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

July 2003 Gasification Archive

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

From emilianocerluini at INWIND.IT Fri Jul 4 06:21:06 2003
From: emilianocerluini at INWIND.IT (Emiliano Cerluini)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: biogas and fuel cells
Message-ID: <FRI.4.JUL.2003.122106.0200.EMILIANOCERLUINI@INWIND.IT>

I'm an Italian environmental engineering student and I'm working on my final
thesis. The theme of the thesis is:

"Production of electrical energy and heat from "molten carbonate fuel-cell"
(MCFC) using biogas (from wastewater treatments plants) as source of
hydrogen".

Please, can you give me some informations and (if possible) data about this
theme?

In particular way I need of informations about the bio-gas (methane-gas)
from anaerobic digesters (quantity, composition, treatments to use it in the
fuel cell, problems,...) and about its implementing in the fuel cells.

I really need of these informations and data for my studies, can you help
me?

If you know interesting links or if you have files, tables, data, images,
brochures, depliants ecc. about this theme, I pray you to send me them,
please.

Thanks a lot for all the help you will give to me,

Emiliano

From graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ Fri Jul 4 18:19:21 2003
From: graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: Micro Gasification
Message-ID: <SAT.5.JUL.2003.101921.1200.GRAEME@POWERLINK.CO.NZ>

Dear Gasification Colleagues

For those of you who might still be interested in gasification of the more
traditional type, I thought you would like to see the latest gasifier I have
built for research projects.

Although Fluidyne ceased gasifier manufacturing in New Zealand in 1998, the
need to provide ongoing technical support to our international associated
companies continues. Generally speaking, most of work involves various
fuels, testing their suitability for high performance engine gasification.

In this latest round of fuel testing, the actual gasification rate of 3kg/hr
for the application became critical. The whole process of carbonising,
oxidation and reduction takes place in an area the size of a clenched fist.
The volume of gas is also small, about 6.5 cubic metres/hr, so in order to
make accurate observations, the Fluidyne Micro Class wood gasifier came into
existence . You can see it on the Fluidyne Archive
(www.fluidynenz.250x.com) and in its current set-up, the fuel stack holds
1kg. of fuel, changeable for a larger volume as required.

During late July early August 2003, a new pre production model gasifier will
be built in Northern Ireland. This will be slightly larger and designed for
institutional application, and I'll show the end result when I return to New
Zealand mid August.

In the meantime, it is another tool to unlock the secrets of biomass energy
providing a pathway to begin the next generation of advanced gasification
technology.

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification.

From tombreed at ATTBI.COM Mon Jul 7 00:51:11 2003
From: tombreed at ATTBI.COM (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Gas hydrate origin
Message-ID: <SUN.6.JUL.2003.225111.0600.TOMBREED@ATTBI.COM>

Dear Dan:

Good reply below. The Thomas Gold experiment of deep drilling in Norway was inconclusive on the subject of whether methane comes from the core.

More conclusive is the composition of the gas hydrates collected at the bottom of the ocean as a "glacier" 1-2 km thick covering MOST OF THE DEEP OCEAN (1/2 the earth's surface). There is more energy in this gas than all other fossil fuels put together, past present and future. We have experts here at the Colorado School of Mines who educate me on these topics,

Typically the bottom half of the methane in the hydrate comes from below - thermogenic in origin. The other half is generated from dead material falling from above that composts to organic methane (and CO2).

Someday these hydrates may be a major source of energy for Humans, but they won't be easy to extract at a depth of .4 -4 km.

Yours truly, TOM REED GASIFICATION moderator

Dr. Thomas B. Reed
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone; 303 265 9184 Fax
----- Original Message -----
From: Carefreeland@aol.com
To: wastewatts@yahoogroups.com ; yark@u.washington.edu ; tombreed@attbi.com
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 7:06 AM
Subject: Re: [wastewatts] Source of oil, was Burning waste motor oil

In a message dated 7/3/03 11:55:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ufoengines@yahoo.com writes:

 

Has anybody here heard of Thomas Gold's ideas(Cornell
Astronomer) that oil and gas are NOT fossil fuels?
That hydrocarbons are part of the original composition
of the planet and that there are thousands of years
left it the earth crude oil supply.
That we'll run out of free oxygen to burn oil before
we run out of oil!

Dan

 

Dear Dan,
With all due respect, we all must keep an open mind to new ideas. There are however, some fatal flaws to this theory. One must start with the "theory' of basic geology.
If most hydrocarbons came up from below as is suggested in this hypothisis, why did they all settle within rock layers of approximately the same ages? If this theory is correct, then why do we not find oil in layers of ignious rock? Remember that Shell oil company is named that for the fossils within which their oil was discovered.
It is very belivable that some natural gas and sulfur compounds have been released from far below. It is the presents of sulfur compounds in oil in New Mexico rocks that started all this talk. Witness volcanos. Sulfur compounds are commonly found in ignious rocks.
It is also very belivable that there is far more fossil fuel avalible than we are being told. The problems are first, economic recovery of these fuels. Secondly, the aftereffects of releasing too much CO2 and other wastes into an already overloaded environment. If we want to revisit the carboniferous period we are well on the way.
For those who do not belive in the current system of dating rocks. I ask how can you dispute the record of ice cores from glaciers? Snow has been deposited since the planet cooled in regular seasonal layers which like rings on a tree can be counted. Sedimentary rocks form in the same cycles, and their formation parallels ice formation.
The composition of the ancient atmosphere is recorded with air trapped in ice formations. This documents very well what we are doing to the atmosphere, with no room for error. Why are so many people with no alternative hypothisis, second guessing hard science?

Dan Dimiduk

From arnt at C2I.NET Mon Jul 7 10:29:45 2003
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Gas hydrate origin
In-Reply-To: <15e601c34443$639f2ea0$b5affd0c@TOMBREED>
Message-ID: <MON.7.JUL.2003.162945.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 22:51:11 -0600,
Tom Reed <tombreed@ATTBI.COM> wrote in message
<15e601c34443$639f2ea0$b5affd0c@TOMBREED>:

> Dear Dan:
>
> Good reply below. The Thomas Gold experiment of deep drilling in
> Norway was inconclusive on the subject of whether methane comes from
> the core.

..??? Url? I'm not aware of any such deep drilling over here.

..there was some deep drilling near Mora?, Sweden around the mid thru
late 1980'es, I believe they made it down to about 7 or 9 km before
they ran out of money, and all they ever found turned out to be lube
oil traces from the drilling. ;-)

> More conclusive is the composition of the gas hydrates collected at
> the bottom of the ocean as a "glacier" 1-2 km thick covering MOST OF
> THE DEEP OCEAN (1/2 the earth's surface). There is more energy in
> this gas than all other fossil fuels put together, past present and
> future. We have experts here at the Colorado School of Mines who
> educate me on these topics,

..so why _does_ everyone whine about poverty, starvation, energy
shortage and pollution and the global population exploding and shit?

..draw that one mile thick dome over half this damned planet, and divide
it by 25 billion people over the next few millenia, and you'll see we'll
still have _plenty_.

..venting frustration on this above policy is OT in the gas list,
however I believe showing off the numbers will be _on_-topic. ;-)

> Typically the bottom half of the methane in the hydrate comes from
> below - thermogenic in origin.

..not from _old_ fossils that has been pushed down into the core and
cooked down there?

> The other half is generated from dead
> material falling from above that composts to organic methane (and
> CO2).
>
> Someday these hydrates may be a major source of energy for Humans, but
> they won't be easy to extract at a depth of .4 -4 km.
>
> Yours truly, TOM REED GASIFICATION moderator
>
>
> Dr. Thomas B. Reed
> 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
> tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone; 303 265 9184 Fax
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Carefreeland@aol.com
> To: wastewatts@yahoogroups.com ; yark@u.washington.edu ;
> tombreed@attbi.com Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 7:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [wastewatts] Source of oil, was Burning waste motor oil
>
>
>
> In a message dated 7/3/03 11:55:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> ufoengines@yahoo.com writes:
>
>
>
> Has anybody here heard of Thomas Gold's ideas(Cornell
> Astronomer) that oil and gas are NOT fossil fuels?
> That hydrocarbons are part of the original composition
> of the planet and that there are thousands of years
> left it the earth crude oil supply.
> That we'll run out of free oxygen to burn oil before
> we run out of oil!
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> Dear Dan,
> With all due respect, we all must keep an open mind to new
> ideas. There are however, some fatal flaws to this theory.
> One must start with the "theory' of basic geology. If most
> hydrocarbons came up from below as is suggested in this
> hypothisis, why did they all settle within rock layers of
> approximately the same ages? If this theory is correct, then
> why do we not find oil in layers of ignious rock? Remember
> that Shell oil company is named that for the fossils within
> which their oil was discovered. It is very belivable that
> some natural gas and sulfur compounds have been released from
> far below. It is the presents of sulfur compounds in oil in
> New Mexico rocks that started all this talk. Witness
> volcanos. Sulfur compounds are commonly found in ignious
> rocks. It is also very belivable that there is far more
> fossil fuel avalible than we are being told. The problems are
> first, economic recovery of these fuels. Secondly, the
> aftereffects of releasing too much CO2 and other wastes into
> an already overloaded environment. If we want to revisit the
> carboniferous period we are well on the way. For those who do
> not belive in the current system of dating rocks. I ask how
> can you dispute the record of ice cores from glaciers? Snow
> has been deposited since the planet cooled in regular
> seasonal layers which like rings on a tree can be counted.
> Sedimentary rocks form in the same cycles, and their
> formation parallels ice formation. The composition of the
> ancient atmosphere is recorded with air trapped in ice
> formations. This documents very well what we are doing to the
> atmosphere, with no room for error. Why are so many people
> with no alternative hypothisis, second guessing hard science?
>
>
> Dan Dimiduk
>

--
..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 kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Mon Jul 7 11:31:29 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Gas hydrate origin
Message-ID: <MON.7.JUL.2003.123129.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Arnt

This concept of whether the CH4, in the first instance, is biologically
sourced or mineralogically sourced is academically interesting. However, the
bottom line is: where can they get the gas to fill the pipelines?

It seems to me that we really are running out of Natural Gas at prices in
the range we were used to paying. Nobody seems to be finding NG in
quantities that will keep the pipelines full in North America, and nobody
seems to be finding NG that they can deliver to the Customer in North
America at anything close to present prices.

The "Optimistic Futurists" seem to assume that since large deposits of
natural gas and oil have been found in the past, such large finds will be
made in the future. Logically, there is a time when the futurists will be
wrong about their assumptions that large "future finds" will be found. The
question is: Are they now wrong? Since there are a lot of smart people with
very advanced technologies looking very carefully, and not seeming to be
able to make big finds, this suggests to me that there are no more big finds
to be made.

Even if there are vast hydrated NG deposits in difficult locations, and even
if they can be harvested, their delivered cost will be very high. If they
could be harvested, what would they cost per MM BTU in a pipeline? Until the
Gas Hydrate people can put a number on the cost of delivered energy, the
Hydrated NG resource is just pie in the sky.

