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

February 2003 Gasification Archive

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

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Sun Feb 2 21:22:39 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:20 2004
Subject: No Attachments
Message-ID: <SUN.2.FEB.2003.182239.0800.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Reed" <tombreed@attbi.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 4:50 PM

> Dear Tom Miles, Gasification and Stoves:
>
> I like some of what Tom Miles said below. While it is often nice to get a
> Word or PDG document attachment, it is so easy to copy the text into the
> Email, that I don't know why it isn't always done. That way I can see
> whether I want to take the trouble to read the attachment in another
> program. I don't like those blank pages with attachments only.
>
> So, I suggest that if you have attachments to send, announce them and ask
> for any who are interested to send a private note. More trouble, but
easier
> on those that don't have DSL or cable. I hope that eventually we will be
> able to send more than plain vanilla.
>
> I was hoping to mount a campaign for each member of the group to send a
> picture next time they wrote. I prepared a nice thumbnail of my face this
> AM. There are so many names that I know from the lists, but often have no
> face to think of. Faces help memory. Guess that will have to be
postponed.
>
> TOM REED - MODERATOR - GASIFICATION
>
> Dr. Thomas B. Reed
> 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
> tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone; 303 265 9184 Fax
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles@TRMILES.COM>
> To: <BIOENERGY@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 10:40 AM
> Subject: No Attachments
>
>
> > In order to reduce the potential for spreading viruses we have set the
> list
> > so that it does not accept attachments or HTML. As you see below the
> > messages are delivered in plain text without attachments. That means
that
> if
> > you are trying to forward a link or document to the list then it must be
> > embedded in the message.
> >
> > Please enter any web links directly into your email message.
> >
> > In the future we intend to make it possible to upload pictures, files or
> > documents to the Bioenergy web pages at REPP.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Tom Miles
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Anouk Kendall" <anouk@SHAW.CA>
> > To: <BIOENERGY@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> > Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 8:53 AM
> > Subject: Re: FW: Florida Final Renewables Report
> >
> >
> > > Fred
> > >
> > > I'd be interested in seeing the report. The weblink (or attachment)
> didn't
> > > come through with your last email.
> > >
> > > Anouk
> > >
> > > At 05:59 PM 31/01/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> > > >In a message dated 1/31/2003 1:53:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > > >PletkaRJ@BV.COM writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Due to lack of hydro, geothermal, and wind resources, biomass is
one
> > of the
> > > > > leading options for renewable energy in the state. See below.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >Ryan:
> > > >
> > > >Many thanks for this.
> > > >
> > > >Regards,
> > > >Fred Murrell
> > > >Bradenton Florida USA
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Tue Feb 4 13:59:24 2003
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:20 2004
Subject: Chinese gasifier stove
Message-ID: <TUE.4.FEB.2003.125924.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Kirk Smith and other Stovers,

The "Chinese Gasifier Stove" shown
at http://www.trmiles.com/stoves/ (scroll down a ways to see it) is
not fully described. The picture seems cut off and that there could be
lower section to the stove.

I am trying to determine the TYPE of gasifier that it is. Most
specifically, I am comparing it with Tom Reed IDD stove (of which my Juntos
stove is an offspring).

If Kirk Smith (who provided the picture from China) is not on this general
Stoves List Serve, would someone (Tom Miles??) please relay this message to
him. I doubt if anyone else could answer the question unless you can
provide a contact to the people in China who make or promote that stove.

Paul

 

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

From snkm at BTL.NET Tue Feb 4 14:35:03 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:20 2004
Subject: Chinese gasifier stove
Message-ID: <TUE.4.FEB.2003.133503.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Dear Paul and all;

You can find this stove at:

http://www.wattpower.com

The owner of that site is a long stadning member of this list -- Kevin --

Probably he can supply more details??

Peter Singfield
Belize, Central America

At 12:59 PM 2/4/2003 -0600, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
>Kirk Smith and other Stovers,
>
>The "Chinese Gasifier Stove" shown
>at http://www.trmiles.com/stoves/ (scroll down a ways to see it) is
>not fully described. The picture seems cut off and that there could be
>lower section to the stove.
>
>I am trying to determine the TYPE of gasifier that it is. Most
>specifically, I am comparing it with Tom Reed IDD stove (of which my Juntos
>stove is an offspring).
>
>If Kirk Smith (who provided the picture from China) is not on this general
>Stoves List Serve, would someone (Tom Miles??) please relay this message to
>him. I doubt if anyone else could answer the question unless you can
>provide a contact to the people in China who make or promote that stove.
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>
>Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
>Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
>Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
>Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
>E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
>

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Tue Feb 4 14:44:19 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:20 2004
Subject: Chinese gasifier stove
Message-ID: <TUE.4.FEB.2003.154419.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Paul

The following link takes you to a site that carries a gasifier stove system:

http://www.chinadepot.com/stoveberlin.html

It is intended to operate on agricultural waste... straw... but it would
probably work well on wood chips also.

Regards,

Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders@ILSTU.EDU>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 2:59 PM
Subject: Chinese gasifier stove

> Kirk Smith and other Stovers,
>
> The "Chinese Gasifier Stove" shown
> at http://www.trmiles.com/stoves/ (scroll down a ways to see it)
is
> not fully described. The picture seems cut off and that there could be
> lower section to the stove.
>
> I am trying to determine the TYPE of gasifier that it is. Most
> specifically, I am comparing it with Tom Reed IDD stove (of which my
Juntos
> stove is an offspring).
>
> If Kirk Smith (who provided the picture from China) is not on this general
> Stoves List Serve, would someone (Tom Miles??) please relay this message
to
> him. I doubt if anyone else could answer the question unless you can
> provide a contact to the people in China who make or promote that stove.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
> Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
> Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
> Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
> E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Tue Feb 4 15:47:17 2003
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:20 2004
Subject: Fw: charcoal from bamboo and activated carbon
In-Reply-To: <20030204135836.19798.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.4.FEB.2003.144717.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Hello (with info for Stovers who might be interested) and forwarded to the
Gasification List Serve.

I do not know much about activated charcoal making. (which I believe is a
process done separately after the charcoal is available, but correct me if
I am wrong.) But please tell me what percentage of total charcoal will be
for that purification work of activated charcoal?

Otherwise, it seems that you want to create electricity. And you have
plenty of bamboo. If that is the case, why first make charcoal (loosing
much of the heat energy)? Start with the bamboo and go to the electricity
production without ever touching the charcoal.

Your situation could be of interest to the companies that product
commercial-sized gasifiers, so I am forwarding this message (and yours) to
the Gasification List Serve just this one time. Those people can contact
you directly.

I return to the issue of small-scale production of heat and of charcoal,
using the IDD gasification techniques pioneered by Dr. Tom Reed. We have
never determined how large one of these IDD gasifiers could be, but our
interests have NOT been directed toward large units that drive electricity
generators.

For me to continue with any assistance, I would need to know if very small
sized "stoves" that produce charcoal from bamboo would be of interest to
you. If yes, and even if you have only a very small budget, I and others
could possibly assist you. (We do not have funding sources available to
us, but could assist you to get funding if you decided to try our
small-scale approach to charcoal making (with heat generation for household
stoves or small businesses).)

