June 2003 Gasification Archive

From Andries.Weststeijn at ESSENT.NL Mon Jun 2 08:30:05 2003
From: Andries.Weststeijn at ESSENT.NL (Weststeijn, Andries)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:25 2004
Subject: GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product
Message-ID: <MON.2.JUN.2003.143005.0200.ANDRIES.WESTSTEIJN@ESSENT.NL>

Hello Peter,

You comment on biogas fired GT's:
>>>Hey -- maybe it is because I spend all of two hours or so researching
this??
>>>Is that why everyone is so negative??
>>>Is western civilization losing it's technical edge when China can do
things
this Gas list is nervous to even discuss??
>>>As in everyone saying it can't be done -- sounds like technology denial
has
set in big time!!

The stuff you discuss here is ten years in the making.
It is not that people are not enthusiastic.
It is not that people say it can't be done.
It is not that people don't recognize the potential.
And I don't think there is a case of technological denial.
But it simply turns out that it takes time (and a great lot of money) to
arrive at reliably operating systems.
Let alone that it is easy to find a party willing to finance a commercial
prototype.
And of the few prototypes being build, some turn out to be an infeasible
scheme (economically or technically).
In short: how to turn an idea into an industrial sized, reliable plant fit
to earn its own upkeep.

By the way, China is not having the edge here, neither on coalgas-to-GT, nor
on biogas-to-GT.

To have a GE LM2500 GT run on pure gasified biomass takes a large gasifier.
Equal to the largest biomass gasifiers currently around.
Even the smaller 16 MWe size would still take a large gasifier in the order
of 100,000 plus tons of wood annually.

Therefore, for the moment it might be easier to think in terms of co-mixing
biogas into the natural gas supply to the GT.
That would shift some of the pressure of operating (and maintaining!) a
large gasifier to mixing low-CV biogas into high-CV natl gas. Sounds easier
than it is. The problem is gas stratification causing flame instability and
consequently turbine vibration. Flame instability is a phenomena known to
coal gasifying people as well.

Indications are that -due to the specific GE GT-burner design- the mixing
problem might be a little easier to solve for large GE GT's than for large
Siemens/Westinghouse or Alstom GT's.
As far as I know there is currently no large scale, long time (commercial)
demonstration project going re cofiring mixed biogas / natural gas fuel in
GT's.

best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Singfield [mailto:snkm@BTL.NET]
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 3:20 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification
product

At 09:56 AM 5/29/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>GT's will be cost-effective within combined-cycle
>design, when compared to IC engines.
>
>Luiz Magri
>S?o Paulo
>

Oh -- you mean like hooking up an Ormat Geothermal turbine to the exhaust??

(Much better -- cheaper -- higher efficiencies -- higher reliability --
less service and maintenance -- than "steam")

Tom -- figure it out yourself -- that pops efficiency to over 50% -- and
easy to do. Waste heat exchanger (relatively low temperature -- clean flue
gas) to heat thermal oil to feed Ormat ORC turbine system)

These are 25 megawatts -- and the price is much less than big diesels --
per kwh.

The list might be interested in this information:

GE wins $8.8 million contract for LM2500 project in Belize

Standby power for Belize Electricity Limited

HOUSTON, Texas (January 23, 2003) - GE Power Systems has been awarded an
$8.8 million contract from Belize Electricity Limited (BEL), to provide
an LM2500 aeroderivative gas turbine-generator set, auxiliary and balance
of plant equipment.

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

That information appended.

Turn Key price is 15 million US. (for 22.8 megs worth of power)

Tom -- that is turn key -- installed!! Are 25 megs of diesel power plant
rated at 37% efficiency less costly?? (Installed here in Belize!!!)

As for operating hours -- GE claims 25,000 hours between over hauls.

Tom -- in that paper at:

http://www.gepower.com/corporate/en_us/assets/combcycle/pdf/gatecycle_analys
is_lm2500_english.pdf

True -- a computer analysis only --

They predict better over all system efficiencies with biomass gas. Around
38% --

And you can still tag 15% (over-all) extra with the Ormat! Now a system of
Over 50%!! And that price is right!

I believe this is a valid direction to pursue. Perfect fit for a sugar
factory -- as example.

The Ormat is an easy after-fit -- any time down the road.

Now -- about the gasifiers for this -- Tom???

Clean gas -- can it be done reliably?? What have you "learned"???

China is claiming 50 to 60% over all efficiencies dual cycling. Coal
gasifying -- gas turbine.

Generating technology Capital cost per kilowatt Fuel conversion
efficiency (%)
***************************** *****************
******************************
coal gasification combined cycle 1,325 50-60

See "that" at:

http://www.probeinternational.org/pi/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=1058

Hey Tom -- smells good -- smells interesting -- eh??

$1,325 capital costs per kwh -- at 50 plus percent over all efficiencies!!

And GE makes a smaller model --

LM1600PA G (gas) 14320 Megawatts

Check out all the info at:

http://www.gepower.com/publications/en_us/pdf/GER3695e.pdf

Hey -- maybe it is because I spend all of two hours or so researching this??

Is that why everyone is so negative??

Is western civilization losing it's technical edge when China can do things
this Gas list is nervous to even discuss??

As in everyone saying it can't be done -- sounds like technology denial has
set in big time!!

These are great turbines -- and as you will see if you follow all those
Urls -- GE is prepared to supply a special turbine specifically adapted to
these purposes!