We will NEVER run out of NG or oil... all that will happen is that as they
becomes less available, their price per unit will rise, and people will
start to use these resources efficiently and effectively. It will be rough
on people when they have to change their ways. :-)

Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt@C2I.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Gas hydrate origin

> On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 22:51:11 -0600,
> Tom Reed <tombreed@ATTBI.COM> wrote in message
> <15e601c34443$639f2ea0$b5affd0c@TOMBREED>:
>
> > Dear Dan:
> >
> > Good reply below. The Thomas Gold experiment of deep drilling in
> > Norway was inconclusive on the subject of whether methane comes from
> > the core.
>
> ..??? Url? I'm not aware of any such deep drilling over here.
>
>
> ..there was some deep drilling near Mora?, Sweden around the mid thru
> late 1980'es, I believe they made it down to about 7 or 9 km before
> they ran out of money, and all they ever found turned out to be lube
> oil traces from the drilling. ;-)
>
>
> > More conclusive is the composition of the gas hydrates collected at
> > the bottom of the ocean as a "glacier" 1-2 km thick covering MOST OF
> > THE DEEP OCEAN (1/2 the earth's surface). There is more energy in
> > this gas than all other fossil fuels put together, past present and
> > future. We have experts here at the Colorado School of Mines who
> > educate me on these topics,
>
> ..so why _does_ everyone whine about poverty, starvation, energy
> shortage and pollution and the global population exploding and shit?
>
> ..draw that one mile thick dome over half this damned planet, and divide
> it by 25 billion people over the next few millenia, and you'll see we'll
> still have _plenty_.
>
> ..venting frustration on this above policy is OT in the gas list,
> however I believe showing off the numbers will be _on_-topic. ;-)
>
> > Typically the bottom half of the methane in the hydrate comes from
> > below - thermogenic in origin.
>
> ..not from _old_ fossils that has been pushed down into the core and
> cooked down there?
>
> > The other half is generated from dead
> > material falling from above that composts to organic methane (and
> > CO2).
> >
> > Someday these hydrates may be a major source of energy for Humans, but
> > they won't be easy to extract at a depth of .4 -4 km.
> >
> > Yours truly, TOM REED GASIFICATION moderator
> >
> >
> > Dr. Thomas B. Reed
> > 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
> > tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone; 303 265 9184 Fax
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Carefreeland@aol.com
> > To: wastewatts@yahoogroups.com ; yark@u.washington.edu ;
> > tombreed@attbi.com Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 7:06 AM
> > Subject: Re: [wastewatts] Source of oil, was Burning waste motor oil
> >
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 7/3/03 11:55:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > ufoengines@yahoo.com writes:
> >
> >
> >
> > Has anybody here heard of Thomas Gold's ideas(Cornell
> > Astronomer) that oil and gas are NOT fossil fuels?
> > That hydrocarbons are part of the original composition
> > of the planet and that there are thousands of years
> > left it the earth crude oil supply.
> > That we'll run out of free oxygen to burn oil before
> > we run out of oil!
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Dan,
> > With all due respect, we all must keep an open mind to new
> > ideas. There are however, some fatal flaws to this theory.
> > One must start with the "theory' of basic geology. If most
> > hydrocarbons came up from below as is suggested in this
> > hypothisis, why did they all settle within rock layers of
> > approximately the same ages? If this theory is correct, then
> > why do we not find oil in layers of ignious rock? Remember
> > that Shell oil company is named that for the fossils within
> > which their oil was discovered. It is very belivable that
> > some natural gas and sulfur compounds have been released from
> > far below. It is the presents of sulfur compounds in oil in
> > New Mexico rocks that started all this talk. Witness
> > volcanos. Sulfur compounds are commonly found in ignious
> > rocks. It is also very belivable that there is far more
> > fossil fuel avalible than we are being told. The problems are
> > first, economic recovery of these fuels. Secondly, the
> > aftereffects of releasing too much CO2 and other wastes into
> > an already overloaded environment. If we want to revisit the
> > carboniferous period we are well on the way. For those who do
> > not belive in the current system of dating rocks. I ask how
> > can you dispute the record of ice cores from glaciers? Snow
> > has been deposited since the planet cooled in regular
> > seasonal layers which like rings on a tree can be counted.
> > Sedimentary rocks form in the same cycles, and their
> > formation parallels ice formation. The composition of the
> > ancient atmosphere is recorded with air trapped in ice
> > formations. This documents very well what we are doing to the
> > atmosphere, with no room for error. Why are so many people
> > with no alternative hypothisis, second guessing hard science?
> >
> >
> > Dan Dimiduk
> >
>
>
> --
> ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
> ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
> Scenarios always come in sets of three:
> best case, worst case, and just in case.

From arnt at C2I.NET Mon Jul 7 16:00:33 2003
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: ..grrrrr: Out of Office AutoReply: [GASL] Gas hydrate origin
In-Reply-To: <363F9892AB6AAB439AFA1234A0A5146A1D92C9@ctwex1.ctw.utwente.nl>
Message-ID: <MON.7.JUL.2003.220033.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

..to me, it appears several people could be more helpful weeding out off
topic list noise here, rather than use said list noise to weed out gas
list readers.

..since these below and possibly their abuse staff _have_ gone away,
perhaps the gas list admin should try fix the mail list message
addressing, so the messages get the "Reply-To: "- headers correctly.

..whenever _I_ post to GasL, I expect to see _these_ following headers:
"Reply-To: The Gasification Discussion List
<GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG> Sender: The Gasification Discussion
List <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG> From: Arnt Karlsen
<arnt@c2i.net>".

..and _NOT!_ "Reply-To: Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net>",
because exactly _this_ idiocy cause me to get these:

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:42:40 +0200 ,
"Bramer, E.A. (CTW)" <E.A.Bramer@ctw.utwente.nl> wrote in message
<363F9892AB6AAB439AFA1234A0A5146A1D92C9@ctwex1.ctw.utwente.nl>:

> I am out of the office untill the 4th of August
>
> Eddy Bramer
>
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 07:40:40 -0700 ,
"Berton, Fernando" <FBerton@CIWMB.ca.gov> wrote in message
<4A94EAE8A21FD411BDCB00D0B73E82AD079C20D8@WMBMAIL>:

> I am out of the office today and will return on July 8th. I will
> respond to your message upon my return.
>
> If you need an immediate response, please resend the message to Vicki
> Adamu at vadamu@ciwmb.ca.gov and she will forward your message to the
> appropriate person.
>
> Fernando Berton
> CIWMB

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:42:20 +0200 ,
"Paasen, S.V.B. van" <vanpaasen@ecn.nl> wrote in message
<92D6AAE888CED411A16A00508BB0B827520E8E@ecntex.ENERGY.ad.intra>:

> I'm out of office until July the 21st. For urgent matters, please
> contact Yvonne Vriendjes : vriendjes@ecn.nl
> tel: 0224-564729
>
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:42:19 +0200 ,
"Coda,mw B." <coda@ecn.nl> wrote in message
<92D6AAE888CED411A16A00508BB0B82705720A86@ecntex.ENERGY.ad.intra>:

> I am on vacation until the 29th of July. For urgent matters please
> contact our secretary Ms. Vriendjes (+31 224 5644729).
> I wish you nice summer time !!!
>

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:34:58 +0100 ,
"Powell-Turner, Julieanna" <jpowell-turner@wiltshire.gov.uk> wrote in
message <35FD94391015D411B9A600D0B744595101ED466B@CORPSRV0003>:

> I am now on maternity leave. Please contact Lesly Bagley on extension
> 3202 with any queries.
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> the system manager.
>
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
> MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
>
> www.mimesweeper.com
> **********************************************************************
>

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:31:03 +0200 ,
Gr?nli Morten G <Morten.G.Gronli@sintef.no> wrote in message
<08A9B3393164A04B839CB006FCFFA827012BF9A3@sintefxch2.sintef.no>:

> On vacation until July 28
> Mob +47 924 16 070
>

..all this from _one_ post to the gas list.

..it takes 30 seonds to fix this gas list setup error. Do.

--
..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 sschuck at BIGPOND.NET.AU Wed Jul 9 02:56:10 2003
From: sschuck at BIGPOND.NET.AU (Stephen Schuck)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Dual firing of producer gas with diesel fuel
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUL.2003.165610.1000.SSCHUCK@BIGPOND.NET.AU>

I am interested in experiences with dual fuel operation of diesel generator
sets with producer gas. I believe this can be done by introducing the
producer gas (from a downdraft gasifier for low tar levels) and backing off
the diesel fuel contribution to the overall energy output of the generator.

I was wondering how successful this is, has it been commercially proven,
what experiences are? Who is doing this at the moment? Also how clean does
the gas have to be (tar levels) and what is the effect on the engines in the
long run? I would be interested in the gas filtration systems, and disposal
issues for the tar.

Steve Schuck
Bioenergy Australia
c/o
Stephen Schuck & Associates Pty Ltd
7 Grassmere Rd
Killara NSW 2071
Australia
Phone/Fax: (02) 9416-9246
Web Address: www.users.bigpond.net.au/bioenergyaustralia

From tombreed at ATTBI.COM Fri Jul 11 05:35:11 2003
From: tombreed at ATTBI.COM (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Biomass vs "LPG" fuel
Message-ID: <FRI.11.JUL.2003.033511.0600.TOMBREED@ATTBI.COM>

Dear all interested in a renewable energy for after oil production peaks:

Kevin's points are well taken to a point. They define the problem, but not
the solutions....

1) The statement

> There are perhaps only five LPG, or near equivalent, fuels across
> the entire World: Propane, Butane, Naphtha, Kerosene, and Natural Gas.
They
> have the fundamental characteristics that they are "factory made"

needs to be further refined. (Misinformation is worse than noinformation).

LPG only means "liquefied petroleum gas", not liquid fossil fuels. Propane
(C3H8) boils at - 42 C and butane (C4H10) at -1 C, and so are stored and
shipped as liquids at a pressure less than 10 atmospheres in low pressure
vessels.

Methane (CH4) is a permanent gas and requires 200 atmospheres pressure to
store in cylinders (impractical). It is not an LPG.

Naphtha has a boiling point range from 40 to 250 C (approx). Kerosene is "a
mixture of petroleum hydrocarbons, ... having from 10 to 16 carbon atoms per
molecule. It constitutes the fifth fraction in the distillation of
petroleum. The boiling point is 175-325 C.

This information is from my Merck Index, 11th edition and it also contains
information on many other common chemicals. Costs $80 new or 70 used at
Amazon. The cost of NOT knowing these facts greatly exceeds this cost for a
book that will be a lifetime friend. Other books with similar information
are the Chemical Rubber Handbook (I got my first copy when I was 15) or the
"Chemical Engineers Handbook".

2) These chemicals are factory refined, but were made by Mother Nature and
will soon be gone.

3) Coal is another fossil FUEL. It occurs naturally, but is factory sized
and categorized.

4) Most "biomass" is NOT a fuel - it is a widely occurring renewable energy
resource that will outlast coal and oil based fuels.

5) Wood has 1/4 the density of coal and oil fuels, most other biomass
(straw, cobs, ...) is 1/10th the density and so biomass is hard to ship,
store and use. To be a fuel it also needs to be factory processed and given
similar reliability to coal and oil fuels.

