BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

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

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

December 2003 Gasification Archive

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

From alyilmaz at ANET.NET.TR Mon Dec 1 05:50:05 2003
From: alyilmaz at ANET.NET.TR (ali yilmaz)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Flue Gas Retention Time in Combustion Chamber
Message-ID: <MON.1.DEC.2003.125005.0200.ALYILMAZ@ANET.NET.TR>

Hi all,

In a combustion chamber burning biomass, wood waste and susts; in order to
have a complete combustion and prevent ash carry over to the flue gas ducts
what should be the approximate retention time of the flue gas in the
chamber?

Regards,

Ali

From gjahnke at BIRCH.NET Tue Dec 2 05:05:42 2003
From: gjahnke at BIRCH.NET (Greg Jahnke)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Some questions on gasification for use on an engine
Message-ID: <TUE.2.DEC.2003.040542.0600.GJAHNKE@BIRCH.NET>

Hello everybody! I stumbled on this list while doing some research on gasification for running IC engines. I have a plan in mind to implement a gasification system, but wanted to run it by somebody with more extensive knowledge than I have been able to gather from the internet or from my own limited exposure to such systems. I was considering implementing such a system in a couple of different ways.

First off, I have a hunting cabin out in the boonies with no electrical connection to the grid. Currently, the electrical power for the cabin comes from a generator with a 15 HP kohler gas engine. I was considering building the gasifier found at http://www.gengas.nu/byggbes/index.shtml to operate the engine. When I am at the cabin, the generator runs constantly (usually for 3-5 days at a time). I would prefer to run it on biomass as opposed to the gasoline I have been using. My plan is to build the unit basically as described (with some modifications for materials on hand, etc..) but to add a hopper made from a 200 gallon fuel tank (an old farm tank) and putting a belt feed system betweeen the hopper and the gasifier (salvaged from and old corn shucker). I have several old steam radiators that I removed from my house and I thought that one of those would make a good gas cooler. First off, should the radiator go between the gasifier and the filter, or between the filter and the engine? I have found diagrams online that show it both ways. Which would be the better alternative?

My next question has to do with the fuel for the gasifer. The local dump offers wood chips for free on a you load em basis. The chips are remnants of tree trimming in the city and the municipal christmas tree collection. This, of course, means that the chips are comprised of a large variety of different types of wood. The chips themselves are mostly free of leaves and other debris (a requirement of the dump). I have read several different arguments for different types of fuels to be used in gasifers for greatest efficiency. The big question is, will I get acceptable performance from this hodgepodge of different woods? I know that I will loose some power in the motor from switching to gasified wood (If I understand correctly about 30%), but the generator originally had only a 8 HP motor which burned out (I got the 15hp motor used for less than I could get a 8hp replacement) so I am thinking that the loss is acceptable.

The second application I was considering is in an old chevy ('83) pickup. The truck has a 350hp, 350ci motor. I spent a little time in Africa a few years back an saw V8's being run by wood gasifiers. Rather than hauling around a big cylinder in the bed, though, I was considering using a box made of 10 gauge steel that is 4 ft x 3 ft x 3ft . I was wondering if I could build a partition in the box with the burn tube on one side (insulated by cacium silicate panels) and use the rest of the space as a fuel hopper with an auger to feed the fuel to the fire tube. I also needed to know how critical the dimensions for the fire tube are. Right now I am working on the supposition that the critical factor is the total volume of the tube which would mean that I could logically replace a tall narrow burn tube with a shorter but broader one. Is this a correct analysis? Assuming that the partition is placed at the halfway point of the box (2ft) this would give the fuel hopper a capacity of 18 cubic ft. What would be a realistic guestimate on the runtime for this amount of fuel? Also, where would be the best place to put the air intake for something like this? Would it best be placed over the fire tube, or on the side containing the fuel?

I thought I would run a hard piped gas outlet from the box down through a hole in the bed and back to a filter (probably mounted where the current gas tank is) and then to one of my old radiators mounted beneath the bed, then back up to the engine compartment to connect at the intake manifold with a flex pipe. My basic question is, do you consider this to be a workable design? I also wondered about a couple fo articles I read that stated that you could get performance nearly equal to using gasoline through the addition of a turbocharger to the engine. How big a turbocharger are they talking (I have been unable to locate any refrence to the size required) or is this a case of the bigger the better?

I apologise if the questions here are of a basic nature, I wanted to double check my understanding of things before I started building anything.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Greg Jahnke

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Tue Dec 2 15:15:01 2003
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: Russia refuses Kyoto protocol
Message-ID: <TUE.2.DEC.2003.151501.EST.>

Dear Listers,
Russia has refused to ratify the Kyoto protocols. See news article at
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20031202111409990003&_ccc=1. This
will obviously have an impact upon gasification and greenhouse emission
credits which can be used for financing lowered emission projects. It will be
interesting to see what the effect is upon the traders in emission credits.

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

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Tue Dec 2 15:54:47 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: Russia refuses Kyoto protocol
Message-ID: <TUE.2.DEC.2003.165447.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Leland

As I understand it, most of the World was on the way to signing up for the
Kyoto Protocols until the US flatly said no, and pulled out from the
process.

Could this be why Russia is holding back?

kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: <LINVENT@AOL.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 4:15 PM
Subject: [GASL] Russia refuses Kyoto protocol

> Dear Listers,
> Russia has refused to ratify the Kyoto protocols. See news article at
>
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20031202111409990003&_ccc=1.
This
> will obviously have an impact upon gasification and greenhouse emission
> credits which can be used for financing lowered emission projects. It will
be
> interesting to see what the effect is upon the traders in emission
credits.
>
> Leland T. Taylor
> President
> Thermogenics Inc.
> 7100-F 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107 Phone: 505-761-5633,
fax:
> 341-0424, website: thermogenics.com.
> In order to read the compressed files forwarded under AOL, it is necessary
to
> download Aladdin's freeware Unstuffit at
> http://www.stuffit.com/expander/index.html

From ajtsamba at ZEBRA.UEM.MZ Tue Dec 2 17:05:39 2003
From: ajtsamba at ZEBRA.UEM.MZ (=?us-ascii?Q?Alberto_Julio_Tsamba?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: Manure gas upgrading thru gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <20031130181846.CD9FE114CBB@postfix4-1.free.fr>
Message-ID: <WED.3.DEC.2003.000539.0200.>

Hi Philippe,

In terms of chemical reactions, it will depend on the existence or absence
of oxygen (oxidation or reduction reactions).

If there is enough oxygen, methane will result in carbon dioxide and water:
CH4 + 2O2 =CO2 + 2H2O + Heat;
if there isn't enough oxygen (bellow stoichiometric quantity) it can result
in CO and Hydrogen: CH4+ O2 = 0.5CO + 2H2 which is endotermic, meaning that
it absorbs energy. (this can be easily determined through a basic enthalpy
calculation).
Normally, the same products result from carbon (C) and steam (H2O) reaction
as follows: C + H2O = CO + H2 -Heat.

Regards,

Tsamba

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Philippe
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 8:19 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Manure gas upgrading thru gasifiers

>
>What happens when the CH4 is reacted with the O2 in the gasifier?

Oxydation zone : 2O2 + (CH4 + CO2) --> 2CO2 +2H2O + Heat
Reduction : xC + 2CO2 +2H2O + Heat --> yCH4 + zCO ???

Any chemist here ? HELP !!!!
It seems we have something like coal water-gas, maybe we need also some
super-heated steam ?
Is this feasible in a small scale ?

Philippe.

>
>Leland T. Taylor

From FMurrl at AOL.COM Tue Dec 2 17:11:54 2003
From: FMurrl at AOL.COM (FMurrl@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: Russia refuses Kyoto protocol
Message-ID: <TUE.2.DEC.2003.171154.EST.>

In a message dated 12/2/2003 3:55:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,
kchisholm@ca.inter.net writes:
Could this be why Russia is holding back?
Kevin/All:

I don't see why we don't believe Russia when it says that in the long term
they view the Kyoto Protocol as costing the Russian economy a great deal of
money.

Andrei Illarionov (adviser to Putin) said, "The Kyoto protocol places
significant limitations on the economic growth of Russia...It's impossible to
undertake responsibilities that place serious limits on the country's growth."

This is the same point made by the US. One of the main differences between
the US and Russia is that Russia stood to make lots of money in the early years
of the protocol, by selling carbon credits (mostly generated by its coalbed
methane projects). The other factor favoring Russia in the short term is that
the protocol set the limits in 1990 data -- the year before the collapse of the
Soviet Union and its economy.

For the US, the protocol was only going to be an expense.

Fred Murrell
Biomass Development Company
Bradenton Florida

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Tue Dec 2 18:31:07 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: Russia refuses Kyoto protocol
Message-ID: <TUE.2.DEC.2003.193107.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Fred

Kyoto isn't supposed to be about making or losing money. It is supposed to
be about conserving a rapidly diminishing energy resource, and about
protecting a degrading environment.

The World has lots of coal, but very much less energy resources as petroleum
and Natural Gas. The US has lots of coal, and will increasingly have to
switch back to it to maintain its present rate of energy consumption. The US
could be hit a bit harder than other Countries who use less energy, but
then, is it not a question of fairness, where those contributing more to the
problem should pay for more of the consequences?

If everybody signed Kyoto, then everybody would be in the same boat, on a
level playing field, etc. If the US drops out (as it did) it gets an unfair
advantage. This is certainly not a fair situation, where the rest of the
World has to pay to protect the environmental, petroleum, and NG resources,
and the US walks away with all the benefits of the efforts of others. This
strikes me as being uncooperative and self-serving.

The way to save most money, at least in the short term, is to abandon Kyoto
entirely. At least nobody is paying unfairly.

Now as I understand it, the whole point of Kyoto was to effectively raise
energy costs, so that there would be an inducement to conserve resource.
What about if the "objector states" decided to think along the lines of: "If
we conserve energy and reduce our emissions, we will have many other
benefits." At the present, with petroleum being heavily subsidized by the US
Government, it is being consumed like it will last forever. It won't.

I haven't been following the implications of Kyoto in detail. Perhaps there
are some unfair and unreasonable provisions. How could they be changed, to
the betterment of all of us?

Kindest regards,

Kevin

----- Original Message -----
From: <FMurrl@aol.com>
To: <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>; <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Russia refuses Kyoto protocol

> In a message dated 12/2/2003 3:55:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> kchisholm@ca.inter.net writes:
> Could this be why Russia is holding back?
> Kevin/All:
>
> I don't see why we don't believe Russia when it says that in the long term
> they view the Kyoto Protocol as costing the Russian economy a great deal
of
> money.
>

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Tue Dec 2 19:06:33 2003
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: complexities of Kyoto accord
Message-ID: <TUE.2.DEC.2003.190633.EST.>

The Kyoto accord has a lot more to take into consideration than just fossil
fuel or alternative fuel emissions. When one takes a look at the CO2 sink which
the forests or farming represent, how do you deal with them? Do you add a
credit when a tree is planted and add to it every year it grows, and if it rains
more one year causing it to grow faster does this credit increase. Do you
remove a credit every time a tree is removed and if it is used in a house, keep
the credit in a separate account until the house is torn down and the tree is
shipped to a landfill where it eventually produced CO2 and CH4 and then add
credits back as it decomposes? If the tree falls in the forest, it immediately
begins decaying which deletes a credit?
The US forests as the Russian forests are huge and have to be calculated
in the net greenhouse gas balances.
The same with farming. If farmers plant larger acreages, do they get
carbon credits and then have them taken away when the plow the crop back into the
soil and as the organic matter decomposes and gives off gases in the soil, the
credits are charged back to the farmer?
The largest store of carbon is limestone. If a farmer uses limestone and
it decomposes giving off CO2, do you charge him for that?
The politics of the Kyoto accords are minimal in comparison to the
rational extensions of it being applied uniformly and completely. Economics aside,
human existence and freedom would be mired in an infinite amount of complexity
if they were completely and totally engaged. Nice idea, but the devil got the
details.

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

From FMurrl at AOL.COM Wed Dec 3 08:01:00 2003
From: FMurrl at AOL.COM (FMurrl@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: Russia refuses Kyoto protocol
Message-ID: <WED.3.DEC.2003.080100.EST.>

In a message dated 12/2/2003 6:31:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
kchisholm@ca.inter.net writes:
Kyoto isn't supposed to be about making or losing money. It is supposed to
be about conserving a rapidly diminishing energy resource, and about
protecting a degrading environment.
Kevin:

Thanks for your comments. I have a couple of responses.

1. Unfortunately, it is almost always about the money. We can like it or
not, but the financial issues tend to drive the bus. In the case of Russia's
decision, as well as that of the US, it was about the money.

2. A big problem many had with Kyoto was large number of countries to whom
the protocol did not apply. You say, "If everybody signed Kyoto, then everybody
would be in the same boat, on a level playing field..."

While your statement is correct, that is not what was proposed by Kyoto. The
US and Russia found the inequities and the costs to be too great.

Finally, I tend to agree with your sentiments, and our company would be
benefited by anything that helps biomass projects. However, right now we have to
recognize that economic issues are blocking Kyoto.

