorts of other garbage like flash or badly done java that
is so glacially slow (and I'm on a fast DSL line) that I just go elsewhere.
Oh well, I guess Darwin will sort them out in the end.

On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 02:38:58PM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:28:32 +0200,
> "Thomas Koch" <Tk@tke.dk> wrote in message
> <004c01c258ac$6e99fd40$6801a8c0@image.dk>:
>
> > I double clicked on the link
> > www.ankurscientific.com .
>
> ..I also tried that and a lot of other trixes. ;-)
> Which web browsers can get you past their index page, until they fix it?
> I could only use Mozilla, the other browsers (Galeon, Konqueror) I tried
> would not show their site menu, only their
> http://www.ankurscientific.com/index.html
> http://www.ankurscientific.com/script31_demo.html
> (I am _far_ from impressed by the job done by Thomas Brattli.)
> http://www.ankurscientific.com/Introduction.html
> http://www.ankurscientific.com/images/pp.swf
>
> ..diagnosis:
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.ankurscientific.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline
>
> ..fix: http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/tidy/
>
> ..all I've seen until now, is
> http://www.ankurscientific.com/techwbg1.htm,
> which is available from
> http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
>

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

From W.deJong at wbmt.tudelft.nl Wed Sep 11 05:23:34 2002
From: W.deJong at wbmt.tudelft.nl (W.deJong@wbmt.tudelft.nl)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Spontaneous Ignition Temperature Of Producer Gas
In-Reply-To: <000d01c2587a$a3a2b900$11ff58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <3D7F5FAD.31395.168F79D@localhost>

On 10 Sep 2002, at 15:31, Graeme Williams wrote:
Dear Selvakumar and gasification list members,

I can agree to the range of temperatures Graeme Williams
mentions for ignition of low calorific value (LCV) gas. We
generated LCV gas with a bubbling pressurised fluidised bed
gasifier including hot gas ceramic filter cleaning. Here it was also
not really easy to ignite the gas mixture. We needed temperatures
around 630 °C at the combustor inlet for good and stable ignition
as well. We did experiments with excess preheated and cold air in
the thermal power range from 500 kW to ca. 1MW. The LCV gas
was ignited with electrical sparks at pressures of ca. 3-5 bar (abs.).

with kind regards,

Wiebren de Jong.

> Hello Selvakumar
>
> It is unlikely that spontaneous ignition will take place by adding
> cold air to hot gas. If it did, all that would happen is that it
> would flash back to the point where the air is being mixed with the
> gas.
>
> The spontaneous ignition temperature of producer gas is about 570
> degrees C, but the hydrogen content does change this as you would
> expect. The key factor is the temperature, not the air/gas ratio
> which surprised me when I first saw this demonstrated last year.
>
> In the presence of excess air the ignition didn't initiate until we
> had
> 630 degrees C on the gauge. The gas/air ratio only becomes critical
> when the gas is cold as you experience with engines.
>
> Another factor to consider in your research is that your hot gas is
> likely to contain soot or char particles. These are always hotter
> than the gas stream and could cause ignition when they come into
> contact with air.
>
> Hope this is of assistance to your understanding.
>
> Regards
> Doug Williams
> Fluidyne Gasification.
>
>
> 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
>
> >
>
>

Wiebren de Jong, MSc.
TU Delft
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering & Marine Technology
Section Thermal Power Engineering (EV)
Mekelweg 2
NL-2628 CD Delft
The Netherlands
Telephone: +31 15 2789476
Mobile: +31 6 51236425
Telefax: +31 15 2782460
e-mail at home: wkdejong@kabelfoon.nl
e-mail general: wiebrendejong@hotmail.com

From babudeva at yahoo.com Wed Sep 11 19:43:32 2002
From: babudeva at yahoo.com (babu devasenapati)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: caloriefic value of Producer gas
Message-ID: <20020912034104.81728.qmail@web14107.mail.yahoo.com>

dear members,

I am doing my masters project on gasifiers and would
like to know how to measure the caloriefic value of
producer gas .

with regards

Babu

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
http://news.yahoo.com

From ascent at wilnetonline.net Wed Sep 11 21:36:49 2002
From: ascent at wilnetonline.net (ascent@wilnetonline.net)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: A plague of criticism, any solutions?
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020827210121.00a74e38@shawmail>
Message-ID: <014201c25a1e$c9b20100$ad79a4ca@wilnetonline.net>