6) Processes exist to "densify" biomass to almost the same density as coal
and make it a shippable/storable/useful fuel. Currently sawdust pellets can
be purchased in the larger hardware stores in Europe and the US for pellet
heating stoves at prices per kJ below that of the fossil fuels. This is the
beginning of a competitive biomass fuel. It currently is working in heating
stoves, but we use it in our "WoodGas Stoves" and micropower gasifiers.
~~~~~~~~
I hope that as we phase out oil, more and more of the biomass residues of
the world can be densified to become acceptable fuels. I hope this for the
sake of my grandchildren and yours who will have to find substitute energy
sources in their lifetimes.

Onward to acceptable substitutes for oil...

TOM REED The Biomass Energy Foundation

Dr. Thomas B. Reed
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone; 303 265 9184 Fax
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] acceptance of good technology

> Dear AD and Rogerio
>
> I'm not disagreeing with you to be argumentative; I am disagreeing with
you
> because I feel the "stove direction" you wish to take is wrong, and not
> likely to accomplish the good you desire. Following are the reasons:
>
> 1: LPG stoves get wide acceptance because they are "better stove systems."
> The reason why LPG stoves systems are "better" is that they have a "better
> and consistent fuel ". Solid fuels can never be as good in some parameter
> areas such as rapidity of ignition and quenching, and uniformity of the
rate
> of burn. There are perhaps only five LPG, or near equivalent, fuels across
> the entire World: Propane, Butane, Naphtha, Kerosene, and Natural Gas.
They
> have the fundamental characteristics that they are "factory made",
> consistent, uniform and repeatable. Biomass fuels are not like this.
> Indeed, two people with the same stove in the same room cooking the same
> meal at the same time using biomass fuel from the same pile will get
> different results, in terms of rate of cooking, degree of pollution, and
> consumption of fuel.
>
> 2: There is no such thing as "a LPG Stove"; there are hundreds (if not
> thousands) of LPG stoves, each doing a somewhat better job of meeting
their
> "stoving niche requirements." About the only thing they have in common is
> the fact that they burn "factory fuel."
>
> One of the major advantages of biomass fuel is that it can be indigenously
> sourced. One of the major disadvantages of biomass fuel is its
> inconsistency. I feel it is totally impossible to design a "universal
> biomass stove" if for no other reason that biomass fuels are universally
> inconsistent. If someone could design a LPG stove that could burn Bunker C
> and Point Aconi Coal (6% S and 10% ash), then there might be some hope.
:-)
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 1:07 AM
> Subject: [STOVES] acceptance of good technology
>
>
> I endorse the views of Rogerio. LPG, in spite of its high price, has
found
> universal acceptance in India and the number of users is increasing day by
> day. There were some complaints about the LPG stove not being usful in
> cooking certain ethnic foods, but because of the blue flame, total lack of
> smoke and soot, instantaneous lighting and extinction, and finger-tip
> control of the flame intensity, housewives changed their cooking habits
and
> adopted cooking methods and cookpots that were LPG-compatible.
> This shows, that if the technology is good, it would be accepted by the
> users.
> A.D.Karve
>

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Fri Jul 11 10:16:48 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Biomass vs "LPG" fuel
Message-ID: <FRI.11.JUL.2003.111648.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Tom

> Dear all interested in a renewable energy for after oil production peaks:
>
> Kevin's points are well taken to a point. They define the problem, but
not
> the solutions....

"It is better to light one little candle than scream about the dark." :-)

>
> 1) The statement
>
> > There are perhaps only five LPG, or near equivalent, fuels across
> > the entire World: Propane, Butane, Naphtha, Kerosene, and Natural Gas.
> They
> > have the fundamental characteristics that they are "factory made"
>
> needs to be further refined. (Misinformation is worse than
noinformation).

What I had in mind was that being "factory fuels", they are inherently more
uniform and consistent than most indigenous fuels, and that these
characteristics make the job of the stove designer very much easier.
"Factory fuels" have a whole set of advantages and disadvantages. Thes solve
some problems wonderfully, but they create problems and have
vulnerabilities.

Fossil fuels (eg, coal and petroleum) are obviously "factory fuels" in the
sense that they are usually controlled and processed by "a big Company from
away." However, wood pellets and holey briquettes and cane trash are also
"factory fuels", in that they are made centrally, with a reasonable degree
of consistency, but by relatively small local companies rather than large
Multi-Nationals. They also make the job of the stove designer much easier.

What does the Mother/Wife do for fuel when her propane tank cannot be filled
because the propane is not available, due to resuorce depletion, Currency
Exchange Controls, transportation blockages, a lack of money, etc? The
longer, and more fossil based, the energy supply chain, the more likely
these difficulties will arise.
>
> LPG only means "liquefied petroleum gas", not liquid fossil fuels.

Of course. Another way of looking at the above fuel grouping is that they
are "Factory Refined Convenience Fuels", in contrast to dung, charcoals, and
woods of varying size and moisture content, which are generally renewable
and indigenously sourced.
.
>
> 2) These chemicals are factory refined, but were made by Mother Nature
and
> will soon be gone.

It is not so much a question of being totally gone, but rather, the prices
can be expected to increase dramatically as their availability decreases.
>
>
> 4) Most "biomass" is NOT a fuel - it is a widely occurring renewable
energy
> resource that will outlast coal and oil based fuels.

??? The Biomass, Stoves, Gas, Dig. Lists seem to think that it is.
>
> 5) Wood has 1/4 the density of coal and oil fuels, most other biomass
> (straw, cobs, ...) is 1/10th the density and so biomass is hard to ship,
> store and use. To be a fuel it also needs to be factory processed and
given
> similar reliability to coal and oil fuels.

Very wrong. Wood that was not factory processed can be used to make fire.
Wood does not have to be processed in a central factory to dry and size it
uniformly.
>
> 6) Processes exist to "densify" biomass to almost the same density as
coal
> and make it a shippable/storable/useful fuel. Currently sawdust pellets
can
> be purchased in the larger hardware stores in Europe and the US for pellet
> heating stoves at prices per kJ below that of the fossil fuels. This is
the
> beginning of a competitive biomass fuel. It currently is working in
heating
> stoves, but we use it in our "WoodGas Stoves" and micropower gasifiers.

This is only part of the story. The wood pellets are used as a disposal
technique for wood factory waste. I would suggest that NONE of the present
"export pellets" are produced from wood harvested for the purpose of
producing densified pellets. Because of distorted Government policies, it is
apparently even cheaper to burn food (corn kernels) in pellet stoves than it
is to buy waste wood pellets.

> ~~~~~~~~
> I hope that as we phase out oil, more and more of the biomass residues of
> the world can be densified to become acceptable fuels. I hope this for
the
> sake of my grandchildren and yours who will have to find substitute energy
> sources in their lifetimes.
>
> Onward to acceptable substitutes for oil...

I feel that this also is a mistake..... it constrains the stove designer to
a "factory fuel" that is beyond the reach of the people the Stove Design and
Improvement effort is trying to help.

So:
1: Are we trying to configure an easily designed stove?
2: Are we trying to configure a stove that is easy for a central
organization to distribute?
3: Are we trying to solve IAQ problems?
4: Are we trying to solve the fossil energy crisis?
5: Are we trying to help people?
6: Others?????

It is not at all a simple matter to unearth and address the relevant
questions.

Best Wishes,

Kevin Chisholm
>
> TOM REED The Biomass Energy Foundation
>
> Dr. Thomas B. Reed
> 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
> tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone; 303 265 9184 Fax
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 7:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] acceptance of good technology
>
>
> > Dear AD and Rogerio
> >
> > I'm not disagreeing with you to be argumentative; I am disagreeing with
> you
> > because I feel the "stove direction" you wish to take is wrong, and not
> > likely to accomplish the good you desire. Following are the reasons:
> >

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Fri Jul 11 16:55:23 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Biomass vs "LPG" fuel
In-Reply-To: <006201c347b7$334a23f0$129a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <FRI.11.JUL.2003.155523.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 11:16:48AM -0300, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> >
> > 6) Processes exist to "densify" biomass to almost the same density as
> coal
> > and make it a shippable/storable/useful fuel. Currently sawdust pellets
> can
> > be purchased in the larger hardware stores in Europe and the US for pellet
> > heating stoves at prices per kJ below that of the fossil fuels. This is
> the
> > beginning of a competitive biomass fuel. It currently is working in
> heating
> > stoves, but we use it in our "WoodGas Stoves" and micropower gasifiers.
>
> This is only part of the story. The wood pellets are used as a disposal
> technique for wood factory waste. I would suggest that NONE of the present
> "export pellets" are produced from wood harvested for the purpose of
> producing densified pellets. Because of distorted Government policies, it is
> apparently even cheaper to burn food (corn kernels) in pellet stoves than it
> is to buy waste wood pellets.

The currently commercially produced wood pellets have several problems as
far as sustainability is concerned: They require a lot of fossil fuels to first
transport the sawdust to the pellet mill, then a lot of electricity to densify
they, and, as Thomas pointed out, also a lot of energy to dry the sawdust first,
and then finally, more fossil fuel to transport to the markets.
I still think we need to develop a feasible method of biomass densification
for home use or village level use, much like the common wood splitter seen all
over North America. Charcoal might be the answer some places, but pellets or
briquettes of densified biomass seem like a much better fuel, especially for
heating.

 

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

From tombreed at ATTBI.COM Sat Jul 12 09:58:58 2003
From: tombreed at ATTBI.COM (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Tom Reed's Address update
Message-ID: <SAT.12.JUL.2003.075858.0600.TOMBREED@ATTBI.COM>

Dear All:

Greetings: My address has been changed from tombreed@attbi.com to
tombreed@comcast.net. Please change my address in your book and send me a
return note with your current address if you wish to stay in my address
book.

Yours truly, Tom REED

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

From tombreed at ATTBI.COM Sun Jul 13 01:07:22 2003
From: tombreed at ATTBI.COM (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: [STOVES] hydrogen, alcohol, methane etc.
Message-ID: <SAT.12.JUL.2003.230722.0600.TOMBREED@ATTBI.COM>

Dear Karve and all:

You bring up an interesting question concerning optimizing a fuel for a
rural economy.

The Merck Index lists lots of properties, but often no the heat of
combustion. Turning to the extensive lists of heats of combustion on p.
D274 in the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (my 1986 edition) I find:

kCal/mole MW MJ/kg
Methane 213 16 56
Ethanol 327 46 30
Hydrogen 68 2 142

(To find MJ/kg from kCal/mole, multiply by 4.186 J/cal and divide by MW)

Note that while methane has only a third of the energy of hydrogen on a
weight basis, we don't ship/store/use gases on a weight basis. Methane has
3 times the energy of hydrogen on a molar (volume) basis.

Of the three, ethanol is unique in being a LIQUID fuel, more easily
shipped/stored/used than the other two. (Methane pipelines can cost $1
Million/km, hydrogen much more).

So if you can generate and store methane at the farm from the farm's waste
manure, it is probably the fuel of choice. But ethanol can be made in
moderate sized plants and shipped around to everyone and that gives it a
special value above methane. Finally, hydrogen is untested and unproved, so
has a special appeal to dreamers, futurists, and "greenwashers" but is only
practical in very special cases.

Hope this helps in choosing alternatives.

Yours truly

TOM REED THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION
Dr. Thomas B. Reed
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
tombreed@comcast.net; 303 278 0558 Phone; 303 265 9184 Fax
----- Original Message -----
From: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 10:26 PM
Subject: [STOVES] hydrogen, alcohol, methane etc.

> I would like to add the following to what Ron wrote in response to Kevin's
> comments:
> The Government of India has recently licenced some factories to produce
> alcohol from sugarcane. The alcohol would be sold to the petroleum
companies
> to mix with petrol to make gasohol. The normal procedure in India is to
use
> the sucrose in the sugarcane for making crystalline sugar and to convert
> only the glucose and fructose into alcohol. The new licencees would
produce
> alcohol from all the sugar in the cane. Taking the average total sugar
> content of sugarcane to be about 11%, and the alcohol yield to be about