Regards,
Fred Murrell
Biomass Development Company
Bradenton Florida USA

From dglickd at PIPELINE.COM Thu Dec 4 11:45:58 2003
From: dglickd at PIPELINE.COM (Dick Glick)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: Russia does flip-flop on signing Kyoto pact
Message-ID: <THU.4.DEC.2003.114558.0500.DGLICKD@PIPELINE.COM>

Hello -- For whatever it's worth -- This seems what Russia was doing? Best, Dick

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031204.wxrussia04/BNStory/Front/

Russia does flip-flop on signing Kyoto pact
By MARK MacKINNON
From Globe and Mail, Thursday, Dec. 4, 2003

POSTED AT 4:50 AM EST

MOSCOW ? Russia, which is in a position to either kill or bring into force the Kyoto global climate-change treaty, reversed direction again Wednesday and indicated that it plans to ratify the pact after all ? once other countries meet its price.

Confirming the suspicions of many observers, Russian deputy economy minister Mukhamed Tsikhanov made clear that Moscow expects to be compensated if it is to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. He pointed to Japan and the European Union, the treaty's two biggest proponents, as the countries that should provide the financial lure.

"You should put this question to Japan and the EU about when they will start to speak to us in economic language," he told reporters.

..........................................etc

From FMurrl at AOL.COM Thu Dec 4 13:02:06 2003
From: FMurrl at AOL.COM (FMurrl@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: Russia does flip-flop on signing Kyoto pact
Message-ID: <THU.4.DEC.2003.130206.EST.>

Part of news article hitting the press today -- seems that the Russians may
be angling for a way to turn a negative into a positive cash flow:
BEGIN Russian deputy economic minister Mukhamed Tsikhanov said yesterday
the country has not yet reached a decision on the international climate change
treaty and ratification remained a possibility. "There are no decisions about
ratification apart from the fact that we are moving toward ratification,"
Tsikhanov said in a news briefing in Moscow.
Tsikhanov statement came just one day after Andrei Illarionov, Russian
President Vladimir Putin's economic issues adviser, had said Russia would not ratify
the pact in its current form. END

From FMurrl at AOL.COM Thu Dec 4 13:03:11 2003
From: FMurrl at AOL.COM (FMurrl@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: Russia does flip-flop on signing Kyoto pact
Message-ID: <THU.4.DEC.2003.130311.EST.>

This appears to be the real thrust of the Russians:

BEGIN But Tsikhanov hinted that before Russia seriously considers
ratifying the agreement it needs additional guarantees from Japan and the European
Union that it will be able to sell its surplus pollution quotas to other
countries. "How soon Russia will ratify the Kyoto Protocol depends on the position of
the European Union and Japan," he said. "Russia is the only country that
would be able to trade in quotas, but countries that overstep their quota levels
are not showing any interest in cooperating with us" (Alex Rodriguez, Chicago
Tribune). END

From bpjackso at YAHOO.COM Sat Dec 6 20:02:52 2003
From: bpjackso at YAHOO.COM (Bruce Jackson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: Gassifing used engine oil
Message-ID: <SAT.6.DEC.2003.170252.0800.BPJACKSO@YAHOO.COM>

Hi,
What is the easiest way to take used engine oil and
convert it into electricity. Can it be gassified like
solids or? The only other plans I see is filter it
down to 5 microns and run it in a diesel engine. Or,
boiler fuel for a steam plant.
Any ideas.
BPJ

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

From 150128db at PANDORA.BE Sun Dec 7 03:45:59 2003
From: 150128db at PANDORA.BE (Dani=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=EBl?= Bullaert)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: Methylene chloride O.R.C.
Message-ID: <SUN.7.DEC.2003.034559.0500.150128DB@PANDORA.BE>

Hello everybody
I intend to use a Organic Rankine Cycle engine with a modified Airco
scroll compressor as expander and refrigerant Methylene chloride
( CH2CL2 )
and as absorbent a kind of high temperature oil. Should Diesel oil
be good ?Until now I don't have found info about those 2 components.
This for avoiding all the filter troubles with
internal combustion motors

From CAVM at AOL.COM Sun Dec 7 11:42:27 2003
From: CAVM at AOL.COM (C. Van Milligen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: Used motor oil
Message-ID: <SUN.7.DEC.2003.114227.EST.>

In a message dated 12/6/2003 11:02:57 PM Central Standard Time,
LISTSERV@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG writes:

> What is the easiest way to take used engine oil and
> convert it into electricity. Can it be gassified like
> solids or? The only other plans I see is filter it
> down to 5 microns and run it in a diesel engine. Or,
> boiler fuel for a steam plant.
> Any ideas.
> BPJ

Used motor oil can be reformed to its constituent parts of diesel and
gasoline by cracking it at about 735F. This can be done using a thermal cracking
device, similar to an alcohol still or a steam boiler. One is made by Stan Brown
of Waco, TX.
Browns@iamerica.net

He can take 100 gallons of used motor oil and, after cracking it, be left
with 75 gallons of diesel, 15 gallons of gasoline and the balance a combustable
residue which can be used as fuel for the process. Same process works for
vegetable oil and animal fat.

Neal Van Milligen
cavm@aol.com

From 150128db at PANDORA.BE Sun Dec 7 11:55:40 2003
From: 150128db at PANDORA.BE (Dani=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=EBl?= Bullaert)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: ORC methylene chloride ( CH2CL2 )
Message-ID: <SUN.7.DEC.2003.115540.0500.150128DB@PANDORA.BE>

To Robert in Phnom Penh
First of all . I have NOT received the reprint of the M Earth
A Rankine cycle engine is like a condensing steam engine. Here the fluid
is NOT water and vapor but an organic medium that boils at lower temperature
Until a few years ago FREON was the medium . However with the ban on the
CFC's we have to look for another stuff Pentane and Isopentane are very
good replacements of the different freons but that stuff BURNS !
So we have to look for something else . At first sight the METHYLENE
CHLORIDE seems to be OK for this application . Finding the ABSORBENT for
the CH2CL2 is another challenge . This absorbent should preferabely be a
liquid with a far higher boiling temperature than the Refrigerant , in this
case the M.CHL.I wonder if DIESEL oil could be a reply for that absorbent
problem . I hope that a good Chemist could give me an answher.A modified
scroll expander from a car airco seems to be a good expansion machine
Dani?l

From snkm at BTL.NET Sun Dec 7 13:34:21 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: Used motor oil
Message-ID: <SUN.7.DEC.2003.123421.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

You can also store it in large vessels -- let it settle out (say two years)
then use it for fuel for an old style Lister diesel (650 RPM) -- as I do
here in Belize.

Or if your interested in larger applications -- use a Wartsila power plant
fueling it with this same oil.

http://www.wartsila.com/

But then -- few people are interested in simple/economic solutions these
days ---

I have a small 3 kwh power plant that costs a total of $1000 US. The old
style Listers are rated at 25 years at 12 hours per day usage.

The Big Warts do much better though.

By the way -- one of the greater costs of operating a diesel power plant is
the lubrication oil costs. With the low stress Listers -- I use the same
"recycled" engine oil. And even then -- that goes back into the "system" to
be eventually burned as fuel.

At present I have but a ten year storage "aging" -- but plan to increase
that to 20 years soon.

Simple solutions for simple minds?? Well -- call me a fool then!

 

Peter Singfield / Belize

At 11:42 AM 12/7/2003 EST, C. Van Milligen wrote:
>In a message dated 12/6/2003 11:02:57 PM Central Standard Time,
>LISTSERV@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG writes:
>
>
>> What is the easiest way to take used engine oil and
>> convert it into electricity. Can it be gassified like
>> solids or? The only other plans I see is filter it
>> down to 5 microns and run it in a diesel engine. Or,
>> boiler fuel for a steam plant.
>> Any ideas.
>> BPJ
>
>
>Used motor oil can be reformed to its constituent parts of diesel and
>gasoline by cracking it at about 735F. This can be done using a thermal
cracking
>device, similar to an alcohol still or a steam boiler. One is made by
Stan Brown
>of Waco, TX.
>Browns@iamerica.net
>
>He can take 100 gallons of used motor oil and, after cracking it, be left
>with 75 gallons of diesel, 15 gallons of gasoline and the balance a
combustable
>residue which can be used as fuel for the process. Same process works for
>vegetable oil and animal fat.
>
>Neal Van Milligen
>cavm@aol.com
>

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Sun Dec 7 18:44:46 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: [peterfink@utanet.at: addition to e-mail "woodgasifying system"]
Message-ID: <SUN.7.DEC.2003.174446.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

----- Forwarded message from Fink Peter <peterfink@utanet.at> -----

Delivered-To: hseaver@cybershamanix.com
From: "Fink Peter" <peterfink@utanet.at>
To: <hseaver@cybershamanix.com>
Subject: addition to e-mail "woodgasifying system"
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:04:30 +0100
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200

Dear Harmon Seaver,

As a matter of fact, my father doesn't want to build a woodgasifying system himself, but rather wants to buy a turkey solution. So, the infomation that will be most precious to us are names of companies that build woodgasifiers, as well as names of engineers. Of course, we are not going to despise any advice whatsoever.
Again, many thanks for your support,

Love,

Peter

----- End forwarded message -----

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

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Sun Dec 7 18:45:09 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: [peterfink@utanet.at: ]looking for gasifiers
Message-ID: <SUN.7.DEC.2003.174509.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

----- Forwarded message from Fink Peter <peterfink@utanet.at> -----

Delivered-To: hseaver@cybershamanix.com
From: "Fink Peter" <peterfink@utanet.at>
To: <hseaver@cybershamanix.com>
Subject:
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 18:04:03 +0100
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200

Peter Fink
Oberrettenbach 19
8212 Pischelsdorf
Fax: ++43 3113 2499
peterfink@utanet.at

Dear Harmon Seaver,

My father -we live in Austria - wants to buy a woodgasifying system to produce around 100 kWe from woodchips. For that purpose we are in contact with Fa. Kuntschar, Germany, Fa. Drebe, Germany, and Mister Hans Gr?bner of Bavaria, Germany, who is an inveterate woodgasifyer. (You should hear him talk). Anyway, could you give us advice for our project? Any respected and advanced companies, names of engineers and your own piece of advice could mean the world to us at the early stage of our planning. If you could be specific and include many names and addresses.
I'm much obliged,

Sincerely,

Peter

----- End forwarded message -----

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

From krishnakumar_07 at YAHOO.CO.UK Mon Dec 8 06:24:53 2003
From: krishnakumar_07 at YAHOO.CO.UK (=?iso-8859-1?q?krishna=20kumar?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: NDG
In-Reply-To: <002b01c3bce5$1a4889c0$45dc55d4@home>
Message-ID: <MON.8.DEC.2003.112453.0000.KRISHNAKUMAR07@YAHOO.CO.UK>

I have fabricated the natural draft gasifier
with conrete and coated inside with clay.

I have made a trail run of it and it worked
satisfactorlly.The flame reached to a height of
1-1.25ft above the top of the stove.

Then i tried with clossing the top of the stove
with a lid and taking the gas seperately and burning
it through a burner. but i was unsuccesful in burning
the gas,
The gas came out through the primairy air port
and it did not gasify the wood inside.

i would like to know about the chimney effect
and draft to create the gas to come out of the pipe.

 

=====
krish

________________________________________________________________________
BT Yahoo! Broadband - Save ?80 when you order online today. Hurry! Offer ends 21st December 2003. The way the internet was meant to be. http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=21064/*http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk

From oscar at GEPROP.CU Mon Dec 8 09:57:06 2003
From: oscar at GEPROP.CU (=?utf-8?Q?Oscar_Jim=C3=A9nez?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: [peterfink@utanet.at: ]looking for gasifiers
Message-ID: <MON.8.DEC.2003.095706.0500.OSCAR@GEPROP.CU>

Dear Peter.

Have you ever visited the Renewable Energy On Line Data Base ??? I think it could be of relevant help to you. Many companies involved in renewable energy business, including gasifier manufacturer, are listed. Below I am pleased in sending website address.
(http://www.jxj.com/suppands/renenerg/index.html)

Kind regards.

Oscar.
Energy Project Manager.
GEPROP.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Harmon Seaver [mailto:hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM]
Enviado el: dom 07/12/2003 18:45
Para: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
CC:
Asunto: [GASL] [peterfink@utanet.at: ]looking for gasifiers

 

----- Forwarded message from Fink Peter <peterfink@utanet.at> -----

Delivered-To: hseaver@cybershamanix.com
From: "Fink Peter" <peterfink@utanet.at>
To: <hseaver@cybershamanix.com>
Subject:
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 18:04:03 +0100
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200

Peter Fink
Oberrettenbach 19
8212 Pischelsdorf
Fax: ++43 3113 2499
peterfink@utanet.at

Dear Harmon Seaver,

My father -we live in Austria - wants to buy a woodgasifying system to produce around 100 kWe from woodchips. For that purpose we are in contact with Fa. Kuntschar, Germany, Fa. Drebe, Germany, and Mister Hans Gr?bner of Bavaria, Germany, who is an inveterate woodgasifyer. (You should hear him talk). Anyway, could you give us advice for our project? Any respected and advanced companies, names of engineers and your own piece of advice could mean the world to us at the early stage of our planning. If you could be specific and include many names and addresses.
I'm much obliged,

Sincerely,

Peter

----- End forwarded message -----

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

From sheltonvictor at YAHOO.CO.IN Sat Dec 13 07:57:49 2003
From: sheltonvictor at YAHOO.CO.IN (=?iso-8859-1?q?shelton=20victor?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: GASIFICATION-FLUIDIZED BED TYPE
Message-ID: <SAT.13.DEC.2003.125749.0000.SHELTONVICTOR@YAHOO.CO.IN>

HI
HOW SIMPLE GAS CLEANING CAN BE CARRIED OUT IN A FLUIDIZED BED GASIFIER(BUBLING TYPE) FOR THERMAL HEATING,HOW ACTIVATED CARBON CAN BE PREPARED FROM THE ABOVE PROCESS(PHYSICAL ACTIVATION) AND .,STEAM AND CARBONDIOXIDE CALCULATIONS,STEPS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE ACTIVATED CARBONS.IF YOU HAVE A YAHOO CHAT ID KINDLY MAIL ME.