September 10, 2002
Dear Mr Koch,
Thank you for your
mail and we currently have over 100 gasifiers in regular operation with
industries, for rural electrification etc.
Our current production levels are of the order of 3 to 4 gasifiers every
month. We have a number of case studies included as part of our web site
but if you are unable to access the same or if you would like us to transmit
these separately, please let us know.
Talking about rice
husk gasifiers, we have installed about a dozen of these gasifiers during the
last year. Reference list is attached with this mail.
Relative
specifications being the same should not come as a surprise as these gasifiers
are in some ways a family of gasifiers with the same basic technology.
As far as technical
data go, if you let us know exactly what you would like to have, we will be glad
to do the needful.
With best
wishes,

Ms Ingrid
Fernandes - Sr. Manager
Ankur Scientific Energy Technologies Pvt.
Ltd.,"Ankur", Near Old Sama Jakat Naka<FONT
face=Arial>Baroda 390 008, India<FONT
face=Arial>Phones : 0265 793098/794021 * Fax : 794042 Web Site : <A
href="http://www.ankurscientific.com">www.ankurscientific.com

----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas Koch <<A
href="mailto:Tk@tke.dk">Tk@tke.dk>
To: <<A
href="mailto:ascent@wilnetonline.net">ascent@wilnetonline.net>; Kevin
Chisholm <<A
href="mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net">kchisholm@ca.inter.net>; Laszlo
Paszner <<A
href="mailto:lpaszner@shaw.ca">lpaszner@shaw.ca>
Cc: <<A
href="mailto:Carefreeland@aol.com">Carefreeland@aol.com>; <<A
href="mailto:agniesco@hd2.dot.net.in">agniesco@hd2.dot.net.in>; <<A
href="mailto:stoves@crest.org">stoves@crest.org>; <<A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org>; <<A
href="mailto:bioenergy@crest.org">bioenergy@crest.org>; <<A
href="mailto:LINVENT@aol.com">LINVENT@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: A plague of criticism, any
solutions?
Dear IngridI just browsed through your
web page.To me it is not clear how many gasifiers you have build and how
well they work.To me it looked very much like "sales talk". As an
example: Your FBG system has exately the same relative specification for a
40 kw and a 335 kw unit.It is a down draft system that can handle down to
2mm particles and it produces 4 % CH4 and it have a gas washer with
recirkuiation of water. Is it possible that you could provide us with some
more technical data?Best regardsThomas
Koch----- Original Message ----- From: <<A
href="mailto:ascent@wilnetonline.net">ascent@wilnetonline.net>To:
"Kevin Chisholm" <<A
href="mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net">kchisholm@ca.inter.net>; "Laszlo
Paszner" <lpaszner@shaw.ca>Cc:
<Carefreeland@aol.com>; <<A
href="mailto:agniesco@hd2.dot.net.in">agniesco@hd2.dot.net.in>; <<A
href="mailto:stoves@crest.org">stoves@crest.org>; <<A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org>; <<A
href="mailto:bioenergy@crest.org">bioenergy@crest.org>; <<A
href="mailto:LINVENT@aol.com">LINVENT@aol.com>Sent: Saturday,
September 07, 2002 12:10 PMSubject: Re: GAS-L: A plague of criticism, any
solutions?> Dear Sir,> > I am Ingrid
Fernandes, Sr. Manager, Ankur Scientific, India. We are> basically
a Biomass Gasification company and have been in the business for a>
number of years now, making enough money not only to support ourselves
but> also to support further technology development work through our
own> resources. Do visit our web site <A
href="http://www.ankurscientific.com">www.ankurscientific.com .>
> Regards,> > Ingrid> > ----- Original
Message -----> From: Kevin Chisholm <<A
href="mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net">kchisholm@ca.inter.net>> To:
Laszlo Paszner <<A
href="mailto:lpaszner@shaw.ca">lpaszner@shaw.ca>> Cc: <<A
href="mailto:Carefreeland@aol.com">Carefreeland@aol.com>; <<A
href="mailto:agniesco@hd2.dot.net.in">agniesco@hd2.dot.net.in>; <<A
href="mailto:stoves@crest.org">stoves@crest.org>;> <<A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org>; <<A
href="mailto:bioenergy@crest.org">bioenergy@crest.org>; <<A
href="mailto:LINVENT@aol.com">LINVENT@aol.com>> Sent: Wednesday,
August 28, 2002 2:55 PM> Subject: Re: GAS-L: A plague of criticism, any
solutions?> > > > Dear Dr. Paszner> >>
> Thank you for your very interesting overview on> >
bioenergy.> >> > Laszlo Paszner wrote:> >
>> > > Dear All,> > >> >
....del...>> > > Biomass is largely "undersold" as an alternate
renewable energy source> by> > > the world authorities and
the media. It is lucky if it gets honorable> > > mention
among the renewable energy sources of wind, solar and tidal.> The>
> > authorities are brainwashed by the petrochemical companies. This is
so> > > because the technologies for these energy forms are owned
by the> > > petrochemical companies, Shell, BP, Texaco, SUNCOR
etc. Promotion of> wind,> > > solar and tidal energy
forms is safe, they do not cut into the gasoline> > >
markets. Wide-scale promotion of wind and solar installations
for> > > developing countries channels much needed developmental
funds again to> the> > > petrochemical companies (you
remember they own these technologies -> bought> > > into
them quietly 5-6 years ago) leaving the developing countries>
further> > > in debt and dependent without solving their problem
(lack of energy in> > > rural areas). These are "passive"
energy forms because they will not> > > generate wide-spread
sustainable jobs after their installation. As a> > > result,
this power form, regardless of its renewable nature, will remain> >
> inaccessible to the poor because they are left without a> > >
dispasible income. Biomass growing and ethanol production are
highly> > > labor intensive (active) job creators. Thus