To see what I am mentioning, please go
to http://www.trmiles.com/stoves/ and see the photos listed with my
name Paul S. Anderson and ALSO the more recent photos at the location
of the ETHOS
Conference http://www.trmiles.com/stoves/Ethos/Ethosjan03.html

Unless others on the Stoves list serve speak up of their interest, my
further conversations with you will be direct and without copies to the
list serve.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Paul

At 01:58 PM 2/4/03 +0000, Ganesh Kr. Agarwal wrote:
>Dear Sir, Thanks for showing interest. We have received your mail and
>noted the contents their in. We would like to inform you that in INDIA
>Assam and its surrounding has plenty of bamboos. There for we don't see
>any difficulty in procuring the same. Subject to cost/profitability
>factor. The average weight of bamboo is given below as required by you. We
>would like to inform you that we are very much interested in setting up
>the Bamboo Charcoal and Vinegar plant. This will be one part and after
>successfully implementation we would proceed further in Activated carbon.
>As Activated Carbon made from Bamboo Charcoal is much superior in quality
>that any other material. And there is good demand for Activated Carbon
>made from Bamboo. We would also like to inform you that we have bamboo
>Stick plant for Incense Stick, which generated lots of dust, can the same
>be utilized for making Charcoal and Activated Carbon. Lower Part of
>Bamboo - 16 K.G Length 16 Ft. Upper Part of
>Bamboo - 16 K.G Length 24 Ft. Full length of
>Bamboo - 27 L.G Length 38 Ft.
>Knots - 10 pcs per kg All were cut and
>thrown on open place for 15 days We hereby request you to please send us
>some details like realization of Bamboo Charcoal, and realization of
>Activated Carbon from bamboo Charcoal along with plant capacity and brief
>details about how you want to implement the same and produce Electricity
>and how much Mega Watt plant can be established. Along with cost details.
>Looking for an early reply. Thanking you Yours truly, For Tirupati Cottage
>Industry Ganesh Agarwal

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

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Tue Feb 4 15:53:59 2003
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:20 2004
Subject: Chinese gasifier stove
In-Reply-To: <008201c2cc8b$6b638580$329a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <TUE.4.FEB.2003.145359.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Kevin, thanks, but I think that is a different stove. Does not look like
the posted picture, and the pot-position is very different. Can you or
anyone confirm (pro or con) if the stove in Smith's picture is of the same
type as the one cited below by Kevin.

Paul

At 03:44 PM 2/4/03 -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>Dear Paul
>
>The following link takes you to a site that carries a gasifier stove system:
>
>http://www.chinadepot.com/stoveberlin.html
>
>It is intended to operate on agricultural waste... straw... but it would
>probably work well on wood chips also.
>
>Regards,
>
>Kevin
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders@ILSTU.EDU>
>To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 2:59 PM
>Subject: Chinese gasifier stove
>
>
> > Kirk Smith and other Stovers,
> >
> > The "Chinese Gasifier Stove" shown
> > at http://www.trmiles.com/stoves/ (scroll down a ways to see it)
>is
> > not fully described. The picture seems cut off and that there could be
> > lower section to the stove.
> >
> > I am trying to determine the TYPE of gasifier that it is. Most
> > specifically, I am comparing it with Tom Reed IDD stove (of which my
>Juntos
> > stove is an offspring).
> >
> > If Kirk Smith (who provided the picture from China) is not on this general
> > Stoves List Serve, would someone (Tom Miles??) please relay this message
>to
> > him. I doubt if anyone else could answer the question unless you can
> > provide a contact to the people in China who make or promote that stove.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
> > Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10 mo of 2001-2003
> > Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois State University
> > Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX: 309-438-5310
> > E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items: www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

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

From tombreed at ATTBI.COM Tue Feb 4 22:30:58 2003
From: tombreed at ATTBI.COM (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:20 2004
Subject: Gasfication List and Web Site
Message-ID: <TUE.4.FEB.2003.203058.0700.TOMBREED@ATTBI.COM>

Dear Leland/Tom:

(How come you are switching names?)

Great news and couldn't happy to a nicer/persistent guy. Do you still feed
under the pile?

Your Gasification buddy, TOM REED

 

Dr. Thomas B. Reed
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone; 303 265 9184 Fax
----- Original Message -----
From: <LINVENT@AOL.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: Gasfication List and Web Site

> Dear Tom,
> Things are getting going in the gasification business. The Italian
> project is finally moving ahead. The financial deals apparently have been
> straightened out and I am going there this weekend to pick up some
additional
> funds.
> I have received strong interest from engineering cos. I have about 6
who
> are really stepping up to the plate and taking the lead. We have a couple
who
> are going to offer process warranties to the project developers. These
> include tire to energy, waste to ethanol, poultry litter to power, hog
manure
> to power, sewage sludge to power.
> I made a recent trip to Japan and I think it was largely a brain
picking
> exercise. I think that they are really not out to do anything but scarf up
> whatever technology they can and stiff us inventors big time.
Unfortunately
> for them, I can innovate faster than they can understand it. They have a
> really big government push for hydrogen technology and this is where we
can
> really shine. I am going to create some hydrogen production the
gasification
> industry will be proud of.
> Anyhow, we will be revising our website here shortly and show what we
are
> up to. We have picked up lots of people who have been working with other
> gasification guys and have gotten them into our camp.
> Hope that you are busy.
>
>
> 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 Jeff_Bossong at NOTES.INTERLIANT.COM Wed Feb 5 08:25:41 2003
From: Jeff_Bossong at NOTES.INTERLIANT.COM (Jeff Bossong)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:20 2004
Subject: Please remove me from the list
Message-ID: <WED.5.FEB.2003.072541.0600.JEFFBOSSONG@NOTES.INTERLIANT.COM>

I was removed from the list but some how got put back on. Please take my
name off.

From Wattsengr at ADELPHIA.NET Wed Feb 5 13:46:51 2003
From: Wattsengr at ADELPHIA.NET (Robert A. Watts, P.E.)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:20 2004
Subject: Remove me from the list
Message-ID: <WED.5.FEB.2003.134651.0500.WATTSENGR@ADELPHIA.NET>

Please remove me from the list. There is too much chit-chat that amounts to
nothing.

Bob Watts

From asa.marbe at HPT.CHALMERS.SE Fri Feb 7 05:05:11 2003
From: asa.marbe at HPT.CHALMERS.SE (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=C5sa_Marbe?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:20 2004
Subject: Remove me from the list
Message-ID: <FRI.7.FEB.2003.110511.0100.ASA.MARBE@HPT.CHALMERS.SE>

Please remove me from the list. There is to much chat!

?sa Marbe

From sigma at IX.NETCOM.COM Sat Feb 8 08:42:53 2003
From: sigma at IX.NETCOM.COM (Len Walde)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:20 2004
Subject: Warning: Huge Fee Increases Proposed for Solar Energy in
California
Message-ID: <SAT.8.FEB.2003.054253.0800.SIGMA@IX.NETCOM.COM>

Hello to all:

What follows below is an important "Wake-up Call for all renewable energy
developers. If it gets a foothold in solar it will set a very bad precedence
for All renewable energy. Please think about it and act now. The proposed
letter is a good one but draft your own -- use it as a model so each letter
reflects your thinking and perspective -- recipients have to realize you are
really concerned about the ramifications of the imposition of "exit fees".
"Exit fees" are , after all just "disincentive fees" -- coercive,
intimidating , anti-renewable, "taxation without representation", attempts
by Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas &
Electric, to stifle the growth of renewable energy in All of its forms.

Please think about this and Act now. Write, spread the word, call, do
anything you can to call attention to the serious long term ramifications of
this very serious attack on renewable energy, in all of its forms and its
future , not just in California, but the whole country.

Please, act now!