SHELTON
THANK YOU.

Yahoo! India Mobile: Ringtones, Wallpapers, Picture Messages and more.Download now.

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Sun Dec 14 11:24:33 2003
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: Tar
In-Reply-To: <IHEFIGMBEOIIGACEAOGHCEMCCEAA.ctfarmer@main.nc.us>
Message-ID: <SUN.14.DEC.2003.102433.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Chris,

It's home-built out of two old porcelain lined electric hot water tanks.
(GSW I think). Chips are what ever I can find, EG: local tree maintenance
people, our local electric co. when they are trimming around lines, etc.

So far chips, are what I have amassed over the last 3 years, we are getting
a chipper but not this winter.

The key to what we are doing is "sorting" the chips before they go to
primary storage (secondary storage is the big pile, primary storage is the
hopper-bottom bin, just outside the gasifier building). It simply requires
me to use a front-end loader to fill the sorter, from there, augers are used
for everything after the sorter. (about once every 2 weeks)

Chip size is (after sorting) in the range of 1/4"x1/4"x1/4" to
3/4"x3/4"x3/4" anything too small is reused as bedding for horses & cows,
and anything too large is hand sorted for use out on the patio fireplace.

The quality of chip? I would have to say, in our system, most is "whole
tree" stuff (as in, it's what we are currently getting 3rd party), It isn't
any one type of tree, I've seen pine cones, and white bark, and everything
in-between when loading the sorter

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: chris farmer [mailto:ctfarmer@main.nc.us]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 5:49 PM
To: a31ford
Subject: RE: [GASL] Tar

Hey Greg,

Where did you get your gasifier? Is it a commercial unit, or did you build
it yourself?
What kind of woodchipper are you using to make chip?, or are you buying
chip off the market?
What's the size and quality of the chip?

Thanks for your time.

Chris Farmer
1025 Camp Elliott Rd.
Black Mountain, NC 28711
(828) 664-0268
ctfarmer@main.nc.us

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of a31ford
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 6:19 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Tar

Bruce, What level of tar ?

I'm running a downdraft, woodchip fired gasifier, and the level of tar is so
low, I don't need to remove it...

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Bruce Jackson
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 11:17 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] Tar

Hi,
What are folks using to remove tar? I am trying to
condense it before it goes in to a wood chip
pre-filter.
BPJ

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Mon Dec 15 10:05:42 2003
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: Tar
In-Reply-To: <IHEFIGMBEOIIGACEAOGHAEMECEAA.ctfarmer@main.nc.us>
Message-ID: <MON.15.DEC.2003.090542.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Chris,

The Sorter is a big drum 31" x 84" (31 round) home made also, when you look
down the inside, it kinda looks like a concrete truck's drum (the flighting,
or "fins") the outside is covered in 3/16" expanded steel mesh for the first
36" and 3/4" steel mesh for the other 48" it was a trial and error kinda
thing, and I ended up setting the small/medium partition about 20" from the
start of the drum (under the drum), the entire drum turns about 20rpm, on a
double reduced 1/4hp electric motor (2.5" to 11" pulley, then on the same
shaft as the 11" another 2.5" to the outside of the drum 31"). I feed the
input hopper with a front-end loader, the sorter produces 3 grades of chips
(small, medium, large), (the large is simply pushed to the far end of the
drum, where is falls out). the small is augered to a "junk pile", the
medium is augered to the hopper bottom that has a "pencil auger" to the
gasifier (Kinda like the old "stoker augers" from coal fired boilers, BUT
the chips go to the top, not the bottom)

I have to continue this later, as I'm headed to work, TTFN.

Oh, BTW, the 31" is actually 30.5" (96" divided by Pi) :) (the sheets of
expanded mesh are 96" long, that is what set the Dia. of the drum).

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: chris farmer [mailto:ctfarmer@main.nc.us]
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 6:28 PM
To: a31ford
Subject: RE: [GASL] Tar

Greg,

Thanks for the reply.
You're sorting the big stuff out by hand -- and the small stuff is sorted
out by screens?
Are you pre-drying this chip before it enters the gasifier?, or does it go
in "green"?

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: a31ford [mailto:a31ford@inetlink.ca]
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 11:25 AM
To: 'chris farmer'; A Gasification List (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [GASL] Tar

Chris,

It's home-built out of two old porcelain lined electric hot water tanks.
(GSW I think). Chips are what ever I can find, EG: local tree maintenance
people, our local electric co. when they are trimming around lines, etc.

So far chips, are what I have amassed over the last 3 years, we are getting
a chipper but not this winter.

The key to what we are doing is "sorting" the chips before they go to
primary storage (secondary storage is the big pile, primary storage is the
hopper-bottom bin, just outside the gasifier building). It simply requires
me to use a front-end loader to fill the sorter, from there, augers are used
for everything after the sorter. (about once every 2 weeks)

Chip size is (after sorting) in the range of 1/4"x1/4"x1/4" to
3/4"x3/4"x3/4" anything too small is reused as bedding for horses & cows,
and anything too large is hand sorted for use out on the patio fireplace.

The quality of chip? I would have to say, in our system, most is "whole
tree" stuff (as in, it's what we are currently getting 3rd party), It isn't
any one type of tree, I've seen pine cones, and white bark, and everything
in-between when loading the sorter

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: chris farmer [mailto:ctfarmer@main.nc.us]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 5:49 PM
To: a31ford
Subject: RE: [GASL] Tar

Hey Greg,

Where did you get your gasifier? Is it a commercial unit, or did you build
it yourself?
What kind of woodchipper are you using to make chip?, or are you buying
chip off the market?
What's the size and quality of the chip?

Thanks for your time.

Chris Farmer
1025 Camp Elliott Rd.
Black Mountain, NC 28711
(828) 664-0268
ctfarmer@main.nc.us

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of a31ford
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 6:19 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Tar

Bruce, What level of tar ?

I'm running a downdraft, woodchip fired gasifier, and the level of tar is so
low, I don't need to remove it...

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Bruce Jackson
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 11:17 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] Tar

Hi,
What are folks using to remove tar? I am trying to
condense it before it goes in to a wood chip
pre-filter.
BPJ

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

From mark at LUDLOW.COM Wed Dec 17 01:05:29 2003
From: mark at LUDLOW.COM (Mark Ludlow)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: Tar
In-Reply-To: <000d01c3c31c$e8d3c880$0200a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <TUE.16.DEC.2003.220529.0800.MARK@LUDLOW.COM>

Exchanges like this--practical solutions to real problems--are what this
list is especially about. Thanks to you all for your generosity.

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On Behalf Of a31ford
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 7:06 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Tar

Chris,

The Sorter is a big drum 31" x 84" (31 round) home made also, when you
look down the inside, it kinda looks like a concrete truck's drum (the
flighting, or "fins") the outside is covered in 3/16" expanded steel
mesh for the first 36" and 3/4" steel mesh for the other 48" it was a
trial and error kinda thing, and I ended up setting the small/medium
partition about 20" from the start of the drum (under the drum), the
entire drum turns about 20rpm, on a double reduced 1/4hp electric motor
(2.5" to 11" pulley, then on the same shaft as the 11" another 2.5" to
the outside of the drum 31"). I feed the input hopper with a front-end
loader, the sorter produces 3 grades of chips (small, medium, large),
(the large is simply pushed to the far end of the drum, where is falls
out). the small is augered to a "junk pile", the medium is augered to
the hopper bottom that has a "pencil auger" to the gasifier (Kinda like
the old "stoker augers" from coal fired boilers, BUT the chips go to the
top, not the bottom)

I have to continue this later, as I'm headed to work, TTFN.

Oh, BTW, the 31" is actually 30.5" (96" divided by Pi) :) (the sheets of
expanded mesh are 96" long, that is what set the Dia. of the drum).

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: chris farmer [mailto:ctfarmer@main.nc.us]
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 6:28 PM
To: a31ford
Subject: RE: [GASL] Tar

Greg,

Thanks for the reply.
You're sorting the big stuff out by hand -- and the small stuff is
sorted out by screens? Are you pre-drying this chip before it enters the
gasifier?, or does it go in "green"?

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: a31ford [mailto:a31ford@inetlink.ca]
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 11:25 AM
To: 'chris farmer'; A Gasification List (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [GASL] Tar

Chris,

It's home-built out of two old porcelain lined electric hot water tanks.
(GSW I think). Chips are what ever I can find, EG: local tree
maintenance people, our local electric co. when they are trimming around
lines, etc.

So far chips, are what I have amassed over the last 3 years, we are
getting a chipper but not this winter.

The key to what we are doing is "sorting" the chips before they go to
primary storage (secondary storage is the big pile, primary storage is
the hopper-bottom bin, just outside the gasifier building). It simply
requires me to use a front-end loader to fill the sorter, from there,
augers are used for everything after the sorter. (about once every 2
weeks)

Chip size is (after sorting) in the range of 1/4"x1/4"x1/4" to
3/4"x3/4"x3/4" anything too small is reused as bedding for horses &
cows, and anything too large is hand sorted for use out on the patio
fireplace.

The quality of chip? I would have to say, in our system, most is "whole
tree" stuff (as in, it's what we are currently getting 3rd party), It
isn't any one type of tree, I've seen pine cones, and white bark, and
everything in-between when loading the sorter

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: chris farmer [mailto:ctfarmer@main.nc.us]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 5:49 PM
To: a31ford
Subject: RE: [GASL] Tar

Hey Greg,

Where did you get your gasifier? Is it a commercial unit, or did you
build it yourself? What kind of woodchipper are you using to make chip?,
or are you buying chip off the market? What's the size and quality of
the chip?

Thanks for your time.

Chris Farmer
1025 Camp Elliott Rd.
Black Mountain, NC 28711
(828) 664-0268
ctfarmer@main.nc.us

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of a31ford
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 6:19 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Tar

Bruce, What level of tar ?

I'm running a downdraft, woodchip fired gasifier, and the level of tar
is so low, I don't need to remove it...

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Bruce Jackson
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 11:17 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] Tar

Hi,
What are folks using to remove tar? I am trying to
condense it before it goes in to a wood chip
pre-filter.
BPJ

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Wed Dec 17 23:22:38 2003
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: New Info / Virtual Throat
Message-ID: <WED.17.DEC.2003.222238.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Hello All!

FYI, after some more test runs on the "Taper Throat", and some lab tests on
the "Goop" that was caused by that "Taper", (Lab results are "tar" period!!
no unusual or elevated amounts of chemicals).

Side note: has anyone ever seen a "purple-ish flame", on the start-up flare
??

I have redesigned the taper (LOL, actually found a chunk of 304SS .125 wall
with a really nice taper! 6" ID at the top, 4" ID at the bottom, 14" long,
at the local scrap yard), no lip, nice transition from the nozzle area!

Will post more results after some tests (just installed it tonight).

Regards & happy holidays,

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Thu Dec 18 07:43:16 2003
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: Tar
In-Reply-To: <00a101c3c463$c89b4050$7d56a1d8@brutus>
Message-ID: <THU.18.DEC.2003.064316.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Mark & All,

Once we are out of the holiday season, (and I can get the digital cam from
the wife, and the time to do it), I will be putting up a page with some
pictures of our setup, it's not much, it's kinda crude, but so far this
winter, it's working fine. (It went down to minus 26 for a couple of days,
was sure nice to know the gasifier heating system kept working :)

The testing of the "virtual throat" is also keeping me quite busy.

Regards, & Happy Holidays

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Mark Ludlow
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 12:05 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Tar

Exchanges like this--practical solutions to real problems--are what this
list is especially about. Thanks to you all for your generosity.

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On Behalf Of a31ford
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 7:06 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Tar

Chris,

The Sorter is a big drum 31" x 84" (31 round) home made also, when you
look down the inside, it kinda looks like a concrete truck's drum (the
flighting, or "fins") the outside is covered in 3/16" expanded steel
mesh for the first 36" and 3/4" steel mesh for the other 48" it was a
trial and error kinda thing, and I ended up setting the small/medium
partition about 20" from the start of the drum (under the drum), the
entire drum turns about 20rpm, on a double reduced 1/4hp electric motor
(2.5" to 11" pulley, then on the same shaft as the 11" another 2.5" to
the outside of the drum 31"). I feed the input hopper with a front-end
loader, the sorter produces 3 grades of chips (small, medium, large),
(the large is simply pushed to the far end of the drum, where is falls
out). the small is augered to a "junk pile", the medium is augered to
the hopper bottom that has a "pencil auger" to the gasifier (Kinda like
the old "stoker augers" from coal fired boilers, BUT the chips go to the
top, not the bottom)

I have to continue this later, as I'm headed to work, TTFN.