growing biomass (growing> the> > > seedlings, planting,
tending and harvesting the forests) requires> > > continuous
attention and will maintain a substantial number of permanent> > >
rural jobs. For every 50 million L/yr ethanol plant, we generate>
between> > > 75 to 150 permanent, well paying rural jobs.
Yet, biomass is not> promoted> > > as the true future
renewable energy source.> > >> > I would suggest that
there is not a conspiracy by> > multi-National Oil Companies to hold
back the> > development of biomass. I would suggest that they
can> > make more money from oil than they can make from> >
biomass, and that is the reason why they process oil.> > It is very
dificult to imagine the multi-National Oil> > Companies saying "We can
make more money on biomass,> > but we are not going to do that,
because we are oil> > processors."> >> > The cruel
reality seems to be that it is somewhere> > between difficult and
impossible to make money from> > biomass energy.> >>
>> > > For the biomass program, fast growing and high yielding
crops become> > > important. Comparatively speaking, trees
produce 4-8 T/ha . yr biomass> in> > > the temperate
regions, better yields (18-30 T/ha . yr) can be obtained> with>
> > both deciduous and coniferous wood species in tropical and
sub-tropical> > > countries. Similar or better yields can be
obtained with> sugarcane/sweet> > > sorghum and mineral
giant reed; up to 45 T/ha .yr. Exceptionally, up to> > >
60-75 T/ha .yr can be had with Eucalyptus species. So by selective>
biomass> > > cultivation the target biomass supply will become
available while> > > simultaneously also solving the world's
poverty problems.> >> > With a ratio of about 15:1 in terms
of tropical> > eucalyptus to temperate forestry yields, if
biomass> > energy even had a chance of being economic, one
would> > see at least some biomass energy companies making
money> > from eucalyptus energy processing. Are there any
"stand> > alone biomass energy successes" anywhere in the
world?> > There may be some businesses successes because of>
> peculiar circumstances, such as waste product disposal,> > or
special incentives. The cruel reality seems to be> > that, simply put,
there is no money to be made in> > biomass energy.>
>> > Am I mising something here? Is there anyone making>
> "stand alone money" in biomass anywhere in the world?> > Is it
perhaps a case that biomass energy economics are> > ruled by a Law
that says "The bigger you are, the more> > you lose?">
>> > Kindest regards,> >> > Kevin
Chisholm> > >> >> > -> > Gasification
List Archives:> > <A
href="http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/">http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/>
>> > Gasification List Moderator:> > Tom Reed, Biomass
Energy Foundation, <A
href="mailto:Reedtb2@cs.com">Reedtb2@cs.com> > <A
href="http://www.webpan.com/BEF">www.webpan.com/BEF> > List-Post:
<<A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">mailto:gasification@crest.org>>
> List-Help: <<A
href="mailto:gasification-help@crest.org">mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>>
> List-Unsubscribe: <<A
href="mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org">mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>>
> List-Subscribe: <<A
href="mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org">mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>>
>> > Sponsor the Gasification List: <A
href="http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html">http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html>
> -> > Other Gasification Events and Information:> > <A
href="http://www.bioenergy2002.org">http://www.bioenergy2002.org>
> <A
href="http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html">http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html
Bioenergy> > <A
href="http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html">http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
Gasification> > <A
href="http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html">http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html
Carbon> >> >> > > ->
Gasification List Archives:> <A
href="http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/">http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/>
> Gasification List Moderator:> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy
Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com> <A
href="http://www.webpan.com/BEF">www.webpan.com/BEF> List-Post:
<<A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">mailto:gasification@crest.org>>
List-Help: <<A
href="mailto:gasification-help@crest.org">mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>>
List-Unsubscribe: <<A
href="mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org">mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>>
List-Subscribe: <<A
href="mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org">mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>>
> Sponsor the Gasification List: <A
href="http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html">http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html>
-> Other Gasification Events and Information:> <A
href="http://www.bioenergy2002.org">http://www.bioenergy2002.org> <A
href="http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html">http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html
Bioenergy> <A
href="http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html">http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
Gasification> <A
href="http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html">http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html
Carbon> Gasification List 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>
LOI_01-02.doc