I am sure I could have said it better, and I hope you can express it better,
but we have to put a stop to this "exit fees" issue. If it succeeds in
California, it Will spread to all other states. You can bet on that.

Best wishes to all, -- keep up the good fight!

Len Walde, P. E. , Concerned citizen, Renewable Energy Advocate, Free
Thinking Moderate

Sigma Energy Engineering, Inc.
Renewable Energy, Process Engineering
Serving Agriculture, Industry & Commerce
through "Symbiotic Recycling" tm

Ph: 925-254-7633
E-mail: sigma@ix.netcom.com

----- Original Message -----
From: ""List owner for solareclips" <solareclips@californiasolarcenter.org>
To: "Solar e-Clips" <solareclips@californiasolarcenter.org>
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 5:39 PM
Subject: Solar e-Clips: ACTION ALERT:Huge Fee Increases Proposed for Solar
Energy Customers in California

> Action Alert: Huge Fee Increases Proposed for Solar Energy
> Customers in California
> January 28, 2003
>
> What's at Stake:
> In the next 30 days, the California Public Utilities
> Commission will rule on a proposal that would severely
> undermine the growth of solar energy in California.
> California's utilities - Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern
> California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric - actively
> support the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
> to approve a new solar tax equivalent, known as "exit
> fees".
>
> These proposed fees would dramatically increase the costs
> of using solar energy for utility customers. The proposal
> would give utilities the right to install meters that
> measure solar production on privately owned solar energy
> systems and increase the cost of this solar energy for
> customers by up to 40 percent. Help stop this bad idea
> from becoming public policy before it's too late.
>
> Background:
> If the proposed decision is approved by the full
> commission, exit fee charges - ranging from 2 to 5 cents
> per kilowatt-hour - will be charged to electricity
> generated by privately-owned solar electric systems. The
> current proposal would apply these fees to reducing the
> debt California incurred from buying lots of expensive
> (and dirty) power during the energy crisis. But creating a
> disincentive for the public to install solar energy
> systems goes in the wrong direction. It is bad for our
> state's energy independence and bad for the environment.
>
> Solar energy is helping to generate new jobs and tax
> revenues in California and diminishing the state's
> vulnerability to energy price hikes. Utility-imposed "exit
> fees" would create a huge roadblock to these goals. The
> CPUC is expected to vote on this issue in late February.
> It is not too late to change the outcome.
>
> Why This is Unfair:
> Individuals, businesses and government agencies that
> install solar systems still buy most of their power from
> utilities. Thus, just like any other utility customer,
> solar customers are already paying higher-cost electricity
> rates to pay off the state investment in power supplies.
> In addition, customer-owned solar power provides important
> public benefits by delivering non-polluting electricity
> during peak demand periods, when the dirtiest electric
> generators often come on line to meet utility power needs.
> This contribution should be rewarded, not penalized.
>
> The Alternative:
> The California Public Utilities Commission has the
> authority to protect California's solar customers from
> utility "exit fees". As a result of tremendous efforts by
> California lawmakers and the public to support solar
> energy, California enjoyed a 1000% growth in the number of
> large solar electric systems installed in the last two
> years. Let's keep it going. Don't let the utilities stop
> this progress. Please write today.
>
> How You can Help:
> Send a copy of the attached letter to protest the proposed
> decision on solar exit fees and urge the California Public
> Utilities Commission and Governor Gray Davis to support an
> alternate decision that would exempt all solar customers
> from utility exit fees.
>
> Sample Letters
>
> http://www.californiasolarcenter.org/cpuc2003.html
>
> Who and Where:
>
> President Michael Peevey
> California Public Utilities Commission
> 505 Van Ness Avenue
> San Francisco, CA 94102
> 415-703-1758 (fax)
> Cc:
> Commissioner Brown
> Commissioner Kennedy
> Commissioner Lynch
> Commissioner Wood
>
> Governor Gray Davis
> State Capitol Building
> Sacramento, CA 95814
> 916-445-4633 (fax)
>
> When:
> Today. Each Commissioner and the Governor must hear from
> constituents who support the continued use of solar power
> in California as soon as possible. This is extremely time
> sensitive. The earlier you register your opinion, the more
> influence you will have. The final decision is expected by
> February 27, 2003.
>
> [Thanks to CalSEIA, Votesolar, CCenergy, and others for
> coordinating this effort]

From jgordes at EARTHLINK.NET Sat Feb 8 10:03:22 2003
From: jgordes at EARTHLINK.NET (jgordes)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:20 2004
Subject: Exit Fee Alternatives You Can Propose That Are Less Harmful
In-Reply-To: <154b01c2cf78$0074b970$0000a398@Len>
Message-ID: <SAT.8.FEB.2003.100322.0500.JGORDES@EARTHLINK.NET>

Dear All,

Just below are some alternative I suggested to the House Co-chair of the
Connecticut Energy & technologies committee that had a hand in killing exit
fee legislation a few years back. I hope it will be of some use to those
in state contemplating exit fees.

 

Notes on an Exit Fee
Joel N. Gordes
Environmental Energy Solutions
(860) 379-2430

It is my understanding that RCB 5753, AAC Certain Fees Paid by Self
Generators of Electricity has been killed BUT that a new bill which offers
NO exemptions to self generators will be surfacing. Let me provide you
some information which may be of use to you in fashioning such
legislation. My first suggestion is to make it a study bill by the
legislature and appoint a task force to consider all aspects of what the
effects might be. There is much more to be considered than is evident at
first glance-- but if you must have an "action" bill here is what I suggest
to avoid having just simplistic black and white issues with no shades of
gray. The shades of gray may include:

First, place the exit fee on the gas going into the distributive generation
unit since this would reward efficiency (someone at 40% efficiency in
effect pays less than someone at 30% efficiency.) A combined heat and
power project at about 85% efficiency might pay very little in this way and
we ought to encourage efficiency--not discourage it--for numerous reasons
including some of the shortages we have seen.

Second, make it so that it might only apply to units over 50-200 kW (or
whatever size can be agreed upon.)

Third, it might not kick in until a total of 100 MW (or 200? 500? etc?)
was put in place. In this way you have at least rewarded the early
adopters by mitigating investment risks for them.

Fourth, no fee would be charged on units placed into locations where
distributive generators would relieve more costly T&D upgrades. If you
consider other location sensitive exemptions from an exit fee, you may want
to add: A) nursing homes B) people on medical conditions requiring
electricity C) wastewater treatment plants so they don't have to overflow
and pollute during natural disasters D) natural disaster shelters and
public safety facilities E) use where lack of high reliability and power
quality would hurt economic growth.

Fifth, no exit fees on renewable energy sources of any size.

Finally, maybe most important as a concept, by lowering electric prices it
may be assumed that there will be increased demand for grid connected
electricity. Why not take the electric usage of December 31, 1996 (same
date as used as baseline for the 10% price reduction) and use it as a
baseline for electrical usage.

Then, allow distributed generation without an exit fee for increased
amounts of electric usage above that baseline. This can be worked
backwards into megawatts of capacity so the number of distributed
generation megawatts allowed without an exit fee can be computed each year.

This is a self- balancing system which would have no losers since it
maintains the same amount paid for the SBC and CTA and T&D as we had at the
baseline time point.