Oh, BTW, the 31" is actually 30.5" (96" divided by Pi) :) (the sheets of
expanded mesh are 96" long, that is what set the Dia. of the drum).

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: chris farmer [mailto:ctfarmer@main.nc.us]
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 6:28 PM
To: a31ford
Subject: RE: [GASL] Tar

Greg,

Thanks for the reply.
You're sorting the big stuff out by hand -- and the small stuff is
sorted out by screens? Are you pre-drying this chip before it enters the
gasifier?, or does it go in "green"?

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: a31ford [mailto:a31ford@inetlink.ca]
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 11:25 AM
To: 'chris farmer'; A Gasification List (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [GASL] Tar

Chris,

It's home-built out of two old porcelain lined electric hot water tanks.
(GSW I think). Chips are what ever I can find, EG: local tree
maintenance people, our local electric co. when they are trimming around
lines, etc.

So far chips, are what I have amassed over the last 3 years, we are
getting a chipper but not this winter.

The key to what we are doing is "sorting" the chips before they go to
primary storage (secondary storage is the big pile, primary storage is
the hopper-bottom bin, just outside the gasifier building). It simply
requires me to use a front-end loader to fill the sorter, from there,
augers are used for everything after the sorter. (about once every 2
weeks)

Chip size is (after sorting) in the range of 1/4"x1/4"x1/4" to
3/4"x3/4"x3/4" anything too small is reused as bedding for horses &
cows, and anything too large is hand sorted for use out on the patio
fireplace.

The quality of chip? I would have to say, in our system, most is "whole
tree" stuff (as in, it's what we are currently getting 3rd party), It
isn't any one type of tree, I've seen pine cones, and white bark, and
everything in-between when loading the sorter

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: chris farmer [mailto:ctfarmer@main.nc.us]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 5:49 PM
To: a31ford
Subject: RE: [GASL] Tar

Hey Greg,

Where did you get your gasifier? Is it a commercial unit, or did you
build it yourself? What kind of woodchipper are you using to make chip?,
or are you buying chip off the market? What's the size and quality of
the chip?

Thanks for your time.

Chris Farmer
1025 Camp Elliott Rd.
Black Mountain, NC 28711
(828) 664-0268
ctfarmer@main.nc.us

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of a31ford
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 6:19 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Tar

Bruce, What level of tar ?

I'm running a downdraft, woodchip fired gasifier, and the level of tar
is so low, I don't need to remove it...

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Bruce Jackson
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 11:17 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] Tar

Hi,
What are folks using to remove tar? I am trying to
condense it before it goes in to a wood chip
pre-filter.
BPJ

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

From ventfory at IAFRICA.COM Thu Dec 18 09:01:24 2003
From: ventfory at IAFRICA.COM (Kobus)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: Feedback - briquette gasifier stove
Message-ID: <THU.18.DEC.2003.160124.0200.VENTFORY@IAFRICA.COM>

Hi all,

Just a quick report back on progress made by myself and Richard on the development of a briquette gasifying stove. Our more practical process-of-elimination-approach has prompted us to explore all possibilities and experiment with various different airflow speeds through, placements inside and quantities supplied into the combustion chamber. What we have discovered is that the combustion chamber height was most crucial, then position and direction of the air inlets and lastly quantity of air drawn into the reaction. The position of the air inlets refer to both primary and secondary air.

More surprisingly perhaps we had to alter the briquette shape (height of briquette and width of centre hole in particular) which evolved in conjunction with the placement and quantity of primary and secondary air. The centre hole in the briquette started to play a more pivotal role as it acted as a mini chimney, mini combustion chamber and departure point of the pot licking flame. We have it set up now so that the primary air feeds the centre hole and secondary air aiding the flame height (much like a candle) as well as gasifying the outside of the briquette.

We have tested our stove for CO (ppm) with my new HOBO CO datalogger and discovered that a 90 gram briquette (60% paper, 40% Eucalyptus sawdust) gave off an average ppm count of 17 (CO) for a gas burn length lasting 15 min and 50 seconds. The charcoal burn lasted for another 23 minutes giving off an average ppm count of 53 (CO) for that period. We advise removing the pyrolysed briquette before the char burn commences.

More later on the CO ppm count from my charcoal gasifier stove and I have news on the local development of an Ethanol stove.
------------

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Fri Dec 19 16:02:13 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: bamboo gasification
Message-ID: <FRI.19.DEC.2003.130213.0800.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

----- Original Message -----
From: Hero Computer hero@MYANMAR.COM.MM
To: gas ifica tion
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 12:26 AM
Subject: bamboo gasification

Hi !
I'm ME (Chemical) student from Yangon.I would like to know about the bamboo gasification process to produce activated carbon and gasifier design.If you can,the literature concerning this process will be sent to me.I am keen on this process and this will be done as ME research.
Thank you very much for all. Please reply ungently about your information.

Yours sincerely,
Miss Cho Cho Lwin.

From ktwu at ITRI.ORG.TW Sat Dec 20 22:54:55 2003
From: ktwu at ITRI.ORG.TW (Keng-Tung Wu)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: What is Gasification in"Flugstrom" in German
Message-ID: <SUN.21.DEC.2003.115455.0800.>

Dear Listers

Merry Christmas!

Could any one offer the information about the "Vergasung im Flugstrom" in
German language? (The three types of gasifiers - Fixed bed, fluidized bed
and "flugstrom"??)

I don't know what the gasifier type is, and what English translation of
"flugstrom" is in the field of gasifiation.

Thank you very much for your kind assistance indeed.

Keng-Tung Wu, PhD
Researcher
Biomass Energy Lab
ITRI, Taiwan

From arnt at C2I.NET Sun Dec 21 00:01:31 2003
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: What is Gasification in"Flugstrom" in German
In-Reply-To: <OFF6D22412.19A213BC-ON48256E03.001581AF-48256E03.0015821E@itri.org.tw>
Message-ID: <SUN.21.DEC.2003.060131.0100.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:54:55 +0800,
Keng-Tung Wu <ktwu@ITRI.ORG.TW> wrote in message
<OFF6D22412.19A213BC-ON48256E03.001581AF-48256E03.0015821E@itri.org.tw>:

> Dear Listers
>
> Merry Christmas!
>
> Could any one offer the information about the "Vergasung im Flugstrom"
> in German language? (The three types of gasifiers - Fixed bed,
> fluidized bed and "flugstrom"??)

..url to the above? I might be able to come up with a better guess than
below, once I can see it in its context, and there may be people around
here who knows this term.

> I don't know what the gasifier type is, and what English translation
> of "flugstrom" is in the field of gasifiation.

..here I am _guessing__wildly_: "entrained bed gasification", whereby
the gasification fuel is suspended and gasified in the upward-blowing
gas flow, the flugstrom.

--
..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 dtakala at UP.NET Sun Dec 21 23:20:12 2003
From: dtakala at UP.NET (Donald Takala)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: What is Gasification in"Flugstrom" in German
Message-ID: <SUN.21.DEC.2003.232012.0500.DTAKALA@UP.NET>

Flugstrom is "airborne current" I have seen it used in discussions for
both fixed bed and fluidized bed gasifiers.

Don

From arnt at C2I.NET Mon Dec 22 03:17:18 2003
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: What is Gasification in"Flugstrom" in German
In-Reply-To: <LISTSERV%2003122123201217@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Message-ID: <MON.22.DEC.2003.091718.0100.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 23:20:12 -0500,
Donald Takala <dtakala@UP.NET> wrote in message
<LISTSERV%2003122123201217@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>:

> Flugstrom is "airborne current" I have seen it used in discussions
> for both fixed bed and fluidized bed gasifiers.

..url?

--
..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 VHarris001 at AOL.COM Mon Dec 22 20:40:55 2003
From: VHarris001 at AOL.COM (VHarris001@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: California Cities to Fight Gasification Plans
Message-ID: <MON.22.DEC.2003.204055.EST.>

--California Cities to Fight Gasification Plans
Alameda, Calif. --- Alameda, Oakland and San Leandro residents and other
local health and environmental groups are opposing a proposed waste-to-energy
plant that Alameda Power and Telecom (AP&T) is considering building in Alameda. AP&
T officials hope to develop a garbage gasification plant project that would
supply a portion of the region's energy.

WASTE AGE WIRE
A PRIMEDIA Property
December 22, 2003

From redbeard at XMISSION.COM Tue Dec 23 11:17:01 2003
From: redbeard at XMISSION.COM (Dan Maker)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: California Cities to Fight Gasification Plans
In-Reply-To: <no.id> from "VHarris001@AOL.COM" at Dec 22, 2003 08:40:55 PM
Message-ID: <TUE.23.DEC.2003.091701.0700.REDBEARD@XMISSION.COM>

VHarris001@AOL.COM said:
>
> --California Cities to Fight Gasification Plans
> Alameda, Calif. --- Alameda, Oakland and San Leandro residents and other
> local health and environmental groups are opposing a proposed waste-to-energy
> plant that Alameda Power and Telecom (AP&T) is considering building in Alameda. AP&
> T officials hope to develop a garbage gasification plant project that would
> supply a portion of the region's energy.

I'd assume that "modern" waste gasification plants scrub the heavy metals
from the exhaust stack. I heard recently that after WWII waste
incenerators with generators were touted as cheap electricity producers,
and many were built, but they were just behind coal fired power plants for
the amount of mercury they put into the environment.

Dan
--
Jack of all trades, master of none.
Fiber Artist - Genealogist - Kilt Maker - Linux Geek - Piper - Woodworker
http://www.xmission.com/~redbeard

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Tue Dec 23 12:54:22 2003
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:34 2004
Subject: California Cities to Fight Gasification Plans
Message-ID: <TUE.23.DEC.2003.125422.EST.>

We are aware of the plans for a MSW waste gasification project in Alameda. In
the article is there any reference to whose technology is involved?
The fight against it is probably being fueled (to coin a phrase)by
environmental groups who have weighed in against gasification using technical
information derived from incineration operations such as dioxin and heavy metal content
in the ash. They have no other information available to argue against
gasification. It is a bunch of irrational hand waving, screaming and will impede
gasification progress significantly.
This has been derived from input from the EPA hazardous waste division.
They are promoting gasification as a manner of waste reduction and have
proposed regulations and intend to promulgate regulations to encourage gasification
as a solution to hazardous waste management. I have been in contact with the
program manager at EPA in Washington. The current status is that gasifiers for
chemical production products are exempt from RCRA regs and EPA is going to
include power generation using gasification as exempt also. This is great news to
the gasification community. The EPA has stated that gasifiers are not sources
which has been of significant benefit to regulatory processes.
The Alameda folks have seen the fight coming and are ready for it. They
have a very large dossier on the gasification industry and the regulatory and
environmental concerns and I think have the will to fight it which will be a
benchmark for the industry. Their perspective is one of the most intelligent,
complete and rational one I have seen to date.

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

From VHarris001 at AOL.COM Wed Dec 24 00:43:01 2003
From: VHarris001 at AOL.COM (VHarris001@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: California Cities to Fight Gasification Plans
Message-ID: <WED.24.DEC.2003.004301.EST.>

In a message dated 2003-12-23 12:55:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,
LINVENT@AOL.COM writes:

> We are aware of the plans for a MSW waste gasification project in Alameda.
> In
> the article is there any reference to whose technology is involved?
>

No technology vendor was mentioned in the article. It might be that
gasification has been decided on, but the contract hasn't yet been awarded.

A google search turned up this link which appears to be Alameda's RFQ for the
project:

http://www.appanet.org/Members/Deed/reports/quarterly/AlamedaRFQ06-30-03.pdf

The RFQ includes the following information:

"The solicitation process begins on April 2, 2003, with mailing of this RFQ.
Formal submittals must be received by the close of business, which is 5:00 PM
(Pacific Daylight Time), on May 13, 2003."