50%
> of sugar, one gets theoretically about 55 kg of alcohol from a tonne of
> sugarcane. If one were to produce methane from the same quantity of
> sugarcane, even the cellulose and the waxes in the cane would be utilised,
> giving a yield about 250 kg of biogas per tonne of sugarcane. If half of
> this were assumed to be methane, the methane yield would be about 125 kg,
> which is more than double the yield of alcohol. Secondly, biogas, even
with
> the carbon dioxide mixed in it, can be used as fuel, both for cooking and
> also for running an internal combustion engine, whereas alcohol has to be
> purified and concentrated before it can be used as fuel. Therefore the
cost
> of alcohol would always be more than that of methane. At 100% purity,
> methane has a higher calorific value than alcohol (Tom, please look up the
> figures in your Merck Index and let us know them). At least in India,
there
> are strict controls on production and sale of alcohol. Making alcohol
> privately, without licence, is an offence under the existing law in most
> countries, whereas there are no restrictions on making, selling or using
> methane. A group of microbiologists in Chennai (formerly Madras) is
working
> on a fermentation technology that would generate hydrogen, but I am afraid
> that if one took the microbiological root, the hydrogen would be mixed
with
> carbon dioxide. At the present moment, methane is the best carrier of
> hydrogen (four H atoms per a single C).
> A.D.Karve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Larson <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
> To: STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Date: Sunday, July 13, 2003 6:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] acceptance of good technology
>
>
> >Kevin (cc stoves):
> >
> >Today you (all that with a >)said:
> >
> >1.
> >>Ron, the advantage of Hydrogen is that it is a "uniform" product,
> >>and that a
> >>stove or burner system can be designed to burn it effectively. Note
that
> >>Hydrogen is NOT a fuel any more than a battery is a fuel....
> >>hydrogen is an
> >>"energy storage commodity".
> >
> > RWL: a. Agree with your first point, but still believe that a
> major
> >advantage is what happens after combustion - (only) water is nice to then
> >have around in the kitchen.
> > b. Have to disagree on whether H2 is a fuel.
> > 1. Certainly fits what my dictionary says a fuel is.
> > 2. is the optimum input to a "fuel cell"
> > 3. I did not use the term "energy source", which is what we can
> probably
> >both agree H2 is not. I believe we can both agree it is a carrier - but
> you
> >need to explain to me why H2 cannot be both a carrier and a fuel.
> > 4. Below in our discussion point #4, you yourself call H2 a
fuel.
> > 5. I don't see much relationship between H2 and a battery except
> both
> >store energy. I am not about to call a battery a fuel.
> > 6. H2 is also the most abundant element on the planet - it is
more
> than an
> >"energy storage commodity" - but I agree I am liking it because it does
> have
> >that storage feature.
> >
> >2.
> >>I would suggest that Hydrogen Stoves are a long way into the future. How
> >>much does it cost to buy or make hydrogen, inn terms of $ per million
BTU?
> >
> > RWL: a. Agree with your first point and thought I had said the
> same.
> > b. The cheapest Renewable source today is from wind.
> Ignoring the cost
> >of electolysis, electricity at 3.6 c/kWh is $10/GJ (about $10 /MMBtu).
> >(using 1 kWh = 3.6 MJ) Of course I can't ignore the electrolyzer - but
it
> >is a smaller part of the total and costs are projected to come down
> >significantly - and some RE processes don't require one.
> > Another unit of costing is by weight - with a common goal
> given as $2/kg.
> >Using a higher heating value of .141 GJ/kg (see Tom Reed's web site),
this
> >comes out to about $14/GJ.
> > To such a number should be added comparable numbers for
> storage and
> >transport - depending on distance.
> > I am guessing that many rural folk are paying (when
> unsubsidized) prices
> >greater than this today - and those prices are soon going higher.
> > Not really terribly attractive today - but if one can
> postulate/hope for
> >PV and future direct photon conversion systems at the village level
> >eventually giving electricity in the 3.6 cent range, then I think these
> >costs would be comparable to the imported fossil alternatives -
especially
> >if you consider health impacts. Note if you are fortunate enough to be
> >cooking when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining, you would use
> >electricity directly for cooking. But electricity is not an absolute
need.
> > Biomass conversion options have the same general
numbers -
> but are closer
> >today.
> > Solar thermal conversion is interesting because the
> efficiency of
> >conversion from photons to H2 can exceed 50% with thermo-chemical process
> >possible at the high temperatures reachable with the concentrating ST
> >approach. Takes up half the land area as for (today's) PV. Might find
that
> >one moves a chemical around (zinc plus water gives zinc oxide plus
> >hydrogen - and the zinc oxide can be recycled into zinc at this suggested
> >high efficiency).
> > If you want to go way out - think nanotechnology. Proven
> at much lower
> >frequencies to be possible to convert an incoming wave to dc at 85%
> >effciency.
> >>
> >
> >3.
> >>Would Hydrogen be any more or less dangerous than Natural Gas or LPG
> gases?
> >
> > a. The H2 proponents say less so - the main reason being that H2
> is so
> >light that it dissipates quickly. Also flame is essentially colorless -
so
> >radiation effects are much diminished. Test photos I have seen of
> simulated
> >car crashes seem to bear this out when comparing to gasoline. Extensive
> use
> >by NASA. About 1% of US energy is in the form of H2 with 1000s of miles
of
> >pipelines in place in the US - and I don't remember much concern from
> >accidents.
> > b. Opposite view is based on extremely low energy needed to
> ignite, wide
> >range of flammability conditions, etc. One interesting fact is that the
> >combustion products occupy less space, so one needs to think about
> >implosions.
> > c. I disqualify myself as an expert on this topic.
> >
> >>
> >>>
> > 3.
> >>Isn't this a bit of overkill for a stove? What are likely to be the
> >>comparative economics of setting up to produce hydrogen, versus
> >>burning its
> >>raw material source directly?
> >
> > RWL: a. Kevin's "this" above refers to the process used by the
> company
> >Harmon brought to our attention and which I was following up after going
to
> >their web site (note this company is very much in the start-up phase).
> >Harmon was kindly reporting that the company "Virent" was claiming they
> >could produce propane from (wet, starchy) input biomass like that being
> used
> >successfully now by AD - for household CH4, just going beyond Tom Reed's
> >admonition yesterday that this sort of product ".. is not made
> >synthetically." My (probably misguided) "contribution" was only to note
> >that the same new small company is receiving some notoriety for claiming
> the
> >same about H2. Then I got carried away - my apologies to all.
> > b. The only reason for bringing in H2 or any of these
more
> centralized
> >fuels is that we do not have proof yet that we can cook cleanly enough
with
> >the solid fuels. I certainly hope we can provide that proof. In that
> >regard, I strongly urge all of us to look closely at what AD is doing at
> low
> >cost with CH4. There is no fundamental reason that AD's system couldn't
> >eventually work just as well (meaning cheap) by producing H2. That work
is
> >just beginning. Personally I would rather work with H2 than CH4 - since
I
> >know I won't have to worry about CO poisoning. Also - with H2, I can
start
> >thinking (way off) as an input to tiny fuel cells that we will probably
see
> >replacing some batteries - even in the next few years.
> > c. Some of this discussion is based on Kirk Smith's
> observation in
> >"Science" a few months ago that these commmercial fossil fuels might well
> be
> >justified for subsidy by the wealthy nations - both for humanitarian and
> for
> >global warming reasons. I have been trying to concentrate only on those
> >fuels that could be produced locally from renewable resources. That is
why
> >I liked Harmon's addition.
> > d. Think I answered some of the economics issues above.
We
> have heard on
> >this list some very attractive numbers for ethanol based fuels. AD is
> >claiming good economics for his locally produced CH4. But to keep prices
> >low, one needs to keep the transportation distance down (meaning only the
> >renewable options). And all of the fossil fuels will have associated
> hidden
> >balance of payments charges, national security concerns, employment
issues,
> >etc. in most developing countries.
> > e. I have been emphasizing liquid and gaseous options so
> far, but I am
> >certainly hopeful that my 7-year push for charcoal-making stoves will
> >eventually prove a winner. Just wanting to mention all the other
options.
> > f. One more that needs mentioning is the solar cooker.
> Some storage
> >capability has been proposed with hot oils. Also a "solar pond" can
allow
> >cooking 24-7 at temperatures right about boiling.
> > g. Not wrong for us to concentrate on solid fuels - but
> every once in a
> >while we should discuss the alternatives.
> >
> >4)
> >>Given that success of the Hydrogen Conversion Process could be a
> >>long way in
> >>the future, and that it will likely yield a fuel gas that is relatively
> >>costly, if it is successful, is not the best way to proceed now to
> continue
> >>with solid fuels?
> >
> > RWL: Possibly so - but no reason to not do both (and I
especially
> want to
> >keep coming back to what AD has discovered this past year on CH4). There
> are
> >lots of new approaches waiting to be developed.
> > If the world put as much money into stove R&D as into the cost of
> one
> >military aircraft this worldwide indoor health problem would have been
> >solved long ago. Our (global, but mostly US) problem is lack of the
right
> >priorities.
> >>
> >5.
> >>Ethanol is a "Factory Fuel." It requires a "central production
facility",
> >>but in contrast to petroleum based products, there is a potential to
have
> >>"local ethanol factories," operating on indigenous fuels. Would this be
> >>acceptable to the people for whom the stoves are intended?
> >
> > RWL: There are certainly some who say so. Don't historians say
> that the
> >making of ethanol is the world's second oldest profession? Economies of
> >scale and the costs of transportation will dictate the right scale for
> >ethanol - or any of several other options (including CH4, H2, etc). We
> >don't move in an ethanol or other "centralized" (but still renewable)
> manner
> >because we (the world) don't appreciate the (mostly health) costs of not
> >doing so. Centralization might lead to lower costs - but also it might
> not.
> >Getting better processes and better "bugs" could help a lot.
> >>
> > 6)
> >>Is it the wish or the purpose of the Stoves List to focus on the
> >>development
> >>of stoves requiring such a "Factory Fuel?"
> >>
> > RWL: a. Probably not - but part of my reason for spending time
on
> the
> >subject is to tell potential funders that R&D dollars are needed. Our
most
> >knowledgeable spokesperson on the health impacts of stoves (Kirk) has
> >concluded that factory fuels are the way to go. Because I have been
> >convinced on the health impacts, I could agree if I thought any big
country
> >would start chipping in. But since that is unlikely , we on this list
have
> >to keep banging awy on getting cleaner stoves (not just cheaper and more
> >efficient). Unfortunately, I claim we haven't got one single lab
anywhere
> >in the world equipped to do this - even if we had the money to conduct
the
> >testing.
> > b. AD has proven that these fuels don't have to be considered
> "factory".
> >
> > 7)
> >>Stranded Natural Gas and Methanol are not renewable. If the
> >>renewable energy
> >>of choice is to come from the "direct burning of biomass", then would it
> be
> >>possible to start by defining the biomass fuels and their specifications
> so
> >>that the Stove Designer would at least have a starting point?
> >>
> > RWL: a. Have to disagree with first sentence - both fuels
> (equating
> >"natural gas" to CH4) can be renewable. I was of course not claiming
that
> >stranded natural gas was renewable - only that it is cheap - and that
> moving
> >CH4 in the form of methanol might well happen in the future. Of course,
> >some methanol is already being commercially produced from biomass - not a
> >tough trick at all.
> > b. Not sure I am ready to agree with your second sentence "if".
> There are
> >some other options that I would like to hear more about. We have people
on
> >this list who swear by seed oils, which have not been mentioned for
awhile.
> >Probably can be made very clean burning. Might be able to say the same
> about
> >turpentine - or some other similar wood-based, but esily collected
"fuel".
> I
> >remember somewhere hearing about latex-based "saps" from plants such as
> >milkweed as having a potentially low cost when grown commercially. Who
> >knows what else is lurking out there to surprise us all.
> > c. But taking your "if" further, this ("definition") is still
too
> big a
> >task for this response - or probably even the rest of the year if all
list
> >members get involved. We have lots of experts on this list pushing one
or
> >another solid fuel and I am too long already to get further into that
> topic.
> >I can agree that more work is needed along these lines - as exemplified
by
> >some of the discussion last week just on moisture content. For another
> >example, there is absolutely no agreement yet on the value of holes in
> >briquettes. Long way to go!! I encourage you to suggest to us a path
for
> >classifying just the solid fuels. This is not a bad question.
> >
> >Whew! Sorry for the verbosity.
> >
> >Ron
> >
>

From luizmagri at YAHOO.COM Sun Jul 13 18:48:51 2003