 

At 05:42 AM 02/08/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>Hello to all:
>
>What follows below is an important "Wake-up Call for all renewable energy
>developers. If it gets a foothold in solar it will set a very bad precedence
>for All renewable energy. Please think about it and act now. The proposed
>letter is a good one but draft your own -- use it as a model so each letter
>reflects your thinking and perspective -- recipients have to realize you are
>really concerned about the ramifications of the imposition of "exit fees".
>"Exit fees" are , after all just "disincentive fees" -- coercive,
>intimidating , anti-renewable, "taxation without representation", attempts
>by Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas &
>Electric, to stifle the growth of renewable energy in All of its forms.
>
>Please think about this and Act now. Write, spread the word, call, do
>anything you can to call attention to the serious long term ramifications of
>this very serious attack on renewable energy, in all of its forms and its
>future , not just in California, but the whole country.
>
>Please, act now!
>
>I am sure I could have said it better, and I hope you can express it better,
>but we have to put a stop to this "exit fees" issue. If it succeeds in
>California, it Will spread to all other states. You can bet on that.
>
>Best wishes to all, -- keep up the good fight!
>
>Len Walde, P. E. , Concerned citizen, Renewable Energy Advocate, Free
>Thinking Moderate
>
> Sigma Energy Engineering, Inc.
>Renewable Energy, Process Engineering
>Serving Agriculture, Industry & Commerce
> through "Symbiotic Recycling" tm
>
> Ph: 925-254-7633
> E-mail: sigma@ix.netcom.com
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: ""List owner for solareclips" <solareclips@californiasolarcenter.org>
>To: "Solar e-Clips" <solareclips@californiasolarcenter.org>
>Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 5:39 PM
>Subject: Solar e-Clips: ACTION ALERT:Huge Fee Increases Proposed for Solar
>Energy Customers in California
>
>
> > Action Alert: Huge Fee Increases Proposed for Solar Energy
> > Customers in California
> > January 28, 2003
> >
> > What's at Stake:
> > In the next 30 days, the California Public Utilities
> > Commission will rule on a proposal that would severely
> > undermine the growth of solar energy in California.
> > California's utilities - Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern
> > California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric - actively
> > support the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
> > to approve a new solar tax equivalent, known as "exit
> > fees".
> >
> > These proposed fees would dramatically increase the costs
> > of using solar energy for utility customers. The proposal
> > would give utilities the right to install meters that
> > measure solar production on privately owned solar energy
> > systems and increase the cost of this solar energy for
> > customers by up to 40 percent. Help stop this bad idea
> > from becoming public policy before it's too late.
> >
> > Background:
> > If the proposed decision is approved by the full
> > commission, exit fee charges - ranging from 2 to 5 cents
> > per kilowatt-hour - will be charged to electricity
> > generated by privately-owned solar electric systems. The
> > current proposal would apply these fees to reducing the
> > debt California incurred from buying lots of expensive
> > (and dirty) power during the energy crisis. But creating a
> > disincentive for the public to install solar energy
> > systems goes in the wrong direction. It is bad for our
> > state's energy independence and bad for the environment.
> >
> > Solar energy is helping to generate new jobs and tax
> > revenues in California and diminishing the state's
> > vulnerability to energy price hikes. Utility-imposed "exit
> > fees" would create a huge roadblock to these goals. The
> > CPUC is expected to vote on this issue in late February.
> > It is not too late to change the outcome.
> >
> > Why This is Unfair:
> > Individuals, businesses and government agencies that
> > install solar systems still buy most of their power from
> > utilities. Thus, just like any other utility customer,
> > solar customers are already paying higher-cost electricity
> > rates to pay off the state investment in power supplies.
> > In addition, customer-owned solar power provides important
> > public benefits by delivering non-polluting electricity
> > during peak demand periods, when the dirtiest electric
> > generators often come on line to meet utility power needs.
> > This contribution should be rewarded, not penalized.
> >
> > The Alternative:
> > The California Public Utilities Commission has the
> > authority to protect California's solar customers from
> > utility "exit fees". As a result of tremendous efforts by
> > California lawmakers and the public to support solar
> > energy, California enjoyed a 1000% growth in the number of
> > large solar electric systems installed in the last two
> > years. Let's keep it going. Don't let the utilities stop
> > this progress. Please write today.
> >
> > How You can Help:
> > Send a copy of the attached letter to protest the proposed
> > decision on solar exit fees and urge the California Public
> > Utilities Commission and Governor Gray Davis to support an
> > alternate decision that would exempt all solar customers
> > from utility exit fees.
> >
> > Sample Letters
> >
> > http://www.californiasolarcenter.org/cpuc2003.html
> >
> > Who and Where:
> >
> > President Michael Peevey
> > California Public Utilities Commission
> > 505 Van Ness Avenue
> > San Francisco, CA 94102
> > 415-703-1758 (fax)
> > Cc:
> > Commissioner Brown
> > Commissioner Kennedy
> > Commissioner Lynch
> > Commissioner Wood
> >
> > Governor Gray Davis
> > State Capitol Building
> > Sacramento, CA 95814
> > 916-445-4633 (fax)
> >
> > When:
> > Today. Each Commissioner and the Governor must hear from
> > constituents who support the continued use of solar power
> > in California as soon as possible. This is extremely time
> > sensitive. The earlier you register your opinion, the more
> > influence you will have. The final decision is expected by
> > February 27, 2003.
> >
> > [Thanks to CalSEIA, Votesolar, CCenergy, and others for
> > coordinating this effort]

Joel N. Gordes
Environmental Energy Solutions
P.O. Box 101
Riverton, CT 06065
(860) 379-2430

"The history of the human race is a continuous struggle from darkness unto
light.
It is therefore of no consequence to discuss the use of knowledge. Man
wants
to know, and when he ceases to do so he is no longer man." -- Fridjt
Nansen

"Dedicated to executing ideas, not killing them!"

Be sure to visit our web site at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jgordes

From sigma at IX.NETCOM.COM Sat Feb 8 10:31:48 2003
From: sigma at IX.NETCOM.COM (Len Walde)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:20 2004
Subject: Exit Fee Alternatives You Can Propose
Message-ID: <SAT.8.FEB.2003.073148.0800.SIGMA@IX.NETCOM.COM>

Joel:

Very good! I will try to pass this on to the Solar list etc.

Best wishes,

Len
----- Original Message -----
From: jgordes
To: Len Walde ; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 7:03 AM
Subject: Exit Fee Alternatives You Can Propose That Are Less Harmful

Dear All,

Just below are some alternative I suggested to the House Co-chair of the Connecticut Energy & technologies committee that had a hand in killing exit fee legislation a few years back. I hope it will be of some use to those in state contemplating exit fees.

 

Notes on an Exit Fee
Joel N. Gordes
Environmental Energy Solutions
(860) 379-2430

It is my understanding that RCB 5753, AAC Certain Fees Paid by Self Generators of Electricity has been killed BUT that a new bill which offers NO exemptions to self generators will be surfacing. Let me provide you some information which may be of use to you in fashioning such legislation. My first suggestion is to make it a study bill by the legislature and appoint a task force to consider all aspects of what the effects might be. There is much more to be considered than is evident at first glance-- but if you must have an "action" bill here is what I suggest to avoid having just simplistic black and white issues with no shades of gray. The shades of gray may include:

First, place the exit fee on the gas going into the distributive generation unit since this would reward efficiency (someone at 40% efficiency in effect pays less than someone at 30% efficiency.) A combined heat and power project at about 85% efficiency might pay very little in this way and we ought to encourage efficiency--not discourage it--for numerous reasons including some of the shortages we have seen.

Second, make it so that it might only apply to units over 50-200 kW (or whatever size can be agreed upon.)

Third, it might not kick in until a total of 100 MW (or 200? 500? etc?) was put in place. In this way you have at least rewarded the early adopters by mitigating investment risks for them.