VH

From dknowles at ANTARES.ORG Wed Dec 24 10:58:58 2003
From: dknowles at ANTARES.ORG (Knowles, Dave)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: California Cities to Fight Gasification Plans
Message-ID: <WED.24.DEC.2003.105858.0500.DKNOWLES@ANTARES.ORG>

I have seen proposed concepts from a (surprising) number of organizations.
They all seem to want to pyrolize the garbage and then incinerate the
remainder at high temperature. The solid product is touted to be non-toxic.
The flue products would be treated in a variety of ways in order to extract
valuable species. Often, plasma technologies are used.
Many of these ventures have very slick brochures and videos describing the
technology and the financial returns possible.
They all count on getting rather lucrative tipping fees. Unfortunately for
them, most localities have statutory requirements to deliver MSW to
"resource recovery" facilities that have been funded with public money, and
depend on tipping fees to pay the taxpayers back. Competition, as Tony
Soprano would say, is not an option.
None of these flame separation processes has ever been proven to be
economical. I had the opportunity at Gas Research Institute to research
these technologies and found that while some were technically possible, the
maintenance was a nightmare and the capital, energy and other operating
costs far exceeded the potential revenue from recovered products. Further,
it is impossible to filter out certain toxins, like mercury, without
completely blowing the budget.
From FBerton at CIWMB.CA.GOV Wed Dec 24 11:41:54 2003
From: FBerton at CIWMB.CA.GOV (Berton, Fernando)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: California Cities to Fight Gasification Plans
Message-ID: <WED.24.DEC.2003.084154.0800.FBERTON@CIWMB.CA.GOV>

I am very familiar with the project in the City of Alameda and it more than
just presentations made to government officials. In fact, the City hired a
consulting firm to issue a Request For Proposals. The facility would take
msw only (500 tons per day) and produce anywhere between 12-15 MW of
electricity. According to the City's consultants, all the proposals had
provisions for removing all recyclables prior to conversion. There were 13
respondents which has been whittled down to a short-list of 5 vendors. The
team of reviewers included a 3rd party engineering firm to provide technical
expertise. The next steps are for the City's consultants to report to the
Power & Telecom Board (P/T Board) with the shortlist of vendors and await
the Board's decision for a go or no/go on developing a second RFP. The
anticipated timeframe for presenting to the P/T Board is January or
mid-February.

Many people know that California has been very aggresive in its recycling
and composting efforts. We have achieved a 48% diversion rate thanks to the
hard work of local jurisdictions but even with that and the 160+ permitted
composting operations, we still manage to send 25.5 million tons per day to
a landfill. We have also been exploring alternative technologies such as
gasification, pyrolysis, hydrolysis/fermentation, etc that would target the
25.5 million tons. We hired the Research Triangle Institute (RTI
Internation) to conduct lifecycle analyses and we are expecting final
results to be available sometime in March 2004. The methodologies to be
used for the LCAs can be viewed by clicking on
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/organics/conversion/Events/Default.htm.

We have also funded a companion project to evaluate and assess alternative
technologies such as those listed above. The Universities of California,
Riverside and Davis have been conducting this technology evaluation and
results are expected sometime in mid-February. Evaluation criteria was
developed with the cooperation and aid of the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, California Air Resources Board, California Energy Commission,
technology experts, and academia. I provide all this background information
because our goal is to provide information to local jurisdictions that will
aid them in their decision-making processes as they move forward with
projects such as the one being contemplated in the City of Alameda. If you
would like additional information about the two studies, feel free to email
me at fberton@ciwmb.ca.gov.

Fernando Berton, Integrated Waste Management Specialist
California Integrated Waste Management Board

-----Original Message-----
From: Knowles, Dave [mailto:dknowles@ANTARES.ORG]
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 7:59 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] California Cities to Fight Gasification Plans

I have seen proposed concepts from a (surprising) number of organizations.
They all seem to want to pyrolize the garbage and then incinerate the
remainder at high temperature. The solid product is touted to be non-toxic.
The flue products would be treated in a variety of ways in order to extract
valuable species. Often, plasma technologies are used.
Many of these ventures have very slick brochures and videos describing the
technology and the financial returns possible.
They all count on getting rather lucrative tipping fees. Unfortunately for
them, most localities have statutory requirements to deliver MSW to
"resource recovery" facilities that have been funded with public money, and
depend on tipping fees to pay the taxpayers back. Competition, as Tony
Soprano would say, is not an option.
None of these flame separation processes has ever been proven to be
economical. I had the opportunity at Gas Research Institute to research
these technologies and found that while some were technically possible, the
maintenance was a nightmare and the capital, energy and other operating
costs far exceeded the potential revenue from recovered products. Further,
it is impossible to filter out certain toxins, like mercury, without
completely blowing the budget.
From kssustain at PROVIDE.NET Wed Dec 24 12:53:39 2003
From: kssustain at PROVIDE.NET (kermit schlansker)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: Compression
Message-ID: <WED.24.DEC.2003.115339.0600.KSSUSTAIN@PROVIDE.NET>

I am very interested in storing pumped energy and would like to compare two systems. One would be air compression with cylinder cooling and interstage cooling. The other would be pumping a liquid to a gas filled reservoir as in a hydraulic storage unit. Obviously the air system is helped if the heat of compression can be used for heating hot water or space heating. I have thermodynamic curves of air but they don't help much in determining reduction in pump power through non-adiabatic compression.
It seems to me though that pumping liquid to air filled reservoir would be extremely efficient because heat by compression in the tank would be occuring slowly so that it would be conducted away and there would be little loss. I suppose my answer to that might be commercial curves for losses in hydraulic accumulators.
If anyone could elucidate on this problem I would appreciate it.

Kermit Schlansker

From snkm at BTL.NET Wed Dec 24 13:00:58 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: California Cities to Fight Gasification Plans
Message-ID: <WED.24.DEC.2003.120058.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 10:58 AM 12/24/2003 -0500, Knowles, Dave wrote:

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

>The last numbers I saw cited garbage
>production at over 5 pounds per day per person (!) in the U.S., and rising!

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

>D.Knowles
>

Perspective!!

"Conservatively"

Say an average heat value of 7000 btu per pound -- 35000 BTU

Say over all efficiency of 30% conversion to electic power -- 10,500 BTU

Divide by 3414 for kwh = 3 kwh per person.

Wow -- eh???

Waste not want not????

Peter Singfield / Belize

Where I use less than 3 kwh per day to power my above normal size residency
here.

From snkm at BTL.NET Wed Dec 24 13:01:01 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: California Cities to Fight Gasification Plans
Message-ID: <WED.24.DEC.2003.120101.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 08:41 AM 12/24/2003 -0800, Berton, Fernando wrote:

>The facility would take
>msw only (500 tons per day) and produce anywhere between 12-15 MW of
>electricity.

OK -- 500 tons = 7500 * 7,500,000,000 btu per day

30% = 2,250,000,000 btu as electrical power out.

659,050 kwh

6.69 megs

So my guesstimate was to conservative -- or they are to optimistic??

Let's see then:

[K.Reisinger et al., BIOBIB- a Database for Biofuels, THERMIE- Conference:
Renewable Energy Databases, Harwell (United Kingdom), 1996]

waste, municipal solid waste

19887 kJ/kg or 18,000 BTU per pound!!!

Wow -- eh????

Lot's of plastics be there???

Well -- that explains the difference ---

So sorry folks -- make that "at least" 6 kwh of net electic power -- per
day -- per person of wastes wasted -- by people in "DEVELOPED" nations.

Can't wait for American life style to be imposed on planet earth -- eh???

Good thing there is unlimited amounts of natural resources to be wasted for
infinity plus one day -- eh??

Peter Singfield -- Belize

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Wed Dec 24 13:06:55 2003
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: California Cities to Fight Gasification Plans
Message-ID: <WED.24.DEC.2003.130655.EST.>

In other areas of consideration of waste management, the City of Toronto has
gone through the same selection process for gasification technology and after
the first round, did not pick a technology to work with. Instead they
determined that there were no technologies which met their criteria and elected
instead to put out a second round which is for a "research and development"
processing facility to operate as a test or commercial demonstration bed.
It will be interesting to see what the Alameda project turns in the
next round of consideration.
The California Integrated Solid Waste Management Board has been a very
instrumental player in the industry and I believe has supported a wide
variety of aggressive and progressive developments. It may want to look at assisting
in the permitting issues for gasification or other conversion projects in
it's support efforts for this endeavor. We will see what it's results are from
it's current review.

Sincerely,
Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
Phone: US 505-761-5633, fax: 341-0424, Website: thermogenics.com

From snkm at BTL.NET Wed Dec 24 13:46:15 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: California Cities to Fight Gasification Plans
Message-ID: <WED.24.DEC.2003.124615.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 01:23 PM 12/24/2003 EST, LINVENT@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
In a message dated 12/24/2003 10:02:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
snkm@BTL.NET writes:

> I am not sure what is meant by your comment. If it is intended to
criticize the gasification technology development as a manner of waste
utilization vs. incineration, I am not sure why. The use of wastes as a
source of composting is short sighted and has serious deficiencies.
Recycling plastics is very limited in it's acceptable materials and
economics. If you prefer these materials going to a landfill, fine, but at
some point the alternatives will be developed for more economic utilization
regardless of the various obstacles currently present.
>>

Hi Tom --

I'll try to clarify the "comment" --

1: -- nothing to do with extracting energy from trash

2: -- everything to do with wasting precious energy reserves -- which are
not renewable.

3: -- Have you any idea on the "accounting" of the energy -- from
petroleum, natural gas, coal -- locked into that trash??

How much required to grow a pound of corn -- as example??

Plastics being the rather obvious one --

But have been browsing and got freaked at how crude oil -- natural gas --
dependent agriculture is -- how the percentage of such resources to produce
one unit of "food" is steadily increasing.

Ergo Tom -- if the whole world goes American style democracy (AKA
"CONSUMERISM") -- and everyone lived like an American -- probably we would
be out of all natural resources in a year!!

"PERSPECTIVE" -- eh???

I mean -- what is the point of all of this?? See how fast we can gobble
ourselves to extinction??

Just as long as we live our respective lives in glorious luxury -- eh??

Damn the torpedoes -- full speed ahead.

For people that are raising children in a traditional style family manner
-- it bodes ill to see what we leave for our own race 50 years down this
road of gluttony.

There is the "natural" solution though -- never forget this -- kill off a
bout 95% of the entire human race -- problem solved.

And for that -- nothing can beat nuclear "energy"!!

This is all madness -- so I can't expect many to understand --

But 5 pounds of energy rich garbage per human is more than this poor planet
can put out!! No matter how you split hairs in recovering the energy after!!

Hey -- damn the torpedoes -- full speed ahead -- and bring on the nukes!!

And while all you folks try to beat the "ODDS" -- I'll be here in the
jungles living stone age -- with a full belly -- and a good life -- all the
same.

"PERSPECTIVE" -- what is this all about -- eh??

"Glow little glow worms -- glimmer -- glimmer"

To God!! What a mess we are making of everything!!

Peter -- Belize --

With a twenty year supply of old engine oil to run his old style Listers with,

 

 

Sincerely,
Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
Phone: US 505-761-5633, fax:341-0424, Website: thermogenics.com

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Fri Dec 26 08:00:45 2003
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (tombreed@COMCAST.NET)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: Compression
Message-ID: <FRI.26.DEC.2003.130045.0000.>

Dewar Kermit and All:

Adiabatic compression of gases if the rule when the gas is compressed rapidly and the temperature rises to T2=T1(P2/P1)^gamma/gamma-1 (or something like that, gamma being the ratio of heat capacity at constant pressure to hc at constant volume). This gas heating is the basis of the diesel engine which achieves VERY hot air (>800 C?) by high, rapid compression. The temperature is high enough to burn most anything, even coal.

Isothermal compression of gases is generally not available because the energy can't be taken out usefully at the same rate it is put in by the compression. I have wondered whether a porous piston, well cooled, could make a more efficient compressor.

However, Kermit's suggestion of gas compression by pumping liquid (as a spray for better heat transfer?) into a holding tank could satisfy all the the requirements for an isothermal compression device.

I hope he will keep us posted on his findings.

Tom Reed
> I am very interested in storing pumped energy and would like to compare
> two systems. One would be air compression with cylinder cooling and interstage
> cooling. The other would be pumping a liquid to a gas filled reservoir as in a
> hydraulic storage unit. Obviously the air system is helped if the heat of
> compression can be used for heating hot water or space heating. I have
> thermodynamic curves of air but they don't help much in determining reduction in
> pump power through non-adiabatic compression.
> It seems to me though that pumping liquid to air filled reservoir would
> be extremely efficient because heat by compression in the tank would be occuring
> slowly so that it would be conducted away and there would be little loss. I
> suppose my answer to that might be commercial curves for losses in hydraulic
> accumulators.
> If anyone could elucidate on this problem I would appreciate it.
>
> Kermit Schlansker

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Fri Dec 26 10:27:05 2003
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: Compression
Message-ID: <FRI.26.DEC.2003.102705.EST.>

In a message dated 12/26/03 6:01:58 AM, tombreed@COMCAST.NET writes:

<< Dewar Kermit and All:

Adiabatic compression of gases if the rule when the gas is compressed rapidly
and the temperature rises to T2=T1(P2/P1)^gamma/gamma-1 (or something like
that, gamma being the ratio of heat capacity at constant pressure to hc at
constant volume). This gas heating is the basis of the diesel engine which
achieves VERY hot air (>800 C?) by high, rapid compression. The temperature is high
enough to burn most anything, even coal.

Isothermal compression of gases is generally not available because the energy
can't be taken out usefully at the same rate it is put in by the compression.
I have wondered whether a porous piston, well cooled, could make a more
efficient compressor.

However, Kermit's suggestion of gas compression by pumping liquid (as a spray
for better heat transfer?) into a holding tank could satisfy all the the
requirements for an isothermal compression device.

I hope he will keep us posted on his findings.