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: doc00083.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 82432 bytes
Desc: ">"
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20020911/9d9d015d/doc00083.obj
From Tk at tke.dk Wed Sep 11 23:20:45 2002
From: Tk at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: A plague of criticism, any solutions?
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020827210121.00a74e38@shawmail>
Message-ID: <005301c25a2d$9ff5a7e0$6801a8c0@image.dk>

Dear Ingrid

Thank you very much for your ansver.

What I am looking for is some values from a real
operating gasifier.
My experince tell my that it is very difficult to
upscale gasifiers and obtain the same relative data.
If i look in your specification data they look very
"theoretical" to me.

5 years ago I send one of my staff to India to
look at the gasifiers in Bangalore. We where told that there was a 400 kWel
gasifier there, but ........... Gasifiers of this family was also installed
in Switzerland but ...... it has been no succes so far.

Furthermore I have been communicating with one of
your countrymen Mr kollol Dey over the last weeks.
He is looking for gasifiers, and I wonder why he
has not come across one of your gasifiers in his searc for gasifiers
manufacturers.

To be very concrete:
Can you show me an operating system?
How much does your system cost?
How much guarantee are you villing to
give?

And have any body on crest any experinces with the
company Ankur?

I am ready to jump into the next plane to come and
see you gasifier if it looks convincing.

Best regards

Thomas Koch
<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:
<A title=ascent@wilnetonline.net
href="mailto:ascent@wilnetonline.net">ascent@wilnetonline.net
To: <A title=Tk@tke.dk
href="mailto:Tk@tke.dk">Thomas Koch
Cc: <A title=gasification@crest.org
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">CREST
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 6:45
AM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: A plague of
criticism, any solutions?

September 10, 2002
Dear Mr Koch,
Thank you for
your mail and we currently have over 100 gasifiers in regular operation with
industries, for rural electrification etc.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> Our current production levels are of
the order of 3 to 4 gasifiers every month. We have a number of case
studies included as part of our web site but if you are unable to access the
same or if you would like us to transmit these separately, please let us
know.
Talking about
rice husk gasifiers, we have installed about a dozen of these gasifiers during
the last year. Reference list is attached with this mail.
Relative
specifications being the same should not come as a surprise as these gasifiers
are in some ways a family of gasifiers with the same basic technology.
As far as
technical data go, if you let us know exactly what you would like to have, we
will be glad to do the needful.
With best
wishes,

Ms Ingrid
Fernandes - Sr. Manager
Ankur Scientific Energy Technologies Pvt.
Ltd.,"Ankur", Near Old Sama Jakat Naka<FONT
face=Arial>Baroda 390 008, India<FONT
face=Arial>Phones : 0265 793098/794021 * Fax : 794042 Web Site : <A
href="http://www.ankurscientific.com">www.ankurscientific.com