Fourth, no fee would be charged on units placed into locations where distributive generators would relieve more costly T&D upgrades. If you consider other location sensitive exemptions from an exit fee, you may want to add: A) nursing homes B) people on medical conditions requiring electricity C) wastewater treatment plants so they don't have to overflow and pollute during natural disasters D) natural disaster shelters and public safety facilities E) use where lack of high reliability and power quality would hurt economic growth.

Fifth, no exit fees on renewable energy sources of any size.

Finally, maybe most important as a concept, by lowering electric prices it may be assumed that there will be increased demand for grid connected electricity. Why not take the electric usage of December 31, 1996 (same date as used as baseline for the 10% price reduction) and use it as a baseline for electrical usage.

Then, allow distributed generation without an exit fee for increased amounts of electric usage above that baseline. This can be worked backwards into megawatts of capacity so the number of distributed generation megawatts allowed without an exit fee can be computed each year.

This is a self- balancing system which would have no losers since it maintains the same amount paid for the SBC and CTA and T&D as we had at the baseline time point.

 

At 05:42 AM 02/08/2003 -0800, you wrote:

Hello to all:

What follows below is an important "Wake-up Call for all renewable energy
developers. If it gets a foothold in solar it will set a very bad precedence
for All renewable energy. Please think about it and act now. The proposed
letter is a good one but draft your own -- use it as a model so each letter
reflects your thinking and perspective -- recipients have to realize you are
really concerned about the ramifications of the imposition of "exit fees".
"Exit fees" are , after all just "disincentive fees" -- coercive,
intimidating , anti-renewable, "taxation without representation", attempts
by Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas &
Electric, to stifle the growth of renewable energy in All of its forms.

Please think about this and Act now. Write, spread the word, call, do
anything you can to call attention to the serious long term ramifications of
this very serious attack on renewable energy, in all of its forms and its
future , not just in California, but the whole country.

Please, act now!

I am sure I could have said it better, and I hope you can express it better,
but we have to put a stop to this "exit fees" issue. If it succeeds in
California, it Will spread to all other states. You can bet on that.

Best wishes to all, -- keep up the good fight!

Len Walde, P. E. , Concerned citizen, Renewable Energy Advocate, Free
Thinking Moderate

Sigma Energy Engineering, Inc.
Renewable Energy, Process Engineering
Serving Agriculture, Industry & Commerce
through "Symbiotic Recycling" tm

Ph: 925-254-7633
E-mail: sigma@ix.netcom.com

----- Original Message -----
From: ""List owner for solareclips" <solareclips@californiasolarcenter.org>
To: "Solar e-Clips" <solareclips@californiasolarcenter.org>
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 5:39 PM
Subject: Solar e-Clips: ACTION ALERT:Huge Fee Increases Proposed for Solar
Energy Customers in California

> Action Alert: Huge Fee Increases Proposed for Solar Energy
> Customers in California
> January 28, 2003
>
> What's at Stake:
> In the next 30 days, the California Public Utilities
> Commission will rule on a proposal that would severely
> undermine the growth of solar energy in California.
> California's utilities - Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern
> California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric - actively
> support the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
> to approve a new solar tax equivalent, known as "exit
> fees".
>
> These proposed fees would dramatically increase the costs
> of using solar energy for utility customers. The proposal
> would give utilities the right to install meters that
> measure solar production on privately owned solar energy
> systems and increase the cost of this solar energy for
> customers by up to 40 percent. Help stop this bad idea
> from becoming public policy before it's too late.
>
> Background:
> If the proposed decision is approved by the full
> commission, exit fee charges - ranging from 2 to 5 cents
> per kilowatt-hour - will be charged to electricity
> generated by privately-owned solar electric systems. The
> current proposal would apply these fees to reducing the
> debt California incurred from buying lots of expensive
> (and dirty) power during the energy crisis. But creating a
> disincentive for the public to install solar energy
> systems goes in the wrong direction. It is bad for our
> state's energy independence and bad for the environment.
>
> Solar energy is helping to generate new jobs and tax
> revenues in California and diminishing the state's
> vulnerability to energy price hikes. Utility-imposed "exit
> fees" would create a huge roadblock to these goals. The
> CPUC is expected to vote on this issue in late February.
> It is not too late to change the outcome.
>
> Why This is Unfair:
> Individuals, businesses and government agencies that
> install solar systems still buy most of their power from
> utilities. Thus, just like any other utility customer,
> solar customers are already paying higher-cost electricity
> rates to pay off the state investment in power supplies.
> In addition, customer-owned solar power provides important
> public benefits by delivering non-polluting electricity
> during peak demand periods, when the dirtiest electric
> generators often come on line to meet utility power needs.
> This contribution should be rewarded, not penalized.
>
> The Alternative:
> The California Public Utilities Commission has the
> authority to protect California's solar customers from
> utility "exit fees". As a result of tremendous efforts by
> California lawmakers and the public to support solar
> energy, California enjoyed a 1000% growth in the number of
> large solar electric systems installed in the last two
> years. Let's keep it going. Don't let the utilities stop
> this progress. Please write today.
>
> How You can Help:
> Send a copy of the attached letter to protest the proposed
> decision on solar exit fees and urge the California Public
> Utilities Commission and Governor Gray Davis to support an
> alternate decision that would exempt all solar customers
> from utility exit fees.
>
> Sample Letters
>
> http://www.californiasolarcenter.org/cpuc2003.html
>
> Who and Where:
>
> President Michael Peevey
> California Public Utilities Commission
> 505 Van Ness Avenue
> San Francisco, CA 94102
> 415-703-1758 (fax)
> Cc:
> Commissioner Brown
> Commissioner Kennedy
> Commissioner Lynch
> Commissioner Wood
>
> Governor Gray Davis
> State Capitol Building
> Sacramento, CA 95814
> 916-445-4633 (fax)
>
> When:
> Today. Each Commissioner and the Governor must hear from
> constituents who support the continued use of solar power
> in California as soon as possible. This is extremely time
> sensitive. The earlier you register your opinion, the more
> influence you will have. The final decision is expected by
> February 27, 2003.
>
> [Thanks to CalSEIA, Votesolar, CCenergy, and others for
> coordinating this effort]
Joel N. Gordes
Environmental Energy Solutions
P.O. Box 101
Riverton, CT 06065
(860) 379-2430

"The history of the human race is a continuous struggle from darkness unto light.
It is therefore of no consequence to discuss the use of knowledge. Man wants
to know, and when he ceases to do so he is no longer man." -- Fridjt Nansen

"Dedicated to executing ideas, not killing them!"

Be sure to visit our web site at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jgordes

From tombreed at ATTBI.COM Sat Feb 8 05:20:59 2003
From: tombreed at ATTBI.COM (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:20 2004
Subject: WoodGas for Cars
Message-ID: <SAT.8.FEB.2003.032059.0700.TOMBREED@ATTBI.COM>

Dear Gasification Group:

Last week the Car Guys, (Tom and Ray Mariachi) showed abysmal ignorance of the golden age of small gasifiers, WWII, when over a million gasifiers operated the civilian cars, trucks, busses, fishing boats, ... while the military used all the gasoline. I sent them the letter below to straighten them out. All of this is spelled out on my website, www.woodgas.com.

On today's Public Radio show they came off even worse. Some chemistry professor told them that it was pyrolysis gas. They said it would burn down all the redwood forests.