Tom Reed >>

Dear Tom,
I know a guy here in Albuquerque who builds isothemal compressors based
upon a technology who someone got out of Los Alamos. Have not looked into it,
the guy is a machinist and builds the compressors for the tech transfer
recipient. From what he tells me they get a 40?F temp rise on 125 psi air compressor.
Can't get a market going because no one believes that they do it but have
working eqpt.

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

From VHarris001 at AOL.COM Fri Dec 26 13:03:14 2003
From: VHarris001 at AOL.COM (VHarris001@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: California Cities to Fight Gasification Plans
Message-ID: <FRI.26.DEC.2003.130314.EST.>

In a message dated 2003-12-24 10:59:47 AM Eastern Standard Time,
dknowles@ANTARES.ORG writes:

> I have seen proposed concepts from a (surprising) number of organizations.
> They all seem to want to pyrolize the garbage and then incinerate the
> remainder at high temperature. The solid product is touted to be non-toxic.
> The flue products would be treated in a variety of ways in order to extract
> valuable species. Often, plasma technologies are used.
> Many of these ventures have very slick brochures and videos describing the
> technology and the financial returns possible.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I rather suspect that this is not a scheme to
capture the entire theoretical value of a waste stream (i.e. trash into gold),
but rather a project to deal with the communities MSW stream, probably while
recycling as much from the waste as is economically practical.

> They all count on getting rather lucrative tipping fees. Unfortunately for
> them, most localities have statutory requirements to deliver MSW to
> "resource recovery" facilities that have been funded with public money, and
> depend on tipping fees to pay the taxpayers back. Competition, as Tony
> Soprano would say, is not an option.

This appears to be a government unit that is soliciting the contract for MSW
gasification. I presume that Alameda and surrounding communities already have
'flow control' statutes in place, and therefore probably can direct waste to
the facility and so rely on tipping fee revenue to finance the operation.

> None of these flame separation processes has ever been proven to be
> economical. I had the opportunity at Gas Research Institute to research
> these technologies and found that while some were technically possible, the
> maintenance was a nightmare and the capital, energy and other operating
> costs far exceeded the potential revenue from recovered products. Further,
> it is impossible to filter out certain toxins, like mercury, without
> completely blowing the budget.

I'm philosophically opposed to the concept of flow control, arguing that, in
the long run, 'free market' solutions are better solutions than are 'central
planning' solutions. That said, however, flow control does have the benefit of
guaranteeing a revenue stream with which to experiment with new technologies.
Perhaps gasification technology will finally benefit from this captive
revenue stream (unless of course, the courts eventually rule in favor of free trash
markets and against centralized trash planning <grin>).

> From the sounds of this, these guys made some presentations to some
> government officials, who of course have no expertise in this area.

Perhaps true, but isn't this unavoidable? In any endeavor, eventually the
technology guys and the money guys have to settle on a final plan. If so, then
doesn't the decision become one of whether to choose an old reliable like
incineration, or attempt to gain the potential benefits of a promising new
technology, like gasification?

In theory, one of the benefits of gasification is that primary combustion can
be at temperatures either significantly lower (e.g. starved air combustion)
or higher (e.g. plasma) than is typical excess-air, single-stage incineration.
Lower temperatures are said to prevent the release of undesirable elements
from the combustion process, while higher temperatures are said to decompose the
undesirable elements, prior to secondary combustion of the off-gas stream.

Since you agree that gasification is technically possible, the question then
appears to be one of economics, i.e., what is the estimated financial cost for
the estimated potential benefits? While the vendors surely will have
supplied optimistic projections regarding their particular technology, it seems
reasonable that Alameda will perform due diligence before selecting a proposal.
Gasification offers Alameda the 'promise' of a cleaner, less toxic flue-gas
stream, and, some argue, without nearly as much gas scrubbing as is required in
conventional MSW incinerators.

> Also, this isn't biomass gasification of the type that would lead to a
> sustainable energy economy.

Even if true, this perhaps misses the point of the project, which is
disposition of the MSW. If not gasification, what shall Alameda do with it?

> A last comment: It seems like no one these days in leadership positions
> wants to talk about conservation. The last numbers I saw cited garbage
> production at over 5 pounds per day per person (!) in the U.S., and rising!
> Yet there is no public effort at reducing this consumption, except for
> recycling, which is hitting a wall and becoming a problem itself. I guess
>
> the Bush Administration is going to leave this one for the future generation
> to solve along with the national debt.
>
> D.Knowles
>

Is your argument here against the MSW generated due to excess consumption, or
against the excess consumption itself? Personally, I think that the
'properly regulated' solid waste industry does an excellent job of collecting,
transporting and disposing of the solid waste stream being generated in the USA,
whether operating in a free-market or central-planning system.

MSW is gradually becoming a more, rather than less, valuable resource. And
although the cost of regulations to prevent the 'nasty components' of the waste
stream from reentering the environment are great, they are somewhat offset by
the inherent value of the waste stream. Gasification technology offers the
promise of reduced pollution along with improved energy and materials recovery
- which sounds like an economic investment worth considering. Far from being
a problem left for future generations to solve, Alameda seems to be taking
action now to address the ever-increasing waste stream within the community.

Regarding excess consumption generally, that discussion will have to be left
for another day.

Best wishes,

Vernon Harris

From VHarris001 at AOL.COM Fri Dec 26 13:28:52 2003
From: VHarris001 at AOL.COM (VHarris001@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: California Cities to Fight Gasification Plans
Message-ID: <FRI.26.DEC.2003.132852.EST.>

In a message dated 2003-12-24 11:41:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,
FBerton@CIWMB.CA.GOV writes:

> I am very familiar with the project in the City of Alameda and it more than
> just presentations made to government officials. In fact, the City hired a
> consulting firm to issue a Request For Proposals. The facility would take
> msw only (500 tons per day) and produce anywhere between 12-15 MW of
> electricity. According to the City's consultants, all the proposals had
> provisions for removing all recyclables prior to conversion. There were 13
> respondents which has been whittled down to a short-list of 5 vendors.

Was it with advice from CIWMB that Alameda chose to examine gasification for
MSW processing? And are you at liberty to discuss here the vendors on the
short-list, what type of technology they are proposing, the vendors and
technology that were eliminated from consideration, and why?

> Many people know that California has been very aggresive in its recycling
> and composting efforts. We have achieved a 48% diversion rate thanks to the
> hard work of local jurisdictions but even with that and the 160+ permitted
> composting operations, we still manage to send 25.5 million tons per day to
> a landfill.

This seems high, should it be 25.5 million tons per year?

Best wishes,

Vernon Harris

From snkm at BTL.NET Fri Dec 26 14:18:49 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: Compression
Message-ID: <FRI.26.DEC.2003.131849.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

You can reverse this --

Heat your expansion medium in a closed retort -- use that pressure to
charge a hydraulic accumulator -- discharge accumulator through hydraulic
motor.

Do this without forcing the working fluid through a change of state.

Efficiencies are surprisingly high. Hydraulic charging and discharging
(back through a hydraulic motor coupled to a generator) is near or above
90%!! Much better than can ever be achieved by batteries!!

There is a lot of study going on right now in regards to hydraulic
accumulators storing energy.

They are up past 6000 PSI now using composite plastics -- pressurized
natural gas fuel tanks have spurred this area of technology.

But your still compressing a gas in the accumulator --

So connect to lifting a huge weight --- as in a hydraulic actuator.

Thermally expanding fluid is a very efficient method of energy transfer. It
is also very slow. So the actuator or accumulator is the capacitor to even
out a steady power supply during slow stroking.

Funny -- the hydraulic accumulator guys do not regard compression of gas in
accumulator as any kind of great loss of energy.

Check out here for theory put to practice:

http://www.tpub.com/gunners/99.htm

all the math you can dream of at:

http://www.wilkesandmclean.com/formulas/

And have appended an interesting item in regards to where this is all
heading to.

Hope this is enough for the skeptics??

Some might now "see" how thermally expanded fluids can fit into a simple --
highly efficient -- small -- economical -- thermodynamic power plant with
up till now -- unheard of over all efficiencies.

 

Peter / Belize

 

At 10:27 AM 12/26/2003 EST, LINVENT@AOL.COM wrote:
>In a message dated 12/26/03 6:01:58 AM, tombreed@COMCAST.NET writes:
>
><< Dewar Kermit and All:
>
>Adiabatic compression of gases if the rule when the gas is compressed rapidly
>and the temperature rises to T2=T1(P2/P1)^gamma/gamma-1 (or something like
>that, gamma being the ratio of heat capacity at constant pressure to hc at
>constant volume). This gas heating is the basis of the diesel engine which
>achieves VERY hot air (>800 C?) by high, rapid compression. The
temperature is high
>enough to burn most anything, even coal.
>
>Isothermal compression of gases is generally not available because the energy
>can't be taken out usefully at the same rate it is put in by the compression.
> I have wondered whether a porous piston, well cooled, could make a more
>efficient compressor.
>
>However, Kermit's suggestion of gas compression by pumping liquid (as a spray
>for better heat transfer?) into a holding tank could satisfy all the the
>requirements for an isothermal compression device.
>
>I hope he will keep us posted on his findings.
>
>Tom Reed >>
>
>Dear Tom,
> I know a guy here in Albuquerque who builds isothemal compressors based
>upon a technology who someone got out of Los Alamos. Have not looked into it,
>the guy is a machinist and builds the compressors for the tech transfer
>recipient. From what he tells me they get a 40??F temp rise on 125 psi air
compressor.
>Can't get a market going because no one believes that they do it but have
>working eqpt.
>
>Leland T. Taylor
>President
>Thermogenics Inc.
>7100-F 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107 Phone: 505-761-5633, fax:
>341-0424, website: thermogenics.com.
>In order to read the compressed files forwarded under AOL, it is necessary to
>download Aladdin's freeware Unstuffit at
>http://www.stuffit.com/expander/index.html
>

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

June 21, 2002

Ford demonstrates new hydraulic power assist technology

Fontana, California - Ford Motor Company is developing a Hydraulic Power
Assist (HPA) technology that may help tomorrow's trucks be up to one-third
more fuel efficient in stop-and-go driving than they are today.

Ford demonstrated the HPA system on a Lincoln Navigator at FutureTruck '02,
a competition involving 15 North American university teams working to
develop practical means of integrating breakthrough technologies like fuel
cells and hybrid electric powertrains on sport utility vehicles of the
future.

The Ford HPA system will reduce fuel consumption while increasing vehicle
performance. A reversible hydraulic motor and an energy-storage accumulator
recover energy normally lost during braking - storing it as hydraulic
pressure to be later released to provide a boost for acceleration.
Launching a heavy vehicle from a stop requires much more energy than
keeping that vehicle in motion. Adding a hydraulic boost allows the vehicle
to accelerate much more quickly than the same truck without it, while
greatly decreasing fuel consumption and exhaust emissions.

Ford first showcased HPA in a concept truck, the Mighty F350 Tonka, at the
North American International Auto Show in January.

Ford research indicates that the installation of a HPA system on a
medium-duty truck could increase fuel efficiency in stop-and-go driving by
30 to 35 percent and cut exhaust emissions by at least 20 percent.

"America needs large commercial trucks," said Leo Shedden, director - Ford
Truck Programs. "They perform many essential services, especially in our
cities. But we need to find ways to make large vehicles more fuel efficient
and environmentally compatible. HPA holds the promise to efficiently power
these trucks without compromising their utility and performance."

HPA could be used in commercial trucks and vans operating in stop-and-go
duty cycles - such as delivery trucks and airport shuttle vans. These fleet
vehicles would be ideal because their drive cycles would result in a rapid
payback in operator fuel savings.

The installation of HPA could allow for smaller, more fuel-efficient
engines in commercial vehicles - since less engine horsepower and torque
would be required to move the vehicle from a stop or in hill-climbing. The
Lincoln Navigator research vehicle with HPA features a 4.0-liter V8 Jaguar
engine developing 290 hp at 6,100 rpm and a peak of 290 lbs-ft. of torque
at 4,250 rpm. Designed for the 4,000-lb. Jaguar XJR, the engine needs the
torque boost from HPA at low engine speeds to competitively accelerate the
6,000-lb. Navigator from a stop.

The Ford HPA system demonstrated on this research vehicle provides up to
600 lbs-ft of torque up to 2,000 rpm (drive shaft speed). Navigator's
standard engine is a 5.4-liter 32-valve V8 that develops 300 hp at 5,000
rpm and a peak of 355 lbs-ft. of torque at 2,750 rpm.

From FBerton at CIWMB.CA.GOV Fri Dec 26 17:43:52 2003
From: FBerton at CIWMB.CA.GOV (Berton, Fernando)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: California Cities to Fight Gasification Plans
Message-ID: <FRI.26.DEC.2003.144352.0800.FBERTON@CIWMB.CA.GOV>

Oops. It's 25.5 million annually. Sorry 'bout that. As far as Alameda
choosing to examine gasification, they made that decision without any input
from the CIWMB. For questions regarding the short-list, I suggest that
contact be made with Alameda Power & Telecom.