----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas Koch <<A
href="mailto:Tk@tke.dk">Tk@tke.dk>
To: <<A
href="mailto:ascent@wilnetonline.net">ascent@wilnetonline.net>; Kevin
Chisholm <<A
href="mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net">kchisholm@ca.inter.net>; Laszlo
Paszner <<A
href="mailto:lpaszner@shaw.ca">lpaszner@shaw.ca>
Cc: <<A
href="mailto:Carefreeland@aol.com">Carefreeland@aol.com>; <<A
href="mailto:agniesco@hd2.dot.net.in">agniesco@hd2.dot.net.in>; <<A
href="mailto:stoves@crest.org">stoves@crest.org>; <<A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org>; <<A
href="mailto:bioenergy@crest.org">bioenergy@crest.org>; <<A
href="mailto:LINVENT@aol.com">LINVENT@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: GAS-L: A plague of criticism, any
solutions?
Dear IngridI just browsed through your
web page.To me it is not clear how many gasifiers you have build and
how well they work.To me it looked very much like "sales talk". As an
example: Your FBG system has exately the same relative specification for a
40 kw and a 335 kw unit.It is a down draft system that can handle down to
2mm particles and it produces 4 % CH4 and it have a gas washer with
recirkuiation of water. Is it possible that you could provide us with some
more technical data?Best regardsThomas
Koch----- Original Message ----- From: <<A
href="mailto:ascent@wilnetonline.net">ascent@wilnetonline.net>To:
"Kevin Chisholm" <<A
href="mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net">kchisholm@ca.inter.net>; "Laszlo
Paszner" <lpaszner@shaw.ca>Cc:
<Carefreeland@aol.com>; <<A
href="mailto:agniesco@hd2.dot.net.in">agniesco@hd2.dot.net.in>; <<A
href="mailto:stoves@crest.org">stoves@crest.org>; <<A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org>; <<A
href="mailto:bioenergy@crest.org">bioenergy@crest.org>; <<A
href="mailto:LINVENT@aol.com">LINVENT@aol.com>Sent: Saturday,
September 07, 2002 12:10 PMSubject: Re: GAS-L: A plague of criticism, any
solutions?> Dear Sir,> > I am Ingrid
Fernandes, Sr. Manager, Ankur Scientific, India. We are>
basically a Biomass Gasification company and have been in the business for
a> number of years now, making enough money not only to support
ourselves but> also to support further technology development work
through our own> resources. Do visit our web site <A
href="http://www.ankurscientific.com">www.ankurscientific.com .>
> Regards,> > Ingrid> > ----- Original
Message -----> From: Kevin Chisholm <<A
href="mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net">kchisholm@ca.inter.net>>
To: Laszlo Paszner <<A
href="mailto:lpaszner@shaw.ca">lpaszner@shaw.ca>> Cc: <<A
href="mailto:Carefreeland@aol.com">Carefreeland@aol.com>; <<A
href="mailto:agniesco@hd2.dot.net.in">agniesco@hd2.dot.net.in>; <<A
href="mailto:stoves@crest.org">stoves@crest.org>;> <<A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org>; <<A
href="mailto:bioenergy@crest.org">bioenergy@crest.org>; <<A
href="mailto:LINVENT@aol.com">LINVENT@aol.com>> Sent: Wednesday,
August 28, 2002 2:55 PM> Subject: Re: GAS-L: A plague of criticism, any
solutions?> > > > Dear Dr. Paszner>
>> > Thank you for your very interesting overview on> >
bioenergy.> >> > Laszlo Paszner wrote:> >
>> > > Dear All,> > >> >
....del...>> > > Biomass is largely "undersold" as an
alternate renewable energy source> by> > > the world
authorities and the media. It is lucky if it gets honorable> >
> mention among the renewable energy sources of wind, solar and
tidal.> The> > > authorities are brainwashed by the
petrochemical companies. This is so> > > because the technologies
for these energy forms are owned by the> > > petrochemical
companies, Shell, BP, Texaco, SUNCOR etc. Promotion of>
wind,> > > solar and tidal energy forms is safe, they do not cut
into the gasoline> > > markets. Wide-scale promotion of
wind and solar installations for> > > developing countries
channels much needed developmental funds again to> the> >
> petrochemical companies (you remember they own these technologies
-> bought> > > into them quietly 5-6 years ago) leaving
the developing countries> further> > > in debt and
dependent without solving their problem (lack of energy in> > >
rural areas). These are "passive" energy forms because they will
not> > > generate wide-spread sustainable jobs after their
installation. As a> > > result, this power form, regardless
of its renewable nature, will remain> > > inaccessible to the
poor because they are left without a> > > dispasible
income. Biomass growing and ethanol production are highly> >
> labor intensive (active) job creators. Thus growing biomass
(growing> the> > > seedlings, planting, tending and
harvesting the forests) requires> > > continuous attention and
will maintain a substantial number of permanent> > > rural
jobs. For every 50 million L/yr ethanol plant, we generate>
between> > > 75 to 150 permanent, well paying rural jobs.
Yet, biomass is not> promoted> > > as the true future
renewable energy source.> > >> > I would suggest that
there is not a conspiracy by> > multi-National Oil Companies to hold
back the> > development of biomass. I would suggest that they
can> > make more money from oil than they can make from> >
biomass, and that is the reason why they process oil.> > It is very