From: luizmagri at YAHOO.COM (Luiz Alberto Magri)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: [STOVES] hydrogen, alcohol, methane etc.
In-Reply-To: <016701c348fc$a496ca90$b5affd0c@TOMBREED>
Message-ID: <SUN.13.JUL.2003.154851.0700.LUIZMAGRI@YAHOO.COM>

Hmmm... Implosion in H2 combustion? And what about the
heat released?

Luiz Magri
São Paulo

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

From hmhuong at POLYNET.LVIV.UA Wed Jul 16 00:41:29 2003
From: hmhuong at POLYNET.LVIV.UA (Huonga3TCV)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: elementar questions
Message-ID: <WED.16.JUL.2003.074129.0300.HMHUONG@POLYNET.LVIV.UA>

Hi list,
I think that my questions are very easy for all of you, but I'm sorry that I
am just a student and English is not my native language.
My questions are the following:
Sometime I read somewhere and met such terms as: flash tank, K-value, batch
reactor, batch column. But I can't understand what they are, I mean that I
don't know what they call in my language.
Any of you can explain for me the meaning of these terms: flash tank,
K-value, batch reactor, batch column? Thank you in advance.
Huynh Minh Huong
Email: hmhuong@polynet.lviv.ua

From graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ Wed Jul 16 02:14:45 2003
From: graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Dual firing of producer gas with diesel fuel
Message-ID: <WED.16.JUL.2003.181445.1200.GRAEME@POWERLINK.CO.NZ>

Dear Stephen

In response to your request for experiences with dual fuel diesel generator
sets, I refer you to our Fluidyne Archive www.fluidynenz.250x.com You can
see we installed duel fuelled engines for a number of projects, and the
subject of duel fuelled diesels has been discussed many times on this list.
I will however answer your questions so that all the answers tie in
together, because they all influence the success or failure of any project.

1: It is an assumption that downdraught gasifiers automatically produce gas
with low tar level. The tar cracking into permanent non condensing gases is
a feature of design which in turn is determined by the fuel, its form, and
composition. In turn each fuel has its own specific behaviour in the
gasification process which can in some cases exclude that fuel for use in a
high performance gasifier.

2: The cleaning of tar from producer gas is not in my experience practical
for engine applications. If you have to remove condensing tar, the
gasification process is not designed correctly , or the fuel is incorrectly
prepared. There is also the possibility that the system is not being
operated correctly because there is no experience of how it should all work!
When systems produce black liquor and tar, as opposed to aquious condensate
with suspended solids, the disposal involves evaporation of the water and
returning the residue with the fuel to be gasified. By comparison, aquious
condensate can be filtered to remove solids by pouring it through the waste
clean out charcoal (from Fluidyne gasifiers) which is activated carbon and
the water presents no health problems of its disposal.

3: Gas filtration systems should be limited to the removal of solids if the
fuel is biomass. There is a choice of hot gas filtration using filter bags,
cold gas filtration using granular beds, or wet scrubbers which in my
opinion introduce issues of disposal or treatment of the scrub water.
However, having said this, the whole system of cooling then cleaning or
cleaning then cooling has to be achieved wiothout variation of pressure drop
through the whole system.

4: Operating a dual fuelled engine with producer gas requires:
(a) Consistent quality gas without variation if on a base load.
(b) A correctly designed dual fuel conversion kit if the engine is
generating for a fluctuating power demand.
(c) A gas supply system that operates without increasigng pressure drops.

Comment: At the I.E.A. meeting in London, May 2003, there was a concensus
of "opinion" that down draught gasifiers suffered from pressure drop across
the bed and were prone to variable tar levels contaminating the gas stream.
The emphasis in Europe seems to be on how to clean dirty gas, not on how to
make gas correctly.

Gasification is not forgiving of ignorance, and enthusiasm cannot become
success by the addition of state funding. Don't expect free information to
be sufficient to acquire commercial knowledge, which in the end has to be
demonstrated as a reliably operating system. I am sure other expertise on
this list will contribute comment based on their commercial experiences. We
all endeavour to solve the same problems, but by necessity draw on different
resources, so hopefully you will have generated some interesting
discussion.

Regards
Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification.

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Thu Jul 17 19:55:52 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Dual firing of producer gas with diesel fuel
Message-ID: <THU.17.JUL.2003.195552.0400.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Doug,

I attended the European Gasnet Meeting in Florence in April and visited TK
Energi and DTU (Danish Technological University) two weeks ago. Paul Fung
of CSIRO also attended the Florence meeting.

Your point about making gas with low tar is well taken. I think it is
probably more accurate to say that there are some very interesting
improvements to small scale gasification systems in Europe with the
objective of making a cleaner gas. DTU (17 kWe) and TK Energi (55kWe) use
staged gasification systems to get low tars (25 mg/nm3) before cleaning.
Biomass Engineering Ltd (75 kWe) also seem to be headed for clean gas
before filtration or cleaning. Some of these systems are described in the
June 2003 Gasnet newsletter which should be available on their website.

DTU experience with a 35 kW (4 cylinder)Stirling shows that clean gas is
also important for other applications. DTU showed me their 8 cylinder 75
kWe Stirling engine which they will soon ship to a company in Austria.

Tom

Gasnet http://www.gasnet.uk.net
DTU: http://bgg.mek.dtu.dk/research/twostage/
Biomass Engineering: http://biomass-uk.com
Stirling: http://bgg.mek.dtu.dk/publications/pdf/amst02_v2_99.pdf

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Fri Jul 18 10:17:38 2003
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Dual firing of producer gas with diesel fuel
Message-ID: <FRI.18.JUL.2003.101738.EDT.>

In a message dated 7/17/03 6:53:07 PM, tmiles@TRMILES.COM writes:

<< Doug,

I attended the European Gasnet Meeting in Florence in April and visited TK
Energi and DTU (Danish Technological University) two weeks ago. Paul Fung
of CSIRO also attended the Florence meeting.

Your point about making gas with low tar is well taken. I think it is
probably more accurate to say that there are some very interesting
improvements to small scale gasification systems in Europe with the
objective of making a cleaner gas. DTU (17 kWe) and TK Energi (55kWe) use
staged gasification systems to get low tars (25 mg/nm3) before cleaning.
Biomass Engineering Ltd (75 kWe) also seem to be headed for clean gas
before filtration or cleaning. Some of these systems are described in the
June 2003 Gasnet newsletter which should be available on their website.

DTU experience with a 35 kW (4 cylinder)Stirling shows that clean gas is
also important for other applications. DTU showed me their 8 cylinder 75
kWe Stirling engine which they will soon ship to a company in Austria.

Tom

Gasnet http://www.gasnet.uk.net
DTU: http://bgg.mek.dtu.dk/research/twostage/
Biomass Engineering: http://biomass-uk.com
Stirling: http://bgg.mek.dtu.dk/publications/pdf/amst02_v2_99.pdf >>

Dear Tom,
I enjoy hearing of the European work in gasification. This Wednesday, I
had a group from Italy here who constructed a 1mwe gasification facility in
Italy which was started in construction in 1999 and is still not finished as to
running an engine as the engine intake valves will coat with carbon and start
hammering after 40 hours of operation. They came here to look at the
gasification and gas cleaning system which we are operating. They are ordering two
systems, one gas clean up train and a complete gasifier system.
As part of our discussions, they cited all of the system failures in
Europe and the ongoing difficulties with gas cleaning. This company is part of a
$2+bn engineering/construction company in Europe.
They also told of many projects in Europe which were built with great
fanfare and then it became very quiet. Multi-billion dollar (euro) companies have
been unable to deal with the issue.
A 100 kw engine/generator system is being installed on our gasifier. This
naturally aspirated engine is an old standby natural gas SI engine which is
probably a real fuel hog, but was cheap and natural gas engines are hard to
come by here, so we latched on to it.
This system is being prepared to ship to Toronto area of Canada to
operate a 1.6mw natural gas engine generator set on tire gas. It should be sent in
mid-September and operating shortly after that.
We have operated a 75kw supercharged engine generator set on our gas for
300 hours which had no problems. Superchargers are more sensitive to fouling
than turbochargers due to the close tolerance between the moving parts which
shows that the gas was very clean otherwise the blower would lock up. This set
is now in Italy on the site we shipped the gasifier to. It is waiting
completion of the infrastructure for commercial completion.
An interesting aspect of this is the Cat engine supplier was given the
information on the gas plus the factory information on the Cat engine operation
on low BTU gas and they do not know what to do. The factory books say that you
can get 60+% natural gas rating on 120 btu gas. Jenbacher can run engines on
as low as 90BTU. The same distributor sold Ontario Hydro Technologies an
engine for our gas several years ago and is somewhat clueless as to how to work
with this project.
So, watching others wrestle with the gas cleaning problems is amusing.

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 LINVENT at AOL.COM Sat Jul 19 21:32:28 2003
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Dual firing of producer gas with diesel fuel
Message-ID: <SAT.19.JUL.2003.213228.EDT.>

An article in Time magazine states the reality of energy issues and hydrogen
future. It is available at
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030721-464406,00.html
Taks a look at it.

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 dglickd at PIPELINE.COM Sun Jul 20 13:56:12 2003
From: dglickd at PIPELINE.COM (Dick Glick)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Fw: [GASL] Dual firing of producer gas with diesel fuel
Message-ID: <SUN.20.JUL.2003.135612.0400.DGLICKD@PIPELINE.COM>

Hello -- I'll send, now not included, attachment to anyone interested.

There may be a relatively straight forward, but certainly not simple way of generating H2. Consider solar PV generation -- not to produce power -- but using the dc generated to hydrolyze water -- and produce H2. Sufficient land is available in the dessert Southwest -- hundred square miles would do the PV-H2-trick producing sufficient H2 for the whole US. Water is available -- downhill as a matter of fact -- if the center of activity drains from Gulf of California to the Salton Sea, see map attachment. Slow development over the next 20 years or so would be the best US place for PV-hydrogen systems -- and without direct biomass or coal or petroleum contributions.

Best, Dick

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Mon Jul 21 21:00:58 2003
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Fw: [GASL] Dual firing of producer gas with diesel fuel
Message-ID: <MON.21.JUL.2003.210058.EDT.>

In a message dated 7/20/03 11:57:26 AM, dglickd@PIPELINE.COM writes:

<< Hello -- I'll send, now not included, attachment to anyone interested.

There may be a relatively straight forward, but certainly not simple way of
generating H2. Consider solar PV generation -- not to produce power -- but
using the dc generated to hydrolyze water -- and produce H2. Sufficient land is
available in the dessert Southwest -- hundred square miles would do the
PV-H2-trick producing sufficient H2 for the whole US. Water is available -- downhill
as a matter of fact -- if the center of activity drains from Gulf of
California to the Salton Sea, see map attachment. Slow development over the next 20
years or so would be the best US place for PV-hydrogen systems -- and without
direct biomass or coal or petroleum contributions.

Best, Dick >>

Dear Dick,
I am not sure what Southwest you say has plenty of water, but here in
Albuquerque, the City has spent $80mm to bring water from San Juan which
originates in Colorado down to the Rio Grande to use as drinking water as the ground
water tables have only 25 years left at current consumption. Phoenix, Tucson,
Los Angeles have all been scrounging for water.
I had lunch last weekend with one of my attorneys who works heavily in
the water rights area and represents a city here in New Mexico which needs water
and is going to pay $4500/acre foot from the local farms. This gives you some
idea of the value of water in this dry southwest. We have been suffering from
a serious drought for the last 5 years and forest fires, dust storms are the
norm. Many of the areas look like sand dunes. In the 30's this was the "Dust
Bowl" area and era.
In the 70's there was planned a series of coal gasification to methane
for natural gas supply facilities in the NW corner of the State. This included
Exxon, Chevron, El Paso Natural Gas and others. The requirement for coal
gasification is lots of water. The Navajo Dam was built to supply water to this
facility and on the way it was supposed to supply a huge (130,000 acres) farming
operation, the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project. An interesting review of the
aerial map shows that the canal which supplies the farm is the same size from
start to finish which abruptly ends at the border of where the gasification