Happy New Year,

Fernando Berton

-----Original Message-----
From: VHarris001@aol.com [mailto:VHarris001@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 10:29 AM
To: FBerton@CIWMB.CA.GOV; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] California Cities to Fight Gasification Plans

In a message dated 2003-12-24 11:41:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,
FBerton@CIWMB.CA.GOV writes:

 

I am very familiar with the project in the City of Alameda and it more than
just presentations made to government officials. In fact, the City hired a
consulting firm to issue a Request For Proposals. The facility would take
msw only (500 tons per day) and produce anywhere between 12-15 MW of
electricity. According to the City's consultants, all the proposals had
provisions for removing all recyclables prior to conversion. There were 13
respondents which has been whittled down to a short-list of 5 vendors.

 

Was it with advice from CIWMB that Alameda chose to examine gasification for
MSW processing? And are you at liberty to discuss here the vendors on the
short-list, what type of technology they are proposing, the vendors and
technology that were eliminated from consideration, and why?

 

Many people know that California has been very aggresive in its recycling
and composting efforts. We have achieved a 48% diversion rate thanks to the
hard work of local jurisdictions but even with that and the 160+ permitted
composting operations, we still manage to send 25.5 million tons per day to
a landfill.

 

This seems high, should it be 25.5 million tons per year?

Best wishes,

Vernon Harris

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Tue Dec 30 00:04:53 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: Operating Gasification CHP Systems in the 100-250 kWe range
Message-ID: <MON.29.DEC.2003.210453.0800.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

I'm looking for recommendations from the list for operating gasifiers in the 100-250 kWe range, either power only or CHP, for a project that has been funded but is in the early stages of development.

The gasifier(s) should be able to operate with softwood and hardwood wood chips from a sawmill and be sufficiently automated with pollution abatement and safety precautions to operate in a North American sawmill environment with minimum maintenance.

It is our intent to install a gasiifer capable of operating 5000 hours or more per year so we are interested in installations that have enough operating history to have a good understanding of operating and maintenance costs and issues.

Please name a gasifier site, capacity, supplier/engineering company and proide any comments or observations you may have that would recommend a particular supplier or engineering firm. (Note that sometimes an engineering company is better at putting an operating system together than a supplier.)

Suggestions from suppliers are welcome. If you have a good system, let's hear about it.

If this technology is as "near commercial" as we seem to think it is there should be some good, almost affordable, systems out there. (If it were truly comercial/economic we wouldn't need public funds to do these projects.)

Thanks for your help

Tom Miles
T R Miles, Technical Consultants, Inc.
Portland, Oregon, USA
tmiles@trmiles.com
www.trmiles.com

From VHarris001 at AOL.COM Tue Dec 30 17:27:59 2003
From: VHarris001 at AOL.COM (VHarris001@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: Carbon Dioxide Emissions Science?
Message-ID: <TUE.30.DEC.2003.172759.EST.>

I found the following editorial published by the Cato Institute to be very
interesting.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-30-03.html

The gist of the article seems to be that much of the global warming
scientific articles in Science Magazine is junk science published prely for the purpose
of protecting future funding.

Any comments from those of you who follow the global warming / carbon dioxide
issues?

Thanks,

Vernon Harris

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Tue Dec 30 19:12:37 2003
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: Carbon Dioxide Emissions Science?
Message-ID: <TUE.30.DEC.2003.191237.EST.>

Dear Vernon,
I agree with the junk science as does Bush. There was a recent comment by
a leading researcher that interest was in looking at the sun's emissions as
relating to increases in global temperature which is an admission that the CO2
and other greenhouse considerations and gases were not adequate to justify the
heating. This was an interesting admission from this researcher. It shows a
crack in the thought process for sure.
There is another school who believes that the earth is actually cooling.
This may have some merit also as if the earth cools and the evaporation rate
of water from the ocean is reduced, then there is less moisture in the
atmosphere to produce precipitation. The receding snow of Kilamanjaro may be a prime
example of this as the lessened moisture would result in reduced precipitation.
I am sure that the upper atmospheric temperatures are still low enough to
cause moisture to precipitate. If the moisture was not there, then the
precipitation would not occur.
There may be more evidence that the lowered global temperature arises
from reflected sunlight from higher cloud or smog cover. This is as or more
insidious than greenhouse gases as all atmospheric contaminants would be of
concern.
75,000 years ago a major volcanic eruption called Tubo in Indonesia
occurred which reduced the human population from 1mm to 100,000 from drastic earth
cooling. It may have caused the Ice Age.
If one wishes to read an interesting book, Dr. Iben Browning's book
Climate and the Affairs of Man is most appropriate to this subject. He predicted
the Mt. St. Helens eruption and several others along the pacific rim. He also
predicted an event in Missouri which did occur, but his prediction was taken as
a Richter 7-8 scale event and it was later than predicted and only a 5.3 or so
and he was run out of Dodge. He died of a heart attack here in Albuquerque
several months later at a ripe age of 80+. When I met with him in the 70's he
predicted the very same climate changes which are occurring and disagreed with
any warming event, but it was not a topic of discussion at that time. He was
retained by Paine Webber to lecture corporate executives on the impact of
climate on business and was promoted in their prime time national network ads as
predicting the Mt.St. Helens eruption. Prolific inventor. He would certainly
weigh in heavily against global warming if he were alive today.
Unfortunately, being on a side other than global warming is not good for
gasification as it is touted as a major manner of dealing with gw, but I am of
the opinion that bad science is bad science and will prevent good science
such as gasification from being embraced as it should be. It is contagious. It is
also a subtle form of corruption.

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

From MMBTUPR at AOL.COM Tue Dec 30 22:41:41 2003
From: MMBTUPR at AOL.COM (Lewis L. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: Carbon Dioxide Emissions Science?
Message-ID: <TUE.30.DEC.2003.224141.EST.>

To Gasification Discussion Group from Lewis L.
Smith

I made the mistake of studying Latin [instead of ancient Greek] for four
years. As I recall, Cato was one of the more obnoxious Roman political
figures of his time. So anyone who names an Institute after Cato has "started off
on the wrong foot".

From what I hear, they are more or less in the Libertarian school of
economics, which worships private markets rather than merely regarding them as
the single most useful tool in the economist's "bag of tricks", to paraphrase a
comment by the Cambridge [UK] economist Joan Robinson, made some 70 years ago.

So generally you know what their conclusions will be, before you read
their research. This poopooing of global warning sound like more of the same.

Actually you don't have to have a pd. or go take ice cores in Greenland
to know that global warming is for real. There are several things that lay
people can do for themselves to prove this fact to their own satisfaction. For
example -

[1] Go to Alaska and visit the places where they are now
getting two crops of whatever. If Alaska is famous for being a place where a
lot people went through, it should also be famous where some of them stayed,
like for the last 12,000 years, with a good tradition of oral history plus 100
years of the US Weather Bureau. Never in the memory of anybody has anyone
gotten two crops of anything before.

[2] Go to Glacier National Park, where eleven glaciers
have disappeared. [They have photographic evidence of where the glaciers used to
be.]

[3] Go on a boat tour around Miami Bay at high tide. There
are 21 islands in the bay, most of them with fancy houses and small-craft
piers. When these piers were installed 20-30 years ago, the underneath of the
walkways were 12-18 inches above the water at high tide. [SOP for such
structures.] Now the water laps the underneath at high tide.

[4] Go to any place along the New England coast where
there are rocks which were once partially exposed at a normal high tide but are
now covered. In many cases, you will observed some kind of indication as to
where the normal high tides once reached. Compare that position with the level of
today's normal high tide. You may notice as much as five to six inches of
difference.

Incidentally if the flow of cold fresh water into the North
Atlantic increases enough, it could shut down the Gulf Stream [as it has done in the
past] and lower the temperature enough in north-eastern Europe to drive much
of the population away.

Hence those who deny the existence of global warming are not only badly
mistaken [even when they have pure motives] but worse yet, they are
endangering the future of humanity. If we mess up our meteorological system, who is to
say that we can ever put it back to rights. We could all end up like Humpty
Dumpty.

What persons of intelligence and good will can argue about is how to
fix the problem. Who does what to whom, when, where and why and for how much !
In this matter, we are dealing more with uncertainty than with risk, and
even where we can concoct probability distributions, they are skewed toward the
"bad" side rather than being symmetrical. Nasty problem, but an important one.

End.

From gjahnke at BIRCH.NET Wed Dec 31 01:01:02 2003
From: gjahnke at BIRCH.NET (Greg Jahnke)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: Carbon Dioxide Emissions Science?
Message-ID: <WED.31.DEC.2003.000102.0600.GJAHNKE@BIRCH.NET>

I am not a climatologist, but it is my understanding (from speaking to guys
that are) that measuring global temperatures is not a valid way of studying
global warming due to human intervention. The earth's climate changes in a
regular, measurable cyclic pattern. Sometimes it is warmer, sometimes it is
cooler. By measuring and comparing temperatures over the last hundred
years, we can establish that the earth is warming. Whether this is the
result of human intervention or just another part of the cycle is unknown.

It is my understanding that in order to establish whether or not the
presence of CO2 in the atmosphere is effecting the worldwide climate, it is
necessary to study the effects of excess CO2 in a closed environment. This
has been done, and the temperature has been effected. It stands to reason
that if, in a greenhouse, x ppm of additional CO2 results in a raise in
temperature of y, the same would be true in the earth's atmosphere (another
closed eco-system).

I have trouble with most of the anti-global warming literature not because
of their argument about temperatures, but because of their argument that the
excess CO2 results in additional plant life. This falls under "biology"
(something I am more familiar with). This is ludicrous. A plant requires a
specific amount of CO2, excess CO2 will NOT lead to better growth in plants.

I generally accept the two above conclusions as fact. Therefore, anything
that uses either an argument based on measured global temperatures or the
benefits of excess CO2 to plant life, I generally ignore as soft science.

The issue is whether or not excess CO2 in the atmosphere increases
temperature. So far, all the studies I have seen say yes, so I think I will
stick with that. If studies start turning up that say that CO2 does not
increase temperature (and I don't mean studies based on recently measured
global temperatures) I might change my mind.

 

----- Original Message -----
From: <VHarris001@AOL.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 4:27 PM
Subject: [GASL] Carbon Dioxide Emissions Science?

> I found the following editorial published by the Cato Institute to be very
> interesting.
>
> http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-30-03.html
>
> The gist of the article seems to be that much of the global warming
> scientific articles in Science Magazine is junk science published prely
for the purpose
> of protecting future funding.
>
> Any comments from those of you who follow the global warming / carbon
dioxide
> issues?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Vernon Harris
>

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Wed Dec 31 06:50:49 2003
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: Carbon Dioxide Emissions Science?
In-Reply-To: <001801c3cf63$7907eba0$5b28d4d8@main>
Message-ID: <WED.31.DEC.2003.115049.0000.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

For my Ha'penn'orth I go with greg.
There are lots of reasons that we do not yet understand w.r.t. global
warming. As we have only a tiny sample of data in global history terms so we
cannot use this reliably to predict or support any hypothesis.

We do know the earth is getting warmer.
We do know that we have burnt a large proportion of the available fossil
fuels and that that burning has introduced a lot of carbon into the
atmosphere that has been missing for billions of years.

We therefore need to find other solutions to our energy appetite; find more
energy sources that wont run out or use less being the top level choice.

Biomass and gasification is one part of the solution. Nuclear is another,
returning to stone age lifestye is another.

All of these choices , together with any climate change(however it is
caused) will affect all life on the plant, which will adapt or die.

I go with adapting and am attempting to bring my kids up to be self reliant
and adaptable in the face of the current political and educational climate.
They will then be able to make a choice regarding survival , my choice is
sealed!
On that morbid thought Happy new year or Merry Thursday if you have a
different calendar of choice!
gavin

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Greg Jahnke
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 6:01
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Carbon Dioxide Emissions Science?

I am not a climatologist, but it is my understanding (from speaking to guys
that are) that measuring global temperatures is not a valid way of studying
global warming due to human intervention. The earth's climate changes in a
regular, measurable cyclic pattern. Sometimes it is warmer, sometimes it is
cooler. By measuring and comparing temperatures over the last hundred
years, we can establish that the earth is warming. Whether this is the
result of human intervention or just another part of the cycle is unknown.

It is my understanding that in order to establish whether or not the
presence of CO2 in the atmosphere is effecting the worldwide climate, it is
necessary to study the effects of excess CO2 in a closed environment. This
has been done, and the temperature has been effected. It stands to reason
that if, in a greenhouse, x ppm of additional CO2 results in a raise in
temperature of y, the same would be true in the earth's atmosphere (another
closed eco-system).

I have trouble with most of the anti-global warming literature not because
of their argument about temperatures, but because of their argument that the
excess CO2 results in additional plant life. This falls under "biology"
(something I am more familiar with). This is ludicrous. A plant requires a
specific amount of CO2, excess CO2 will NOT lead to better growth in plants.

I generally accept the two above conclusions as fact. Therefore, anything
that uses either an argument based on measured global temperatures or the
benefits of excess CO2 to plant life, I generally ignore as soft science.

The issue is whether or not excess CO2 in the atmosphere increases
temperature. So far, all the studies I have seen say yes, so I think I will
stick with that. If studies start turning up that say that CO2 does not
increase temperature (and I don't mean studies based on recently measured
global temperatures) I might change my mind.