I called them this morning and offered to set them straight, but much damage done to biomass gasification by ignorance.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF GASWORKS

Dr. Thomas B. Reed
tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone; 303 265 9184 Fax
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Reed
To: feedback@cartalk.com
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 8:27 AM
Subject: WoodGas for Cars

Dear Tom and Ray:

Yesterday you talked to someone who asked about running cars on wood.

That is my business and pleasure.

During WW II over a million civilian vehicles operated on wood ((Egloff, G> and Van Arsdell, P. "Motor Vehicles Propelled by Producer Gas", Petroleum Engineer, V 15, p. 645, 1943. Since oil is running out - eventually - I have made myself a major expert in this technology and run engines and even stoves on producer gas.

The chemistry is simple. If you burn wood (gasify it) in an excess of fuel, the resulting gas is called "producer gas" and contains typically: H2, 18%; CO, 22%; H2O 5%; CO2, 5% and N2, 50%. If you gasify wood (or other biomass, ag residues, municipal waste, etc.) with O2 instead of air, you get "synthesis gas", same ratios without the nitrogen.

During the emergency of WW II when the military scarfed up all the petrol/gasoline/diesel, the civilian population developed these gasifiers. A 100 HP gasifier was about the size of a large hot water heater and mounted on the front or rear bumper or in a trailer. It has always astounded me that cars built in Detroit to burn gasoline from Texas could be converted for <$1,000 to operate on wood blocks from the European forests. 20 lbs of wood was equivalent to 1 gallon of gasoline.

I have a non profit foundation that pursues various aspects of this technology, the Biomass Energy Foundation. You can find lots of pics and words at www.woodgas.com. I have also started several companies based on these principles.

I hope you will check this out and inform your audience. I'd be happy to talk on the air if you wish to explore in more depth, (but I'll be lecturing on this subject at Texas Tech next weekend, back for a few months starting Feb 8.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~`
I consider myself a fuel chemist, and I am the grandfather of Biodiesel (from vegetable oil or waste grease). I am currently operating my VW Jetta TDI on 20% Biodiesel and plan 100% in the Spring (high gel temp).

Love your show and work in my lab every Saturday morning so I can listen. Keep up the good work....

Yours truly, TOM REED THE BEF GASWORKS

Dr. Thomas B. Reed
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone; 303 265 9184 Fax

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Sat Feb 8 17:48:00 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:20 2004
Subject: Plastic
In-Reply-To: <007801c2cf5b$c7924260$c281fd0c@TOMBREED>
Message-ID: <SAT.8.FEB.2003.164800.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

Someone recently posted on stove some info on burning plastics which I found
really interesting -- that polyethylene is very clean burning, being composed of
hydrogen and carbon. So it would seem that this would be a good feedstock for
gasification as well. Does anyone here have experience with this, and is it
usuable in smaller gasifiers?

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

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Sun Feb 9 20:41:41 2003
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Exit Fee Alternatives You Can Propose That Are Less Harmful
Message-ID: <SUN.9.FEB.2003.204141.EST.>

Dear Exit fee commentators,
Hmm, sounds like big business and big brother are about to protect each
other again.
I am not sure what the debt incurrence balance is for the foolishness of
the Ca. legislature's experiment in regulatory debacle misnamed
"deregulation", but it must be huge. I really wonder how much would be gained
by putting meters on solar panels? Probably not the cost of the meters and
readers. I can imagine having PV panels on roofs connected inside and having
to run wires from inside the house to the edge of the property or next to
existing meters. This could be horrendously expensive. Most meters will not
work on DC and will have to be hooked to the inverter output.
I tend to approach these with a reverse approach, support it and then
show the foolishness of the action and ridiculous results so they look like
idiots promoting it. However, this always does not work, because they are too
dumb to be concerned about being considered an idiot.
The one way to deal with this is prepare a class action suit on behalf of
all it would affect and send the commission a draft copy of it prior to their
meeting. A motion for Temporary Restraining Order attached to it would get
their attention. The 14th, 4th amendments are designed to prevent this, but
they have long been ignored since CERCLA, RCRA, and the other environmental
legislation which is retroactive. Recent supreme court cases have clarified
this somewhat.

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 tmiles at TRMILES.COM Mon Feb 10 11:47:20 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Plastic
Message-ID: <MON.10.FEB.2003.084720.0800.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Harmon,

The American Plastics Council funded work on plastics pyrolysis and gasification some
years ago. According to reports I heard the results were quite good but the Council
has never published any of their work.

Plastic seems to gasify and burn well with no adverse affects in any stack testing
that I have conducted. A practical problem of plastic waste gasification is
separating the pvc's from the polyethylene.

Tom

 

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 2:48 PM
Subject: [GASL] Plastic

Someone recently posted on stove some info on burning plastics which I found
really interesting -- that polyethylene is very clean burning, being composed of
hydrogen and carbon. So it would seem that this would be a good feedstock for
gasification as well. Does anyone here have experience with this, and is it
usuable in smaller gasifiers?

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

From sigma at IX.NETCOM.COM Mon Feb 10 13:15:45 2003
From: sigma at IX.NETCOM.COM (Len Walde)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Plastic -- warning from Len
Message-ID: <MON.10.FEB.2003.101545.0800.SIGMA@IX.NETCOM.COM>

Hi:

You hit right on the head when you said "A practical problem of plastic
waste gasification is
separating the pvc's from the polyethylene." Here is the rub: When you
volatize pvc you create hydrochloric acid and you can injure/kill people
when they breath too much of it! I know from first hand experience: when
we were working with a company making plastic pallets from mixed
polyethylene's etc. We did not know there was pvc mixed in and we filled
the room with hydrochloric acid fumes --awful! Exhaust fans saved the day.
It can be controlled but do your chemistry!

I hope this helps.

Best to all,

Len

Sigma Energy Engineering, Inc.
Renewable Energy, Process Engineering
Serving Agriculture, Industry & Commerce
through "Symbiotic Recycling" tm

Ph: 925-254-7633
E-mail: sigma@ix.netcom.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles@trmiles.com>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Plastic

> Harmon,
>
> The American Plastics Council funded work on plastics pyrolysis and
gasification some
> years ago. According to reports I heard the results were quite good but
the Council
> has never published any of their work.
>
> Plastic seems to gasify and burn well with no adverse affects in any stack
testing
> that I have conducted. A practical problem of plastic waste gasification
is
> separating the pvc's from the polyethylene.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 2:48 PM
> Subject: [GASL] Plastic
>
>
> Someone recently posted on stove some info on burning plastics which I
found
> really interesting -- that polyethylene is very clean burning, being
composed of
> hydrogen and carbon. So it would seem that this would be a good feedstock
for
> gasification as well. Does anyone here have experience with this, and is
it
> usuable in smaller gasifiers?
>
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com
>

From mswanson at UNDEERC.ORG Mon Feb 10 18:21:40 2003
From: mswanson at UNDEERC.ORG (Swanson, Michael L.)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Plastic -- warning from Len
Message-ID: <MON.10.FEB.2003.172140.0600.MSWANSON@UNDEERC.ORG>

We performed the work that was mentioned for the Amercian Plastics Council.
This work was mostly focused on pyrolysis of various plastics in a small
fluidized bed reactor to maximize the recover of organics liquids which
could be recycled into other fuels or plastics and the recovery of a
noncondensible fuel gas (which had high concentrations of ethylene and
propylene) with no char production. Technically, this project was very
successful, however in most cases, the costs as compared to landfilling and
other disposal options for plastics did not result in favorable process
economics. The presence of chlorine in the plastics (i.e., pvc) did result
in the production of a significant amount of HCl. However, we found that
the addition of CaO to the bed material captures a signifcant amount of the
chlorine as CaCl2. A packed bed of CaO down stream of the reactor resulted
in 95+% removal of the total chlorine and almost 100% removal of chlorine (<
4ppm)in the organic liquids. We also found that the presence of nitrogen
containing plastics such as nitrile resulted in the formation of hydrogen
cyanide (HCN), which is also a very dangerous species.