facility was supposed to be. In reading the feasibility studies of Native
American farming operations, none had been successful, and this one has not been
either, even with free water and large subsidies.
It appears as though the NIIP was strictly as a guise to get water to the
gasification site and at some point in the future, this may still occur.
As a economic commentary, the PV to hydrogen process is expensive,
inefficent and doubtful if DOE or anyone else is considering it as a viable process.
It can be done as can be various chemical interactions as a direct process,
none of these have been commercialized either. Gasification is still the best
source for large volumes of hydrogen.

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 Mon Jul 21 21:25:07 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Solar Hydrogen: Was Re: [GASL] Fw: [GASL] Dual firing of producer
gas with diesel fuel
Message-ID: <MON.21.JUL.2003.222507.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Dick

> In a message dated 7/20/03 11:57:26 AM, dglickd@PIPELINE.COM writes:
>
> << Hello -- I'll send, now not included, attachment to anyone interested.
>
> There may be a relatively straight forward, but certainly not simple way
of
> generating H2. Consider solar PV generation -- not to produce power --
but
> using the dc generated to hydrolyze water -- and produce H2. Sufficient
land is
> available in the dessert Southwest -- hundred square miles would do the
> PV-H2-trick producing sufficient H2 for the whole US.

Assume for the moment that this project was actually built. The average
transport distance to get hydrogen to the point of use would be perhaps
2,000 miles or so. The alternative would be to transmit the electricity
produced at the solar farm a similar distance. Would you have a rough idea
of the energy losses when transmitting either hydrogen or electricity 2,000
miles?

Water is available -- downhill
> as a matter of fact -- if the center of activity drains from Gulf of
> California to the Salton Sea, see map attachment. Slow development over
the next 20
> years or so would be the best US place for PV-hydrogen systems -- and
without
> direct biomass or coal or petroleum contributions.

That would be one massive solar installation. Would you have a rough idea
of the cost of a square mile of solar collectors? What would be the MW
output per square mile, averaged over the year?

Kindest regards,

Kevin

From Carefreeland at AOL.COM Tue Jul 22 09:42:57 2003
From: Carefreeland at AOL.COM (Carefreeland@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Fwd: Backyard gasifier
Message-ID: <TUE.22.JUL.2003.094257.EDT.>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: multipart/alternative
Size: 1431 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20030722/3fbea2b5/attachment.bin
From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Thu Jul 24 05:46:58 2003
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (tombreed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Wood is good - WoodGas is better
Message-ID: <THU.24.JUL.2003.034658.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear STOVES and GASIFICATION LIST:

Wood was good enough for cooking through 1900, but as soon as natural gas,
kerosene, electricity and LPG came along, wood was only used by those who
couldn't afford the "real fuels". On the other hand, if you generate
WoodGas from wood first and then use the correct amount of air to mix and
burn it, the stove will be very efficient and have very low emissions. We
believe that WoodGas cooking can compete with these other fuels in the world
to come where the other fuels of choice are getting scarcer and more costly.

We at WoodGasLLC are developing many forms of WoodGas stoves, but are
focusing on a campstove for the US market first. The first forced draft
"toplit updraft gasifier" commercial model is now available as a WoodGas
Campstove at www.WoodGasllc.com. It is 15 cm high X 12 cm in diameter. It
burns about 10 g/m (~3 kW thermal) of twigs, chips, cobs, (10-20 minutes)
and especially wood pellets (40 minutes). It typically also makes 20%
charcoal which can also be burned in the stove or saved for higher purposes.
It uses a single AA battery which lasts 3 hours on high and 6 hr on low.

We call this Model 900 because there have been at least 8 major changes
before this one, all improvements in the lab or the field. Now we have
built 100 stoves that are ready to ship. You can see the stove at
WWW.WoodGasLLC.com and buy it at http://store.yahoo.com/woodgasllc/woca.html
for $60 plus S&H. (These first stoves probably cost 3-4 times this amount,
but we hope to get in the black by the time we make and sell 1000 stoves.)

We are offering this stove to the STOVES and GASIFICATION groups at REPP
because of their special interest in stoves and gasifiers. We hope you will
wish to own one, study it, cook on it, camp with it, and get new ideas from
it. These lists represent about 600 subscribers, so first come first serve
and it will be another month or two before we are ready to ship again. So
if you don't make the first cut, be patient and your stove will come as soon
as we can build it.

We at the Biomass Energy Foundation also hope that this US activity will
lead to developing better biomass and WoodGas cookstoves around the world to
fill a desperate need.

Yours truly,

Dr. Thomas Reed The Biomass Energy Foundation
The WoodGas, LLC
tombreed@comcast.com

From Carefreeland at AOL.COM Sun Jul 27 11:27:05 2003
From: Carefreeland at AOL.COM (Carefreeland@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Question about gasifier charcoal production
Message-ID: <SUN.27.JUL.2003.112705.EDT.>

Dear Tom and Listers,
We have a new member named Marc to welcome. He has some questions
about the production of charcoal from gasifiers. Can we have some conversation
about the various gasifiers that also produce charcoal as a byproduct? Does
anyone on the list run gasifier(s) that produce charcoal, and wish to share some
information/statistics on the operation of these devises?
Thank you,
Daniel Dimiduk

From dschmidt at UNDEERC.ORG Mon Jul 28 08:33:08 2003
From: dschmidt at UNDEERC.ORG (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Question about gasifier charcoal production
Message-ID: <MON.28.JUL.2003.073308.0500.DSCHMIDT@UNDEERC.ORG>

My experience,
Charcoal is produced at anywhere from 5% to 15% of the feed rate
input. Carbon content of about 50% can be expected, although it can vary
depending on process conditions. Heating value will be high due to the
carbon content (approx 10,000 - 12,000 Btu/lb). Many folks get interested
in the use of carbon as a tertiary water treatment or (activated carbon
use). Our experience is that the iodine number will be around 250 - 300.
Iodine number is used to measure the absorptive property of charcoal. A
good activated carbon is around 600 - 1000. Charcoal from air fed
gasification would require further steam treatment to create a good
activated carbon.

Darren D. Schmidt
Energy & Environmental Research Center
University of North Dakota
dschmidt@undeerc.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Carefreeland@AOL.COM [mailto:Carefreeland@AOL.COM]
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 10:27 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] Question about gasifier charcoal production

Dear Tom and Listers,
We have a new member named Marc to welcome. He has some questions
about the production of charcoal from gasifiers. Can we have some
conversation
about the various gasifiers that also produce charcoal as a byproduct? Does
anyone on the list run gasifier(s) that produce charcoal, and wish to share
some
information/statistics on the operation of these devises?
Thank you,
Daniel Dimiduk

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Mon Jul 28 09:03:09 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Question about gasifier charcoal production
Message-ID: <MON.28.JUL.2003.100309.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Darren

----- Original Message -----
From: "Schmidt, Darren" <dschmidt@UNDEERC.ORG>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Question about gasifier charcoal production

> My experience,
> Charcoal is produced at anywhere from 5% to 15% of the feed rate
> input. Carbon content of about 50% can be expected, although it can vary
> depending on process conditions.

If I understand this correctly, if we assume a feed rate of say 1000 pounds
per hour, you would end up with 50 to 150 pounds per hour of charcoal
containing 25 to 75 pounds of carbon. I presume the 25 to 75 pounds of
"other material" is volatiles and ash. Would you have a charcoal analysis?
Could the ash from gasification of the wood be screened out?

Heating value will be high due to the
> carbon content (approx 10,000 - 12,000 Btu/lb). Many folks get interested
> in the use of carbon as a tertiary water treatment or (activated carbon
> use). Our experience is that the iodine number will be around 250 - 300.
> Iodine number is used to measure the absorptive property of charcoal. A
> good activated carbon is around 600 - 1000. Charcoal from air fed
> gasification would require further steam treatment to create a good
> activated carbon.

Would you have a URL that describes an activation process?

Thanks very much.

Kevin Chisholm
>

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Jul 28 10:11:05 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Question about gasifier charcoal production
Message-ID: <MON.28.JUL.2003.081105.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Dear Darren;

Regarding activated charcoal.

The steam processing of normal charcoal to activated charcoal is actually a
steam "reforming" of carbon.

But the reaction is not allowed to go to completion. Just long enough to
create incredible amounts of shallow pockets -- which greatly increases the
absorption/trapping abilities in regards to purification of some substances.

Everything from Gas masks -- water filters -- to good Vodka.

>Charcoal from air fed
>gasification would require further steam treatment to create a good
>activated carbon.

Though I may be aware of the theory, I have little knowledge of the practice.

Can you supply further information in regards to converting charcoal to
activated charcoal on a practical level?

I have relatively unlimited amounts of cohune nut shell -- which
traditionally (WW I) was the best source for gas mask grade activated
charcoal.

Peter Singfield
Belize, Central America

At 07:33 AM 7/28/2003 -0500, Schmidt, Darren wrote:
>My experience,
> Charcoal is produced at anywhere from 5% to 15% of the feed rate
>input. Carbon content of about 50% can be expected, although it can vary
>depending on process conditions. Heating value will be high due to the
>carbon content (approx 10,000 - 12,000 Btu/lb). Many folks get interested
>in the use of carbon as a tertiary water treatment or (activated carbon
>use). Our experience is that the iodine number will be around 250 - 300.
>Iodine number is used to measure the absorptive property of charcoal. A
>good activated carbon is around 600 - 1000. Charcoal from air fed
>gasification would require further steam treatment to create a good
>activated carbon.
>
>Darren D. Schmidt
>Energy & Environmental Research Center
>University of North Dakota
>dschmidt@undeerc.org
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Carefreeland@AOL.COM [mailto:Carefreeland@AOL.COM]
>Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 10:27 AM
>To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
>Subject: [GASL] Question about gasifier charcoal production
>
>
> Dear Tom and Listers,
> We have a new member named Marc to welcome. He has some questions
>about the production of charcoal from gasifiers. Can we have some
>conversation
>about the various gasifiers that also produce charcoal as a byproduct? Does
>anyone on the list run gasifier(s) that produce charcoal, and wish to share
>some
>information/statistics on the operation of these devises?
> Thank you,
> Daniel Dimiduk
>

From ajtsamba at ZEBRA.UEM.MZ Mon Jul 28 15:50:05 2003
From: ajtsamba at ZEBRA.UEM.MZ (=?us-ascii?Q?Alberto_Julio_Tsamba?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Question about gasifier charcoal production
In-Reply-To: <1dc.ea6b6de.2c554949@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MON.28.JUL.2003.215005.0200.>

Dear all,

It's just to welcome the new member and hope we will share as much as we can
our experiences.

Tsamba

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Carefreeland@AOL.COM
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 5:27 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] Question about gasifier charcoal production

Dear Tom and Listers,
We have a new member named Marc to welcome. He has some questions
about the production of charcoal from gasifiers. Can we have some
conversation
about the various gasifiers that also produce charcoal as a byproduct? Does
anyone on the list run gasifier(s) that produce charcoal, and wish to share
some
information/statistics on the operation of these devises?
Thank you,
Daniel Dimiduk

From arnt at C2I.NET Mon Jul 28 16:07:55 2003
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Question about gasifier charcoal production
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20030728080946.009a42e0@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <MON.28.JUL.2003.220755.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 08:11:05 -0600,
Peter Singfield <snkm@BTL.NET> wrote in message
<3.0.32.20030728080946.009a42e0@btlmail.btl.net>:

> Dear Darren;
>
> Regarding activated charcoal.
>
> The steam processing of normal charcoal to activated charcoal is
> actually a steam "reforming" of carbon.
>
> But the reaction is not allowed to go to completion. Just long enough
> to create incredible amounts of shallow pockets -- which greatly
> increases the absorption/trapping abilities in regards to purification
> of some substances.
>
> Everything from Gas masks -- water filters -- to good Vodka.
>
> >Charcoal from air fed
> >gasification would require further steam treatment to create a good