dificult to imagine the multi-National Oil> > Companies saying "We
can make more money on biomass,> > but we are not going to do that,
because we are oil> > processors."> >> > The
cruel reality seems to be that it is somewhere> > between difficult
and impossible to make money from> > biomass energy.>
>> >> > > For the biomass program, fast growing and
high yielding crops become> > > important. Comparatively
speaking, trees produce 4-8 T/ha . yr biomass> in> > > the
temperate regions, better yields (18-30 T/ha . yr) can be obtained>
with> > > both deciduous and coniferous wood species in tropical
and sub-tropical> > > countries. Similar or better yields
can be obtained with> sugarcane/sweet> > > sorghum and
mineral giant reed; up to 45 T/ha .yr. Exceptionally, up to> >
> 60-75 T/ha .yr can be had with Eucalyptus species. So by
selective> biomass> > > cultivation the target biomass
supply will become available while> > > simultaneously also
solving the world's poverty problems.> >> > With a ratio
of about 15:1 in terms of tropical> > eucalyptus to temperate
forestry yields, if biomass> > energy even had a chance of being
economic, one would> > see at least some biomass energy companies
making money> > from eucalyptus energy processing. Are there any
"stand> > alone biomass energy successes" anywhere in the
world?> > There may be some businesses successes because of>
> peculiar circumstances, such as waste product disposal,> > or
special incentives. The cruel reality seems to be> > that, simply
put, there is no money to be made in> > biomass energy.>
>> > Am I mising something here? Is there anyone making>
> "stand alone money" in biomass anywhere in the world?> > Is it
perhaps a case that biomass energy economics are> > ruled by a Law
that says "The bigger you are, the more> > you lose?">
>> > Kindest regards,> >> > Kevin
Chisholm> > >> >> > -> >
Gasification List Archives:> > <A
href="http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/">http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/>
>> > Gasification List Moderator:> > Tom Reed, Biomass
Energy Foundation, <A
href="mailto:Reedtb2@cs.com">Reedtb2@cs.com> > <A
href="http://www.webpan.com/BEF">www.webpan.com/BEF> >
List-Post: <<A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">mailto:gasification@crest.org>>
> List-Help: <<A
href="mailto:gasification-help@crest.org">mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>>
> List-Unsubscribe: <<A
href="mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org">mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>>
> List-Subscribe: <<A
href="mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org">mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>>
>> > Sponsor the Gasification List: <A
href="http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html">http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html>
> -> > Other Gasification Events and Information:> > <A
href="http://www.bioenergy2002.org">http://www.bioenergy2002.org>
> <A
href="http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html">http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html
Bioenergy> > <A
href="http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html">http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
Gasification> > <A
href="http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html">http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html
Carbon> >> >> > > ->
Gasification List Archives:> <A
href="http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/">http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/>
> Gasification List Moderator:> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy
Foundation, Reedtb2@cs.com>
www.webpan.com/BEF> List-Post:
<<A
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">mailto:gasification@crest.org>>
List-Help: <<A
href="mailto:gasification-help@crest.org">mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>>
List-Unsubscribe: <<A
href="mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org">mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>>
List-Subscribe: <<A
href="mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org">mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>>
> Sponsor the Gasification List: <A
href="http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html">http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html>
-> Other Gasification Events and Information:> <A
href="http://www.bioenergy2002.org">http://www.bioenergy2002.org>
<A
href="http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html">http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html
Bioenergy> <A
href="http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html">http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
Gasification> <A
href="http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html">http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html
Carbon> Gasification List 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 rreda at radhegroup.com Fri Sep 13 07:12:29 2002
From: rreda at radhegroup.com (Dr. S. V. Makadia)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: biomass gasification
Message-ID: <004e01c25b38$063618e0$0600a8c0@Comp6>