 

----- Original Message -----
From: <VHarris001@AOL.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 4:27 PM
Subject: [GASL] Carbon Dioxide Emissions Science?

> I found the following editorial published by the Cato Institute to be very
> interesting.
>
> http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-30-03.html
>
> The gist of the article seems to be that much of the global warming
> scientific articles in Science Magazine is junk science published prely
for the purpose
> of protecting future funding.
>
> Any comments from those of you who follow the global warming / carbon
dioxide
> issues?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Vernon Harris
>

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Wed Dec 31 08:44:21 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: Carbon Dioxide Emissions Science?
Message-ID: <WED.31.DEC.2003.094421.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear All

If you would like a very interesting view on the "Carbon Dioxide Problem",
see: http://www.fisherycrisis.com/

It is a long and thorough analysis of a much bigger picture. But then, the
World is a "big Picture. " :-)

Kindest regards,

Kevin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Jahnke" <gjahnke@BIRCH.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Carbon Dioxide Emissions Science?

> I am not a climatologist, but it is my understanding (from speaking to
guys
> that are) that measuring global temperatures is not a valid way of
studying
> global warming due to human intervention. The earth's climate changes in
a
> regular, measurable cyclic pattern. Sometimes it is warmer, sometimes it
is
> cooler. By measuring and comparing temperatures over the last hundred
> years, we can establish that the earth is warming. Whether this is the
> result of human intervention or just another part of the cycle is unknown.
>
> It is my understanding that in order to establish whether or not the
> presence of CO2 in the atmosphere is effecting the worldwide climate, it
is
> necessary to study the effects of excess CO2 in a closed environment.
This
> has been done, and the temperature has been effected. It stands to reason
> that if, in a greenhouse, x ppm of additional CO2 results in a raise in
> temperature of y, the same would be true in the earth's atmosphere
(another
> closed eco-system).
>
> I have trouble with most of the anti-global warming literature not because
> of their argument about temperatures, but because of their argument that
the
> excess CO2 results in additional plant life. This falls under "biology"
> (something I am more familiar with). This is ludicrous. A plant requires
a
> specific amount of CO2, excess CO2 will NOT lead to better growth in
plants.
>
> I generally accept the two above conclusions as fact. Therefore, anything
> that uses either an argument based on measured global temperatures or the
> benefits of excess CO2 to plant life, I generally ignore as soft science.
>
> The issue is whether or not excess CO2 in the atmosphere increases
> temperature. So far, all the studies I have seen say yes, so I think I
will
> stick with that. If studies start turning up that say that CO2 does not
> increase temperature (and I don't mean studies based on recently measured
> global temperatures) I might change my mind.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <VHarris001@AOL.COM>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 4:27 PM
> Subject: [GASL] Carbon Dioxide Emissions Science?
>
>
> > I found the following editorial published by the Cato Institute to be
very
> > interesting.
> >
> > http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-30-03.html
> >
> > The gist of the article seems to be that much of the global warming
> > scientific articles in Science Magazine is junk science published prely
> for the purpose
> > of protecting future funding.
> >
> > Any comments from those of you who follow the global warming / carbon
> dioxide
> > issues?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Vernon Harris
> >

From sheltonvictor at YAHOO.CO.IN Wed Dec 31 09:42:10 2003
From: sheltonvictor at YAHOO.CO.IN (=?iso-8859-1?q?shelton=20victor?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: FBG
In-Reply-To: <1c1.1342bc45.2d18f727@aol.com>
Message-ID: <WED.31.DEC.2003.144210.0000.SHELTONVICTOR@YAHOO.CO.IN>

I am a Post Graduate student doing Energy Engineering in Anna University in India.

I am doing my project in Fluidised Bed Gasification.

I would like to know how to maintain the Equivalence Ratio and Tempreture constant. using ground nut as a fuel of 150kWth capacity.

 

 

Yahoo! India Mobile: Ringtones, Wallpapers, Picture Messages and more.Download now.

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Wed Dec 31 10:54:41 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: Carbon Dioxide Emissions Science?
In-Reply-To: <001801c3cf63$7907eba0$5b28d4d8@main>
Message-ID: <WED.31.DEC.2003.095441.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 12:01:02AM -0600, Greg Jahnke wrote:

(snip)

> I have trouble with most of the anti-global warming literature not because
> of their argument about temperatures, but because of their argument that the
> excess CO2 results in additional plant life. This falls under "biology"
> (something I am more familiar with). This is ludicrous. A plant requires a
> specific amount of CO2, excess CO2 will NOT lead to better growth in plants.
>
I'm certainly not going to argue *against* global warming, however, I do
take serious issue with the above. Greenhouse gardeners have found that
providing extra CO2 most definitely is beneficial to plant growth. There is a
strong commercial market for CO2 generators for greenhouse use, and it's quite
easy to prove that they are effective, just ask the many indoor marijuana
growers in Holland or British Columbia.

(snip)

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

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Wed Dec 31 10:58:24 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: Carbon Dioxide Emissions Science?
In-Reply-To: <002901c3cfa4$55174380$8d9a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <WED.31.DEC.2003.095824.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 09:44:21AM -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> Dear All
>
> If you would like a very interesting view on the "Carbon Dioxide Problem",
> see: http://www.fisherycrisis.com/
>
> It is a long and thorough analysis of a much bigger picture. But then, the
> World is a "big Picture. " :-)
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Kevin

Excellent website Kevin, thanks a lot!

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

From gjahnke at BIRCH.NET Wed Dec 31 13:13:12 2003
From: gjahnke at BIRCH.NET (Greg Jahnke)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: Carbon Dioxide Emissions Science?
Message-ID: <WED.31.DEC.2003.121312.0600.GJAHNKE@BIRCH.NET>

That is along the same lines as "A trip to an oxygen bar will make you feel
better". When you breath, your lungs only absorb about 20% of the oxygen in
the air. If you have really been exerting yourself, your lungs absorb about
a whopping 22% of the oxygen in the air. That is the best they can do.

Plants work the same way. A lot of folks might believe that by huffing on
an oxygen mask or taking a trip to an oxygen bar they are doing themselves
some good (just watch a football game and look at the players on the
sidelines). They are not.

By the same token, a lot of folks might believe that by installing a co2
generator in a greenhouse they are doing some good. They are not. Plants
are only able to absorb CO2 at a fixed rate, just like your lungs. All
evidence poiunts to there being plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere, otherwise
there would be low CO2 concentrations places like the rainforests. This is
not the case.

I read some research on this a while back and it was discovered that
sometimes in tightly sealed, heavily populated (by plants) greenhouses, CO2
levels would drop significantly (to the point of harming the plants). This
was for the same reason that if you stuck somebody in a tupperware container
they would die. The problem is easily solved with an air exchange system (a
big fan).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Carbon Dioxide Emissions Science?

> On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 12:01:02AM -0600, Greg Jahnke wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > I have trouble with most of the anti-global warming literature not
because
> > of their argument about temperatures, but because of their argument that
the
> > excess CO2 results in additional plant life. This falls under "biology"
> > (something I am more familiar with). This is ludicrous. A plant
requires a
> > specific amount of CO2, excess CO2 will NOT lead to better growth in
plants.
> >
> I'm certainly not going to argue *against* global warming, however, I
do
> take serious issue with the above. Greenhouse gardeners have found that
> providing extra CO2 most definitely is beneficial to plant growth. There
is a
> strong commercial market for CO2 generators for greenhouse use, and it's
quite
> easy to prove that they are effective, just ask the many indoor marijuana
> growers in Holland or British Columbia.
>
>
> (snip)
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com
>

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Wed Dec 31 17:03:13 2003
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: Flashpoints
Message-ID: <WED.31.DEC.2003.160313.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Welcome (or Hello), All

IN Andrew's "XS Air" dialog, (seen over the last few days) I saw someone
speaking of flashpoints, I have one major question.

1) Flashpoint, Does anyone have a rough, or refined list of flashpoints for
different producer gas structures ??

When I say structures, I'm referring to chemical make-up

Ideally, in the form below:

DB % WB %
CO 13.2 10.5
CO2 17.0 13.3
CH4 2.4 1.8
H2 22.9 17.9
H2O 0.0 21.7
Balance to 100% is construed as "non-ignitable" product.

Though I know this is a "decent" ratio for producer gas, I have no idea of
it's flashpoint. (What I would construed as decent. :)

This ratio was taken from a raw sample of gas, before the start-up plume,
and the charge of wood in that batch was "white poplar" (Aspen??) (Local to
my area of Manitoba). It cost me dearly to have this breakdown done at the
local lab, and I'm still no wiser (every composition breakdown added to the
list costs more).

Happy New Years !!

Greg Manning
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

From JBenemann at AOL.COM Wed Dec 31 20:57:08 2003
From: JBenemann at AOL.COM (JBenemann@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:35 2004
Subject: Carbon Dioxide Emissions Science?
Message-ID: <WED.31.DEC.2003.205708.EST.>

Hello List:

It is refreshing to see so much certainty on topics about which there is so
much confusion. Unfortunately, certainty tends to add to the confusion, when
it has little basis in fact.

To the point: plants respond by growing faster to increased atmospheric
levels of CO2, whether in a greenhouse, a FACE experiment (open air CO2
enrichment) or the entire planet. There are approximately (if not yet, soon) 100,000
(!) scientific publications that show this clearly and unequivocally. The
argument, however, is how much, how sustained, how benign, such a growth
stimulation would be when we have 600 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere (wait, not long),
rather than 300, as less than 100 years ago.

How much is hard to tell, from a few percent certainly, in real ecosystems
and agriculture/forestry. Nothing to sneeze at. How sustained, hard to tell, a
few days, months, years, ad infinitum. All depends on the plant (tree vs
grass, etc.), nutrients, growth phase, maybe phase of the moon. How benign is
all this: hard to tell, the C:N ratio will likely change, more carbos less
protein, maybe more bugs, maybe less because less nutritious.

Bottom Line? There is none. Don't count on plants taking up CO2 as a blank
check to keep putting fossil CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere. And anyone who claims that greenhouse gases do not heat up the planetary
system does not know that a greenhouse traps heat by the same exact mechanism
that a greenhouse gas does. And there is no argument that we (yes, we humans,
burning coal and others fossil fuels) put lots and lots into the atmosphere,
much more than ever got there before we came along. And most, at least half,
of it is hanging in there. And accumulating.

Anybody who sees how fast CO2 is going up each year should be scared, at
least concerned about where we are going with all this. Do we really want to find
out that it is going to be just fine in the long term (50 years)? No chance
for it to go badly wrong? Even Lindzen thinks that serious global warming
has a 20% chance of happening, and he is the only (credible) scientist that
really can argue the case against global warming. Sound like odds I do not
gamble the whole world on. But then, as John Mynard Keyes, the famous theoritician
and practicioner of capitalist economics said, "in the long term we are all
dead". Which is the problem, we create it, we die, we leave it to our grandkids.
We certainly don't want to pay for it now. After all, what have they done
for us lately?

OK, at least do not make statements such as that plants have all the CO2 they
need. Sorry, they love to have more. Just the way it is. Maybe they can't
use more, but they will try.

Happy New Year.

John Benemann

Subj: Re: [GASL] Carbon Dioxide Emissions Science?
Date: 12/31/2003 10:15:19 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: gjahnke@BIRCH.NET
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Sent from the Internet (Details)

 

That is along the same lines as "A trip to an oxygen bar will make you feel
better". When you breath, your lungs only absorb about 20% of the oxygen in
the air. If you have really been exerting yourself, your lungs absorb about
a whopping 22% of the oxygen in the air. That is the best they can do.

Plants work the same way. A lot of folks might believe that by huffing on
an oxygen mask or taking a trip to an oxygen bar they are doing themselves
some good (just watch a football game and look at the players on the
sidelines). They are not.

By the same token, a lot of folks might believe that by installing a co2
generator in a greenhouse they are doing some good. They are not. Plants
are only able to absorb CO2 at a fixed rate, just like your lungs. All
evidence poiunts to there being plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere, otherwise
there would be low CO2 concentrations places like the rainforests. This is
not the case.

I read some research on this a while back and it was discovered that
sometimes in tightly sealed, heavily populated (by plants) greenhouses, CO2
levels would drop significantly (to the point of harming the plants). This
was for the same reason that if you stuck somebody in a tupperware container
they would die. The problem is easily solved with an air exchange system (a
big fan).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Carbon Dioxide Emissions Science?

> On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 12:01:02AM -0600, Greg Jahnke wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > I have trouble with most of the anti-global warming literature not
because
> > of their argument about temperatures, but because of their argument that
the
> > excess CO2 results in additional plant life. This falls under "biology"
> > (something I am more familiar with). This is ludicrous. A plant
requires a
> > specific amount of CO2, excess CO2 will NOT lead to better growth in
plants.
> >
> I'm certainly not going to argue *against* global warming, however, I
do
> take serious issue with the above. Greenhouse gardeners have found that
> providing extra CO2 most definitely is beneficial to plant growth. There
is a
> strong commercial market for CO2 generators for greenhouse use, and it's
quite
> easy to prove that they are effective, just ask the many indoor marijuana
> growers in Holland or British Columbia.
>
>
> (snip)
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com
>