Mike Swanson
UNDEERC
Box 9018
15 N. 23rd St.
Grand Forks, ND 58202
(701)-777-5239 office
(701)-777-5181 fax
mswanson@undeerc.org

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Len Walde [mailto:sigma@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 12:16 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Plastic -- warning from Len

Hi:

You hit right on the head when you said "A practical problem of plastic
waste gasification is
separating the pvc's from the polyethylene." Here is the rub: When you
volatize pvc you create hydrochloric acid and you can injure/kill people
when they breath too much of it! I know from first hand experience: when
we were working with a company making plastic pallets from mixed
polyethylene's etc. We did not know there was pvc mixed in and we filled
the room with hydrochloric acid fumes --awful! Exhaust fans saved the day.
It can be controlled but do your chemistry!

I hope this helps.

Best to all,

Len

Sigma Energy Engineering, Inc.
Renewable Energy, Process Engineering
Serving Agriculture, Industry & Commerce
through "Symbiotic Recycling" tm

Ph: 925-254-7633
E-mail: sigma@ix.netcom.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles@trmiles.com>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Plastic

> Harmon,
>
> The American Plastics Council funded work on plastics pyrolysis and
gasification some
> years ago. According to reports I heard the results were quite good but
the Council
> has never published any of their work.
>
> Plastic seems to gasify and burn well with no adverse affects in any stack
testing
> that I have conducted. A practical problem of plastic waste gasification
is
> separating the pvc's from the polyethylene.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 2:48 PM
> Subject: [GASL] Plastic
>
>
> Someone recently posted on stove some info on burning plastics which I
found
> really interesting -- that polyethylene is very clean burning, being
composed of
> hydrogen and carbon. So it would seem that this would be a good feedstock
for
> gasification as well. Does anyone here have experience with this, and is
it
> usuable in smaller gasifiers?
>
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com
>

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Mon Feb 10 18:44:21 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Plastic -- warning from Len
Message-ID: <MON.10.FEB.2003.194421.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Mike

HCl and Cl2 are nasty, but not nearly as bad as dioxanes... did you test for
them?

Kindest regards,

Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Swanson, Michael L." <mswanson@UNDEERC.ORG>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Plastic -- warning from Len

> We performed the work that was mentioned for the Amercian Plastics
Council.
> This work was mostly focused on pyrolysis of various plastics in a small
> fluidized bed reactor to maximize the recover of organics liquids which
> could be recycled into other fuels or plastics and the recovery of a
> noncondensible fuel gas (which had high concentrations of ethylene and
> propylene) with no char production. Technically, this project was very
> successful, however in most cases, the costs as compared to landfilling
and
> other disposal options for plastics did not result in favorable process
> economics. The presence of chlorine in the plastics (i.e., pvc) did result
> in the production of a significant amount of HCl. However, we found that
> the addition of CaO to the bed material captures a signifcant amount of
the
> chlorine as CaCl2. A packed bed of CaO down stream of the reactor
resulted
> in 95+% removal of the total chlorine and almost 100% removal of chlorine
(<
> 4ppm)in the organic liquids. We also found that the presence of nitrogen
> containing plastics such as nitrile resulted in the formation of hydrogen
> cyanide (HCN), which is also a very dangerous species.
>
> Mike Swanson
> UNDEERC
> Box 9018
> 15 N. 23rd St.
> Grand Forks, ND 58202
> (701)-777-5239 office
> (701)-777-5181 fax
> mswanson@undeerc.org
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Len Walde [mailto:sigma@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 12:16 PM
> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Plastic -- warning from Len
>
>
> Hi:
>
> You hit right on the head when you said "A practical problem of plastic
> waste gasification is
> separating the pvc's from the polyethylene." Here is the rub: When you
> volatize pvc you create hydrochloric acid and you can injure/kill people
> when they breath too much of it! I know from first hand experience: when
> we were working with a company making plastic pallets from mixed
> polyethylene's etc. We did not know there was pvc mixed in and we filled
> the room with hydrochloric acid fumes --awful! Exhaust fans saved the
day.
> It can be controlled but do your chemistry!
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Best to all,
>
> Len
>
> Sigma Energy Engineering, Inc.
> Renewable Energy, Process Engineering
> Serving Agriculture, Industry & Commerce
> through "Symbiotic Recycling" tm
>
> Ph: 925-254-7633
> E-mail: sigma@ix.netcom.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles@trmiles.com>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 8:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Plastic
>
>
> > Harmon,
> >
> > The American Plastics Council funded work on plastics pyrolysis and
> gasification some
> > years ago. According to reports I heard the results were quite good but
> the Council
> > has never published any of their work.
> >
> > Plastic seems to gasify and burn well with no adverse affects in any
stack
> testing
> > that I have conducted. A practical problem of plastic waste gasification
> is
> > separating the pvc's from the polyethylene.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
> > To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> > Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 2:48 PM
> > Subject: [GASL] Plastic
> >
> >
> > Someone recently posted on stove some info on burning plastics which
I
> found
> > really interesting -- that polyethylene is very clean burning, being
> composed of
> > hydrogen and carbon. So it would seem that this would be a good
feedstock
> for
> > gasification as well. Does anyone here have experience with this, and is
> it
> > usuable in smaller gasifiers?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Harmon Seaver
> > CyberShamanix
> > http://www.cybershamanix.com
> >

From VHarris001 at AOL.COM Tue Feb 11 02:07:30 2003
From: VHarris001 at AOL.COM (VHarris001@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Plastics Gasification Report Available?
Message-ID: <TUE.11.FEB.2003.020730.EST.>

Hi Mike,

Is it possible to obtain a copy of any reports that might have been issued,
or other material that might have been produced as a result of your work on
gasification of plastics?

Thanks,
Vernon Harris

In a message dated 02/10/2003 6:34:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mswanson@UNDEERC.ORG writes:

> We performed the work that was mentioned for the Amercian Plastics Council.
>
> Mike Swanson
> UNDEERC
> Box 9018
> 15 N. 23rd St.
> Grand Forks, ND 58202
> (701)-777-5239 office
> (701)-777-5181 fax
> mswanson@undeerc.org
>
>

From oscar at GEPROP.CU Thu Feb 13 10:46:27 2003
From: oscar at GEPROP.CU (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Oscar_Jim=E9nez?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Needed some guiding figures on biomass gasification.
Message-ID: <THU.13.FEB.2003.104627.0500.OSCAR@GEPROP.CU>

Hi there dear All !!!!