Dear All,

we are engaged in the manufacturing of renewable
and non-conventional energy equipments. i.e. briquetting plants and biomass
gasifiers.

company name: RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
ASSOCIATES

Activities: manufacturing briquetting
plants JUMBO 90 model with production capacity of 500 to 1500 kgs per hour,
with an added benefit ;JUMBO 90 does not require hammer mill or sizing
machine since residuals of upto 25mm can be fed directly. Moreover, it has
been developed for minimum consumption of power and maintenance.

Manufacturing large size updraft gasifiers
with rotating grate for thermal application with biomass
and coal..

Achievements: Over 34 installed BRIQUETTING PLANTS
operating with an immaculate track record.

Over 45 installed UPDRAFT BIOMASS GASIFIERS for
Thermal Applications from 500KWth to 5000KWth. These are for various
applications including ceramic tunnel, kiln, spray dryer, boiler
etc.

Expressed Interest:
[1] to develop 250KWe to 2MWe Gasifier based Power
Project.
[2] to develop thermal tar cracking system to make
updraft gasifier more effective by converting high molecular hydro carbons
into small molecular hydrocarbons and to reduce tar problems and produce a rich
quality of gas.
[3] as per our thinking to manufacture big
power projects compared to downdraft gasification, updraft gasification is easy
to operate and suitable for any kind of fuels example, biomass or any grade of
coal.
[4] we are also interested to obtain proven
know-how for reduction of sulphur from gasification of petroleum coke and other
mines coal.
[5] cost of manufacturing gasifiers in European and
other countries is on the high side. We are interested in collaborating
with firms who wish to join hands with us where our company can offer
complete production facility, with highly developed infrastructure and
manufacturing know how of gasifiers.

Consultants,
mfrs, agencies, organizations, technocrats, universities, who
wish to obtain further elaboration on our activities and interest may
contact us at the below:

RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEV.
ASSOCIATES
D-110 RAJDOOT IND.
ESTATE
4 UMAKANT PANDIT
UDYOGNAGAR'
RAJKOT 360004 GUJARAT
INDIA
TEL-91-281-372567, 377823,
369098
FAX-91-281-372557
email: <A
href="mailto:rreda@radhegroup.com">rreda@radhegroup.com
<A
href="http://www.radhegroup.com">www.radhegroup.com

From tmiles at trmiles.com Fri Sep 13 09:06:44 2002
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: biomass gasification
In-Reply-To: <004e01c25b38$063618e0$0600a8c0@Comp6>
Message-ID: <00f201c25b47$a1fccc60$6601a8c0@tommain>

Dr. Makadia,

Thank you for the information about your
company.

Do you have any photos or project decriptions for
your systems operating in the 1000 kWth size on wood waste?

Thanks

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:
Dr. S. V.
Makadia
To: <A title=gasification@crest.org
href="mailto:gasification@crest.org">gasification@crest.org
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 8:12
AM
Subject: GAS-L: biomass
gasification

Dear All,

we are engaged in the manufacturing of renewable
and non-conventional energy equipments. i.e. briquetting plants and biomass
gasifiers.

company name: RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
ASSOCIATES

Activities: manufacturing briquetting
plants JUMBO 90 model with production capacity of 500 to 1500 kgs per
hour, with an added benefit ;JUMBO 90 does not require hammer mill or
sizing machine since residuals of upto 25mm can be fed
directly. Moreover, it has been developed for minimum consumption of
power and maintenance.

Manufacturing large size updraft gasifiers
with rotating grate for thermal application with biomass
and coal..

Achievements: Over 34 installed BRIQUETTING
PLANTS operating with an immaculate track record.

Over 45 installed UPDRAFT BIOMASS GASIFIERS for
Thermal Applications from 500KWth to 5000KWth. These are for various
applications including ceramic tunnel, kiln, spray dryer, boiler
etc.