> >activated carbon.
>
> Though I may be aware of the theory, I have little knowledge of the
> practice.
>
> Can you supply further information in regards to converting charcoal
> to activated charcoal on a practical level?

..google["steam processing" "activated charcoal" "gas mask" grade].

> I have relatively unlimited amounts of cohune nut shell -- which
> traditionally (WW I) was the best source for gas mask grade activated
> charcoal.

..cool. ;-)

> Peter Singfield
> Belize, Central America

 

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

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Jul 28 19:41:22 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: More on the Hawaii high pressure super critical water gasifier
Message-ID: <MON.28.JUL.2003.174122.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

While searching around -- found this (appended) of interest.

Actually -- much of interest at this site:

http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/doeofd/94_95sum/biosyngs.html

All from 1995 -- when things were in full swing -- ahh -- those were the
days folks!!

On with this show!!

(Et Tu Arnt??)

Oh -- have appended another that might be of interest to Tom T.

Peter Singfield
Belize

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

BioSyngas Products: Carbon Catalyzed Gasification of Organic Compounds
Directing Organization: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585
Project Manager: D. Tyndall, (303) 275-4483

Contractor: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), 1617 Cole
Boulevard, Golden, CO 80401-3393
Principal Investigator: M. Antal, Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, (808)
956-7385
Contract Number: XCF-5-14326-01
Contract Period: 11/93?11/95
Contract Funding (Source):
FY 1994 and FY 1995: $129,000 (DOE)
Objective: Support thermochemical biofuels production research by
developing a catalytic process for the complete, oxygen-free gasification
of organic wastes in supercritical water.

Approach/Background: Hydrogen-rich synthesis gas is produced from the
gasification of organic materials in supercritical water 600?C, 34.5 MPa
with carbon catalysts. Feedstocks investigated include glycerol (a waste
product of biodiesel production), organic waste streams (methanol, methyl
ether ketone, ethylene glycol, acetic acid, and phenol), sewage sludge,
depithed bagasse liquid extract, and banana (Musa sp."Grand Main") tree
stem. Most of these materials are available at low or negative cost, and
some represent waste constituents in biofuels production. Supercritical
water (Tc>374?C, Pc>22 MPa) is an excellent solvent for organic materials
and is used as the reaction medium. Supercritical water reforms the organic
feedstock over the carbon catalyst and produces a synthesis gas rich in
hydrogen and methane. These can be used as fuel or to produce other
biofuels such as methanol. These experimental studies employ a continuous
flow reactor with a packed bed or catalyst.

Status/Accomplishments: The carbon-based catalysts (including spruce wood
charcoal, Macadamia shell charcoal, coconut shell, activated carbon, and
coal activated carbon successfully gasified organic compounds in
supercritical water. The University of Hawaii at Manoa agreed to pay for a
patent application on the use of carbon catalysts as gasification agents in
supercritical water.

Glycerol with a concentration as high as 2.0 M was completely gasified to
hydrogen-rich synthesis sludge at 600?C, 34.5 MPa without carbon catalysts.
Sludge was completely converted at the same condition with the carbon
catalyst. The destruction efficiency for the organic wastes, including
methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, ethylene glycol, acetic acid, and phenol,
was high.

The effects of temperature and pressure on gasification were investigated
systematically. A reaction temperature of 600?C or higher was required for
complete gasification. Pressures higher than the critical pressure of water
were necessary, but increasing the pressure further did not improve
gasification efficiency.

Major Project Reports: See bibliography.

At:

http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/doeofd/94_95sum/bibproj.html#Carbon

Summary Date: September 1995

***********second appended**************

BioSyngas Product: Synthesis Research
Directing Organization: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585
Project Manager: D. Tyndall, (303) 275-4483

Contractor: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), 1617 Cole
Boulevard, Golden, CO 80401-3393
Principal Investigator: S. Gebhard, (303) 384-6249
Contract Number: in-house
Contract Period: 11/93?11/95
Contract Funding (Source):
FY 1994 and FY 1995: $242,000 (DOE)
Objective: The goal of the Synthesis Task is to evaluate methanol, higher
alcohols, and Fischer Tropsch catalysts for use with biosyngas in an
integrated system. System integration is required to determine syngas
conditioning performance, identify troublesome impurities and catalyst
poisons, and evaluate fuel synthesis catalyst performance for a wide
variety of biosyngas compositions.

Approach/Background: Statistically designed experiments with bottled syngas
and commercial or experimental fuels synthesis catalysts are used to
explore the effects of hydrogen: carbon dioxide ratio, carbon dioxide, and
methane concentrations, and contamination by select tar compounds on
catalyst performance. Variable ranges span those encountered with biosyngas
from different gasifiers. Slurryand gas-phase processes are studied. Syngas
conditioning is performed and poisons and impurities unique to biosyngas
are determined by integrating a bench-scale synthesis reactor system with
the thermochemical process development unit (TPDU) gasifier.

Status/Accomplishments: A high-pressure, bench-scale, synthesis reactor
system was built by TDA Research Inc. for NREL. It has a continuous stirred
tank reactor in parallel with a tubular plug flow reactor. One reactor is
used at a time with up to five gas and two liquid feed streams. The system
is pressure rated to more than 2500 psig and is under full computer process
control. A second computer controls the gas chromatograph and sampling
valve and collects data. A draft safe operating procedure supplied by TDA
Research Inc. is being reviewed.

A syngas compressor was ordered to compress conditioned syngas from the
TPDU gasifier. Three syngas conditioning methods will be available: water
scrubbed, water scrubbed + steam reformed to remove methane, and
hot-catalytically conditioned. The compressor outlet design pressure is
1600 psig and can be used for on-line synthesis or to fill gas cylinders
for later off-line work (e.g., synthesis catalyst lifetime tests for which
running the PDU for extended periods is impractical).

Designs have been started for the water scrubber and slip-stream catalytic
syngas conditioning reactors that will interface the TPDU with the
bench-scale synthesis unit.

NREL has signed confidentiality agreements with BASF and ICI-Katalco to
test their commercial methanol synthesis catalysts. Catalyst samples have
been obtained from BASF and United Catalysts Inc.; samples from ICI are
forthcoming.

An extensive search of recent literature on higher alcohols synthesis
catalysts was conducted. This information will be used to make syngas to
higher alcohols catalysts at NREL for exploratory testing with biosyngas
using the bench unit.

Major Project Reports: See bibliography.

Found at:

http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/doeofd/94_95sum/bibproj.html#Synthesis2

Summary Date: September 1995

***********

From arnt at C2I.NET Mon Jul 28 21:07:26 2003
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: More on the Hawaii high pressure super critical water gasifier
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20030728173545.009f4700@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUL.2003.030726.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:41:22 -0600,
Peter Singfield <snkm@BTL.NET> wrote in message
<3.0.32.20030728173545.009f4700@btlmail.btl.net>:

> While searching around -- found this (appended) of interest.
>
> Actually -- much of interest at this site:
>
> http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/doeofd/94_95sum/biosyngs.html
>
> All from 1995 -- when things were in full swing -- ahh -- those were
> the days folks!!
>
> On with this show!!
>
> (Et Tu Arnt??)

..nice-n-dry summer with nice-n-dry reservoirs up here, power
was 25 US cents per kWh out the wall last winter, and there
_was_ more water last summer. And the idiots keep whining. ;-)

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

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Jul 28 17:49:30 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Question about gasifier charcoal production
Message-ID: <MON.28.JUL.2003.154930.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 10:07 PM 7/28/2003 +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 08:11:05 -0600,
>Peter Singfield <snkm@BTL.NET> wrote in message
><3.0.32.20030728080946.009a42e0@btlmail.btl.net>:

Snipped********
>> Can you supply further information in regards to converting charcoal
>> to activated charcoal on a practical level?
>
>
>..google["steam processing" "activated charcoal" "gas mask" grade].
>

Not as easy as you make it out -- but I did find this neat stuff using this
stringr:

"activated charcoal steam reforming"

Up popped this site of interest:

http://www.hnei.hawaii.edu/text/bio.r3.asp

Where we can read this:

Flash Carbonization of Biomass
Biomass charcoal finds applications in an extraordinary number of
high-value markets. In addition to its use as a barbeque fuel, charcoal is
an important metallurgical reductant, and is used to manufacture activated
carbons. Charcoal is also widely used as a soil amendment, and is sold as a
digestive aid in health stores. Very low-priced charcoal may replace coal
as a boiler fuel. A recent comprehensive review of the art, science, and
technology of charcoal production can be obtained from Professor Michael J.
Antal, Jr.

Url for the professor is:

http://www.hnei.hawaii.edu/text/profiles.asp?id=antal

Ongoing research in the R3Lab has led to the discovery of a new process for
the flash carbonization of biomass. This process involves the ignition of a
flash fire at elevated pressure in a packed bed of biomass. Because of the
elevated pressure, the fire quickly spreads throughout the bed, triggering
the transformation of biomass to biocarbon. Fixed-carbon yields can attain
the thermochemical equilibrium limit after reaction times of 20 to 30
minutes. Biomass feedstocks have included woods (e.g., leucaena and oak),
agricultural byproducts (e.g., macadamia nut shells and corncobs), and wet
green wastes (wood sawdust and Christmas tree chips). In the case of
corncobs, the fixed-carbon yield attained the theoretical limit, and the
reaction was complete after 20 minutes. These findings are described in
more detail in a recent paper "Flash Carbonization of Biomass." (pdf format)

Url for that pdf is:

http://www.hnei.hawaii.edu/flash_carb_biomass.pdf

Although laboratory research concerning the fundamentals of flash
carbonization is continuing, the R3Lab now is assembling a commercial-scale
demonstration reactor that will be operated at the University of Hawaii's
Lyon Arboretum. After the equipment is set up and operational, it will
first be used to test and fine-tune a proprietary catalytic afterburner
that has been designed to enable the flash carbonization process to meet
state and federal emissions requirements. After the emissions regulations
have been satisfied, the reactor will be used to convert the university's
green wastes into charcoal. Large, dense, green waste feedstocks (e.g.,
cinnamon tree logs, coconut shells) will be marketed as barbeque charcoal.
Lighter material (e.g., tree trimmings and macadamia nut shells) will be
marketed as orchid potting soil (see photo below). Some charcoal may also
be marketed as an ultra-clean coal. When it is fully operational, the
demonstration reactor will have the capacity to produce 5 tons per day of
charcoal from green wastes. The total cost of the flash carbonization
facility (equipment, parts, and materials) will be about $70,000.

Biocarbon Fuel Cells
The flash carbonization described above can produce large quantities of
low-cost, biomass-derived carbon. Under the Hawaii Energy and Environmental
Technology Initiative (HEET), researchers are exploring the feasibility of
using this energy source as a fuel for fuel cells. Biocarbon fuel cells
developed under the initial phase of HEET resulted in the generation of
about 400 mV (open-circuit), but power output was limited because of
mechanical design considerations. Work will continue on defining an
appropriate cell geometry, construction materials, and operating protocols
to permit the evaluation of this novel technology.

High-Yield Activated Carbons from Biomass
Activated carbons made from biomass (i.e., coconut shells) charcoal are
used to purify water and air. The R3Lab has developed an air oxidation
process that produces activated carbons from biomass charcoal. This work
was supported by the National Science Foundation.

Hydrogen Production from Biomass
A conventional method for hydrogen production from fossil fuels involves
the reaction of water with methane (steam reforming of methane) at high
temperatures in a catalytic reactor. Research sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Energy led to the development of a process by the R3Lab for
hydrogen production by the catalytic gasification of biomass in
supercritical water (water at high temperature and pressure). This "steam
reforming" process produces a gas at high pressure (>22 MPa) that is
unusually rich in hydrogen. Researchers at the Institut fur Technische
Chemie CPV, Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe in Karlsruhe, Germany are
commercializing a biomass gasification process that employs the conditions
identified by the R3Lab in its pioneering work.