During a year we have been working(technical and economical assessement) on a GEF/UNIDO project for introducing renewable energy based technology (biomass gasification and wind power technology) for covering part of the power demand of our seccond biggest island (Isla de la Juventud) in the Cuban archipielago and also for providing heating needs to several process industry based on that island. Power to be covered on the island is 3.5MW.
Currently we are finalising the project draft to be presented to GEF council in order to get the approval. However we are still concerned about some figures regarding investments cost of those tehcnology mentioned above, mainly on biomass gasification based technology. Several international company, involved in this field, had sent their quotation, but are so different in criteria, that it is hard to get convinced. Regarding this issue I would really appreciate the feedback or comments coming from the "gasification family". The main quiestions are:

* What is the international accepted price of installed kWe ($US/kWe) for biomass gasification system including cooling and treatment of the gas before entering to the engine??? Could you break this cost down among stages of the whole system (gasifier, gas cooling and treatment)? Note: (We are envisaging to introduce a dual-fuel mode diesel or light fuel-oil engine operation)
* Net power efficiency of the system could be considered well accepted as 32-34%?? Or is it too high??
* Could it be accepted as a rational figure a biomass consumption of about 1kg/kWe produced???
* When attempting to introduce biomass gasifiers for providing heating needs at the process industry sites, some international company adviced not to do that, but install small grate steam boilers for wood chips direct combustion. Can we take it as a good way out for achieving our goal???

Thanking all of you in advance and at the same time looking forward to receive your kind answer.

Sincerely yours.

Oscar.

Dr. Oscar L. Jim?nez.
Energy Project Manager.
Innovation and Energy Division.
Centre for the Management of Priorized Projects and Programmes. (GEPROP)
Calle 20 No. 4112 e/ 41 y 47, Alturas de Miramar, Playa.
Ciudad de la Habana. Cuba.
CP 11300
Phone: (537)2027096
Fax: (537)2029372
Website: www.geprop.cu

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Wed Feb 19 17:47:51 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Explosion Relief and Safety in Small Scale Gasifiers
Message-ID: <WED.19.FEB.2003.144751.0800.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

A North American supplier of small scale gasifiers (3 million Btuh ~0.8 MWth) has asked what to do for explosion relief in a single vessel, vertical updraft gasifier followed by a combustor and boiler. Personnel safety and liability and the main concerns.

Do you have any practical (and legal) suggestions?

Tom Miles

From arcate at MSN.COM Wed Feb 19 18:24:34 2003
From: arcate at MSN.COM (James Arcate)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: MSW Plasma Gasification
Message-ID: <WED.19.FEB.2003.132434.1000.ARCATE@MSN.COM>

Hello Gasification:

The City & County of Honolulu are coming out with a RFP for a Plasma Arc / Torch and/or Gasification Facility.

I am interested in cooperating with equipment and system suppliers.

A quick search on the web led me to STE Energy http://www.ste-energy.com/plasma.htm and another in Australia http://www.mbm.net.au/wte/ Are there others that might be interested in working with me on this project in beautiful, sunny and warm Hawaii ??

best regards,

Jim

James R. Arcate
Transnational Technology LLC
3447 Pipa Place
Honolulu, HI 96822
(808) 741 7502
http://www.techtp.com

PS:

See http://www.opala.org/plasma.html for a Review of Plasma Arc Gasification and Vitrification Technology
for Waste Disposal.

Here's the notice from the City & County of Honolulu. I requested a copy of the proposal document.


NOTICE TO OFFERORS

 

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE

PLASMA ARC/TORCH AND/OR GASIFICATION FACILITY

PROPOSAL NO. RFP- 043

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU

 

SEALED PROPOSALS will be received up to 4:00 p.m., on May 14, 2003, in the Office of the Division of Purchasing, Department of Budget and Fiscal Services, City Hall, 530 South King Street, Room 115, Honolulu, Hawaii, 96813, for the financing, design, construction and twenty (20) year operation of a Plasma Arc/Torch and or Gasification Facility for the processing of up to 1000 tons per day of Municipal Solid Waste to be located at the City's Alternative Technology Park, Campbell Industrial Park, Kapolei, Hawaii.

A mandatory pre-submittal conference will be held at Kapolei Hale, 1000 Uluohia Street, Kapolei, Hawaii 96707 at 10:00 am on March 17,2003.

The proposal may be obtained from the Division of Purchasing in person or by faxed request.

The form for the request of the proposal document may be printed from the Purchasing Division web page,

www.co.honolulu.hi.us/pur

Purchasing Administrator

City and County of Honolulu 530 S. King Street

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Facsimile No. (808) 523-6834

DIRECTOR OF BUDGET AND FISCAL SERVICES

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU

From snkm at BTL.NET Sat Feb 22 14:44:56 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: [BiomassGroup] Bush's H-Car Is Just Hot Air
Message-ID: <SAT.22.FEB.2003.134456.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 12:16 PM 2/22/2003 -0500, Steve Spence wrote:
>
>From: "Robert Cohen" <robtcohen@aol.com.spam.no>
>Subject: Easterbrook: "Bush's H-Car Is Just Hot Air"
>Date: Friday, February 21, 2003 6:30 PM
>
>http://www.tnr.com
>
>http://www.thenewrepublic.com
>
>copyrighted by The New Republic, article is published in issue of 24 Feb 03
>
>WHY BUSH'S H-CAR IS JUST HOT AIR.
>

Dear all --

The solution to this present problem was clearly specified on the Gas List
a few years back.

Increase the cost of gasoline to $5.00 US per gallon (as indeed they have
done in Europe)

Say $1.00 is the true price -- the rest is "tax" -- and that money can be
then used in productive manner to re-adjust the entire energy problem.

That stops the problem in it's tracks cold!

Further -- offer heavy tax rebates to all viable alternative fuels.

So -- as a example -- ethanol could be used to replace gasoline -- at a
full price to the suppliers of $2.50 US per gallon

Why $2.50 and not the full five dollars??

Because you can get only have the miles from a gallon of ethanol as you can
from a gallon of gasoline.

But still -- at $2.50 it would pay people to get into it!

We also know of many projects to make bio fuels from biomass that would
develop rapidly into full scale production if they were assured a full
"BTU" adjusted pricing. RIn most of those cases -- better than $2.50 per
gallon -- but never the full $5.00 per gallon.

But such a real solution can never happen -- because it literally would
destroy all the major oil corps -- and for America -- only one thing counts
anymore -- the Corporate Bottom line -- profit for the share holders.

So why even think about any of this -- it's a done deal -- this turn of the
wheel is over -- maybe in the next society that raises up from these ashes
-- say 10,000 years down the road -- they will have evolved a better system
of energy production and distribution.

But I'm not betting on that either!!

It appears there is one thing that does truly never changes -- and that is
human nature!

I am setting up a micro power plant here in Belize that will be a diesel
operating in dual fuel mode -- strong rum made from sugar cane -- 95% --
plant oil (cohune nut oil) 5% --

I am investigating making Plante Style lead acid storage batteries by
recycling (lead refining) scrap car batteries. And going electric
"traction" -- all the way!

My lights here never get dim -- but I can't promise anything for yours --

Prepare for the worse -- the good looks after itself.

You can see some of the equipment i already have in place at:

http://turneffecoconut.com/

The cane crusher and two more old style listers should be arriving from
India next week -- finally!!

Both sources of "fuel" are also independent business operations and will
turn a profit in their respective products -- high quality food oils --
potable rum and "panala" (whole, natural, sugar -- just like the old maple
sugar -- and made the same way -- in a 'pan')

"Power" is the by-product.

Growing your own is the only real solution.

Dreaming is so big these days -- real activity is history!

Have a good war event --

till then -- hope you all sleep well --

Peter Singfield

Xaibe -- Belize

From Arotstein at ORMAT.COM Tue Feb 25 08:16:07 2003
From: Arotstein at ORMAT.COM (Ariel Rotstein)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Corncob sintering point
Message-ID: <TUE.25.FEB.2003.151607.0200.AROTSTEIN@ORMAT.COM>

Dear friends,

I am looking for the sintering temperature of corncob.
Can anyone help me.

Thanks
Ariel Rotstein