Expressed Interest:
[1] to develop 250KWe to 2MWe Gasifier based
Power Project.
[2] to develop thermal tar cracking system to
make updraft gasifier more effective by converting high molecular hydro
carbons into small molecular hydrocarbons and to reduce tar problems and
produce a rich quality of gas.
[3] as per our thinking to manufacture big
power projects compared to downdraft gasification, updraft gasification is
easy to operate and suitable for any kind of fuels example, biomass or any
grade of coal.
[4] we are also interested to obtain proven
know-how for reduction of sulphur from gasification of petroleum coke and
other mines coal.
[5] cost of manufacturing gasifiers in European
and other countries is on the high side. We are interested in
collaborating with firms who wish to join hands with us where our
company can offer complete production facility, with highly developed
infrastructure and manufacturing know how of gasifiers.

Consultants,
mfrs, agencies, organizations, technocrats, universities, who
wish to obtain further elaboration on our activities and interest may
contact us at the below:

RADHE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEV.
ASSOCIATES
D-110 RAJDOOT IND.
ESTATE
4 UMAKANT PANDIT
UDYOGNAGAR'
RAJKOT 360004 GUJARAT
INDIA
TEL-91-281-372567, 377823,
369098
FAX-91-281-372557
email: <A
href="mailto:rreda@radhegroup.com">rreda@radhegroup.com
<A
href="http://www.radhegroup.com">www.radhegroup.com

From d.rl at virgin.net Sat Sep 14 11:41:57 2002
From: d.rl at virgin.net (David Reynolds-Lacey)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gel fuel and much more from cattails
Message-ID: <001d01c25c26$aaa2bde0$0701a8c0@drl01>

Daniel,

"Coppicing" cattails? - now that is interesting.

I am assuming that you would require to continue harvesting the cattails as
a renewable energy source rather than use them on a once every-so-often
basis.

Harvesting cattails by pulling them out by the roots may be counter-
productive if you wished to continue vigorous growth for future harvesting.
The continued removal of soil with the roots may also eventually increase
the depth of the water to point where the cattails would not survive,
although this would take some time and may be replaced by normal silting in
any event. Cattails also have special cells (aerenchyma) that allow the
transfer of oxygen to the rhizome during the dormant period, damaging these
by deep shearing or discing, especially combined with deepening water could
also eventually destroy the crop - in fact it is a better method of control
than using glyphosate!

I am sure that you have mentioned that you have severe frozen "early"
winters in your part of the US so one method of harvesting you could
consider is to wait until it is frozen and go on and cut them with a
reciprocating cutter or a disc, this will also protect the rhizomes from
damage. Of course, this method will only work until global warming takes
full effect!

Regards,

David

From hseaver at cybershamanix.com Sat Sep 14 12:46:32 2002
From: hseaver at cybershamanix.com (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gel fuel and much more from cattails
In-Reply-To: <001d01c25c26$aaa2bde0$0701a8c0@drl01>
Message-ID: <20020914204426.GC8291@cybershamanix.com>

On Sat, Sep 14, 2002 at 08:41:06PM +0100, David Reynolds-Lacey wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> "Coppicing" cattails? - now that is interesting.
>
> I am assuming that you would require to continue harvesting the cattails as
> a renewable energy source rather than use them on a once every-so-often
> basis.

The harvesting methods developed are to harvest only in strips, since they
spread by both root and seed.

>
> Harvesting cattails by pulling them out by the roots may be counter-
> productive if you wished to continue vigorous growth for future harvesting.

It would depend on what you were doing. In many areas the DNR is trying to
eradicate them anyway, and that is why they would allow you to harvest on public
lands.

> The continued removal of soil with the roots may also eventually increase
> the depth of the water to point where the cattails would not survive,
> although this would take some time and may be replaced by normal silting in
> any event.

Not so, one of the reasons that cattails are a problem is because water
levels have been raised by dams to the point of being too deep for the other
native species, while cattails will form floating matts that aren't even
attached to the soil at all. Which makes for ease of harvesting with the proper
machinery. One method of havesting involves using a water or air jet type of
"dredge", and which then aids in cleanining all the mud from the roots as well,
something necessary if you want to use them for feed or ethanol production.

(snip)

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

From d.rl at virgin.net Sat Sep 14 15:36:47 2002
From: d.rl at virgin.net (David Reynolds-Lacey)
Date: Tue Aug 31 21:10:08 2004
Subject: GAS-L: Gel Fuel and much more from cattails
In-Reply-To: <f5.21ee093d.2ab43799@aol.com>
Message-ID: <003e01c25c47$750e4ca0$0701a8c0@drl01>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: multipart/alternative
Size: 0 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20020914/9e31c152/attachment.bin

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

September 2002 Gasification Archive