Biomass Pretreatments for the Production of Ethanol and Cellulose
The R3Lab has been a leader in the development of a pretreatment process
that employs hot liquid water to render lignocellulosic biomass susceptible
to simultaneous saccharification and fermentation for the production of
ethanol. This process can also be used to produce microcrystalline
cellulose from biomass. The research was supported by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture and the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research.

Contact: Michael J. Antal, Jr.

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

all in all - lot's of interesting answers to:

"Question about gasifier charcoal production"
Peter Singfield
Belize

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Jul 28 18:07:05 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Hydrogen FAQ
Message-ID: <MON.28.JUL.2003.160705.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Could this be why a sudden interest in activated charcoal??

"Adsorption of hydrogen molecules on activated charcoal (carbon) can
approach the storage density of liquid hydrogen."

(Peter Singfield -- Belize)

From:

http://www.sustainable.energy.sa.gov.au/pages/advisory/renewables/types/othe
r/hydrogen_energy.htm:sectID=48&tempID=52

Hydrogen Energy

Hydrogen is the simplest and most abundant element in the world. It is very
chemically active and rarely exists in nature in its pure form. Usually it
exists in combination with other elements such as oxygen in water (H2O),
carbon in methane (CH4) and in numerous organic compounds. Hydrogen bound
in organic matter and in water makes up about 70% of the earth's surface.

Stored in liquid form, hydrogen is low weight, compact, high energy fuel.
It has the highest energy content of any known fuel with a gross heating
value of 142.04 MJ/kg (net heating value is 119.99 MJ/kg). Hydrogen can be
regarded an energy carrier, or secondary energy source, that can be used in
a number of foreseen applications such as transport, energy storage,
blending with other fuels to minimise pollution and emissions, and
displacement of fossil fuels for the production of electricity.

Current uses of hydrogen are in industrial processes, rocket fuel and space
craft propulsion. Motor vehicles and furnaces can also be converted to use
hydrogen as a fuel. Since the 1950's hydrogen has also been used to power
some aeroplanes, and hydrogen powered cars have been developed. Hydrogen
burns 50% more efficiently than conventional gasoline and petroleum used in
cars.

Another use of hydrogen is in fuel cells to produce energy.

Where Do we Get hydrogen from?

Steam reforming - Currently, most hydrogen is produced by the steam
reforming process. It involves heating fuels, such as methane and methanol,
with a catalyst to separate hydrogen from the rest of the fuel.

Electrolysis - Electrolysis separates the elements of water, hydrogen and
oxygen, by charging the water with an electrical current. Adding an
electrolyte such as salt improves the conductivity of the water and
increases the efficiency of the process. Electrolysis is unlikely to become
a predominant method for large scale hydrogen production. Research has been
performed into usage as an energy storage mechanism in combination with
photovoltaics.

Steam electrolysis - This is a variation of conventional electrolysis, with
part of the energy provided to split the water molecules added has heat
rather than electricity.

Thermal water splitting - At 2500?C water decomposes into hydrogen and
oxygen. One of the problems with this process is preventing water and
oxygen from recombining at the high temperatures used.

Thermochemical water splitting - Thermochemical water splitting uses
chemicals such as bromine or iodine, assisted by heat to cause the water
molecules to split. It takes several steps to accomplish this entire process.

Photo-electrochemical processes - There are two types of
photo-electrochemical processes. The first uses soluble metal complexes as
catalysts. When these complexes dissolve, they absorb solar energy and
produce an electrical charge that drives the water splitting reaction. This
process mimics photosynthesis, however, currently there is minimal
experience in this process. The second method uses semi-conducting
electrodes in a photochemical cell to convert light energy into chemical
energy. The semiconductor surface serves two functions, to absorb solar
energy and to act as an electrode. However, light induced corrosion limits
the useful life of the semiconductor.

Biological and photo-biological processes - Biological and photo-biological
processes us algae and bacteria to produce hydrogen. Under specific
conditions, the pigments in certain types of algae absorb solar energy. The
enzyme in the cell acts as a catalyst to split water molecules. Some
bacteria are also capable of producing hydrogen, but unlike algae they
require a surface to grow on. The organisms not only produce hydrogen but
can also clean up pollution as well.

Biomass decomposition and gasification/pyrolysis - Methane and ethanol can
be produced by the anaerobic digestion of biomass by bacteria. Sources of
such biomass include landfills, livestock wastes, and municipal sewage
treatment plants. The biofuels produced can be reformed or decomposed into
hydrogen and other gases via high temperature gasification processes or low
temperature pyrolysis processes.

 

Hydrogen Storage

When properly stored hydrogen burns in either gaseous or liquid state. When
combusted with pure oxygen, the only by-products are heat and water.
However, when burned with air (which is about 68% nitrogen) some nitrogen
oxides (NOx) are formed. Even then burning hydrogen produces less air
pollutants than burning the same amount of fossil fuels.

Liquid storage - Cooling hydrogen to below its boiling point of -252.7?C
allows storage as a cryogenic liquid without the need for pressurisation.
When cooled to its liquid state, hydrogen takes up 1/700 as much room as in
its gaseous state thus enabling a larger quantity to be stored and
transported. However cryogenic storage is a difficult and expensive process
and refrigeration to the temperature temperatures required consumes the
equivalent of 25-30% of its energy content, and requires special materials
and handling.

Gas storage - Hydrogen may also be stored as a gas which uses less energy
than converting to liquid form. The gas must be pressurised to store any
appreciable amount. For large scale use, pressurised hydrogen could be
stored in caverns, gas-fields and mines before being piped to individual
homes in the same way as natural gas. New materials such as carbon fibre
have permitted storage tanks to be fabricated that can hold hydrogen at
extremely high pressures, however at present, the costs of tanks and
compression are high. Thus, gas storage is not yet economically feasible
for transportation.

Metal hydrides - Metal hydrides are chemical compounds of hydrogen and
other material such as magnesium, nickel, copper, iron and titanium.
Certain metal alloys absorb hydrogen and release it when heated. Hydrogen
can be stored in the form of hydrides at higher densities than by simple
compression. However they still store little energy per unit weight.

Gas on solid adsorption - Adsorption of hydrogen molecules on activated
charcoal (carbon) can approach the storage density of liquid hydrogen.

Microspheres - Very small glass spheres can hold hydrogen at high
pressures, charged with gas at high temperatures where the gas can pass
through the glass wall. At low temperature the glass is impervious to
hydrogen and it is locked in. Customised glass spheres are currently being
developed for this purpose.

From pletkarj at BV.COM Tue Jul 29 14:42:32 2003
From: pletkarj at BV.COM (Pletka, Ryan J.)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: Biomass Co-firing and the Production Tax Credit
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUL.2003.134232.0500.PLETKARJ@BV.COM>

Is there a definitive ruling somewhere that excludes biomass co-firing from
receiving the current US 1.8 cents/kWh production tax credit? I know that
there are current efforts to get the section 45 legislation changed to
specifically include co-firing (perhaps at a lower rate, maybe 1.0
cent/kWh), but I am not aware if the current legislation or some ruling
somehow specifically excludes it.

I was always under the impression that co-firing did not qualify, until I
read this at http://www.treepower.org/new.html:

"Co-firing test burn at TECO's Polk Power Station: In December, whole
eucalyptus trees were harvested and ground for biomass co-firing test burns
(1 to 3% by generation) at Tampa Electric's Polk Power Station
<http://www.tampaelectric.com/TENWPolkVirtualTour.html> . The Polk Power
Station is an ~250 MW IGCC Coal Gasification Unit (an U.S. Department of
Energy/EPRI sponsored clean coal project).

The first phase/series of the co-firing test burns were primarily directed
to qualifying/grandfathering the Polk Power Station for the Internal Revenue
Code Section 45 "Closed-loop Biomass and Wind Energy" Tax Credit. In the
first phase/series of test burns (completed on December 31st), no obvious
operational problems have been encountered, with the coal/biomass wet slurry
passing through all screens.

Additional test burns (involving greater engineering analysis) are scheduled
to be performed through April, 2002.

Qualifying the Polk Power Station for the Section 45 Tax Credit is a
significant accomplishment, as economics for the future use of energy crops
from our Energy Crop Plantation is tremendously enhanced. From an electric
utility's view, the economic value/revenue requirement benefit of the
Section 45 Tax Credit is ~$2.75 per MMBTU. "

Thanks,
Ryan

Ryan Pletka
Renewable Energy Project Manager
Black & Veatch Global Renewable Energy Group
11401 Lamar / Overland Park, KS 66211 USA
913-458-8222

From snkm at BTL.NET Tue Jul 29 11:44:51 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: [STOVES] Hydrogen FAQ
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUL.2003.094451.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 03:47 PM 7/29/2003 +1200, you wrote:
>Peter Singfield wrote:
>
>> Could this be why a sudden interest in activated charcoal??
>>
>> "Adsorption of hydrogen molecules on activated charcoal (carbon) can
>> approach the storage density of liquid hydrogen."
>>
>> (Peter Singfield -- Belize)
>>

Dear Thomas and list;

>
>IThanks, Peter!
>
>If hydrogen behaves like the dry cleaning solvent vapours adsorbed in
activated
>carbon, when the carbon is heated the adsorbed hydrogen will be released
again as
>gas.

Or -- it can also be simple pressure relationship. Charging to high
pressures -- a tank filled with activated carbon -- that then releases H2
as pressure is released -- finally reaching an equilibrium point -- then
needing a recharge.

Ergo my postings (to the Gas list though) about pressurized gasification.
In one example -- at 1600 PSI.

Gasification is still the most used system for producing H2!!

Purification of H2 is best done using membrane separation -- which also
really shines when done at elevated pressure.

So -- gasify in super critical water at 1600 psi or more -- then pass
through membrane separator -- say -- dropping pressure to 500 psi -- or
even 250 psi -- into a tank of activated charcoal -- which:

"can approach the storage density of liquid hydrogen."

Makes for a neat system!!

We can dream a little further along these lines.

Small batch super critical water gasifiers -- you load one time -- gasify
-- purify -- charge tank.

Then you have H2 for X amount of use -- in car (fuel cells) or stove -- etc.

You size your batch reactor accordingly -- so -- saying -- once per week
you process your next week's need of H2 --

And all at very efficient and "clean" -- levels -- and using just about any
biomass.

Cute -- eh??

Guess we have to wait for the Chinese to get going on this. They seem to be
the last nation practicing innovative technology rather than dreaming it??

I proposed this exact system a few years back -- in detail -- to the gas
list.

Should be in the archives.

Remember -- a small house unit that runs on garbage -- lawn clipping and
sewage to name but a few sources of waste biomass available.

Hey people -- come on -- in a real technical oriented society -- why settle
for anything less??

OK -- back to the WWII gasifiers!!

You can be sure no funding or support will be put into these style ventures
-- not in our domain at least.

But I did perfect the reaction vessel -- valving -- insulation -- etc --
for all of the above -- 25 years ago --

And still I "dream" of this technology of gasification "catching-up" --

I should stop dreaming and learn Chinese??

Or the Chinese learn English and study the gas archives??

 

Peter

From arnt at C2I.NET Wed Jul 30 23:27:13 2003
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:27 2004
Subject: [STOVES] Hydrogen FAQ
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20030729094303.009b0690@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <THU.31.JUL.2003.052713.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 09:44:51 -0600,
Peter Singfield <snkm@BTL.NET> wrote in message
<3.0.32.20030729094303.009b0690@btlmail.btl.net>:

> Cute -- eh??
>
> Guess we have to wait for the Chinese to get going on this. They seem
> to be the last nation practicing innovative technology rather than
> dreaming it??

..oh? Ah, _practicing_. We'll see: ;-)
http://theinquirer.net/?article=10724
http://theregister.co.uk/content/4/31206.html
http://midori.transmeta.com/
http://transmeta.com/

..Midori Linux _was_ "American". And the Chinese
government banned Wintendo? "Uhoh." ;-)

..the Asians does have a reputation good quality mass production,
and my guess is, we all are in for a _lot_ of fun here. ;-)

> I should stop dreaming and learn Chinese??
>
> Or the Chinese learn English and study the gas archives??

..oh yeah, they'll like it, and, they'll need power, big time. ;-)

--
..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.