Peter Singfield - Belize

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

http://www.gepower.com/corporate/en_us/aboutgeps/2003releases/012303.pdf

GE wins $8.8 million contract for LM2500 project in Belize

Standby power for Belize Electricity Limited

"The 22.8 megawatt ISO-rated LM2500 will provide much needed energy
supply to help the utility meet peak power demand and also serve as
backup in case of loss of supply from main energy sources," said BEL's
Vice President, Energy Supply, Derek Davis.

"Presently, BEL has very limited backup capacity," said Davis. "As a
result, when we lose one of our main sources of supply, large portions
of the country are left without power for extended periods. With the gas
turbine online, we will be in a position to significantly minimize power
outages in the event of a failure on the national grid. In addition, we
will be able to use power generated by the gas turbine during peak hours,
instead of the more expensive imported peak power."

There are additional reasons why BEL chose the LM2500 gas turbine. "In
situations where we have a total outage, we need a large unit like the
LM2500 gas turbine to be able to re-energize the grid in a reasonable period
of 10 to 15 minutes. The gas turbine will allow us to do this," explained
Davis. "Without this gas turbine, it takes anywhere from one and a half to
two hours for us to restore power supply."

According to Davis, BEL decided on the LM2500 gas turbine based on the
results of an economic analysis. The analysis showed the gas turbine as the
most economic of the various options analyzed to meet peak energy demand.
Furthermore, the LM2500 model gas turbine is a very popular model and more
than 500 of these units are running on liquid fuel worldwide. Gas turbines
are also being used in other Caribbean countries such as Barbados, Trinidad
and Jamaica.

The LM2500 gas turbine package will be installed at Mile 8 on the Western
Highway. BEL strategically selected this location because of its proximity
to
the Belize/Ladyville load center, which accounts for 50 percent of the
energy
demand. This is also the central point of BEL's national grid. Therefore, if
there were a major loss of supply, BEL would be able to promptly restore
power
to the bulk of its customers.

The LM2500 gas turbine-generator set is scheduled for delivery in April
2003.
Anticipated completion of the installation is mid-June 2003.

From Andries.Weststeijn at ESSENT.NL Mon Jun 2 09:14:12 2003
From: Andries.Weststeijn at ESSENT.NL (Weststeijn, Andries)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:25 2004
Subject: GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product
Message-ID: <MON.2.JUN.2003.151412.0200.ANDRIES.WESTSTEIJN@ESSENT.NL>

Biogas compressor load is a straight forward investment and operational cost
item, but no technological problem as far as I know.

And, as long as it is ran on 100% low-CV biogas, the burner flame
instability problem might not play up as badly as in case of biogas / natl
gas mixing.

In Holland we have one low-CV Japanese gas turbine (GT) running on iron ore
reduction gas (from a steel mill).
In the >100 MWe range.
CV value of this gas is around 5 MJ/m3, which happens to be roughly equal to
the producer gas from a biomass gasifier.
(with exception of the FERCO/Battelle process, which is much higher; towards
15 MJ/m3 I understand).

No European GT manufacturer is specialized in low-CV gas GT's.
Neither have I heard that GE is specialized in this.

I have not heard of another plant site in Europe where either:
a) a large Japanese GT is operating or
b) another brand of GT manufacturer has a large GT operating on low-CV gas
Perhaps other Listers have?

The efficiency of large singular GT's is creeping past the 40% efficiency
mark.
The efficiency of large Pulverized Coal (PC) plants is creeping past the 47%
mark.

Both can up that efficiency by exporting surplus thermal power.
(in case of a GT one then refers to CC = Combined Cycle, and the efficiency
goes up to 55-60%)

Both -in fact- can make use of an Ormat Organic Ranking Cycle as a low
temperature "bottoming" cycle to do something useful with surplus thermal
power. The limitation is economical, rather than technical.

best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

-----Original Message-----
From: LINVENT@AOL.COM [mailto:LINVENT@AOL.COM]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 6:36 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification
product

Gas turbine operation has been looked at by Thermogenics and GE has
discussed
this with us somewhat. The major issue is the parasitic load for compressing
the gas to a usable pressure, 350 psi or so unless the system is operated at
pressure which is another costly step in the process.
There have been some turbines operated on low btu gas, Europe I believe,
but do not have the specifics on this.
The heat rates for turbines are not very good in comparison to IC
engines
so the question is why get involved with them when IC engines are a better
option?

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 snkm at BTL.NET Mon Jun 2 09:44:07 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:25 2004
Subject: GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product
Message-ID: <MON.2.JUN.2003.074407.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Dear All;

First -- the GE LM2500 gas turbine presently being installed here in Belize
will be fueled with diesel.

If low-CV biogas is produced -- it will be to supplement diesel -- as in
dual fuel mode.

I does not have to start as a maximum supplement level -- can be 10% -- or
20% -- etc.

The hard part of that would be convincing the utility here that the turbine
would not be damaged by doing this.

Andries -- great to have your comments on all of this -- as you are the man
that works in this field of endeavor.

>Both -in fact- can make use of an Ormat Organic Ranking Cycle as a low
>temperature "bottoming" cycle to do something useful with surplus thermal
>power. The limitation is economical, rather than technical.

Strange -- the capital costs of installing an Ormat "after-burner" (OK --
slang expression) would be less than $1500 per kwh.

Would it not be of advantage for a second party to negotiate with the power
producer to buy -- at reasonable pricing -- the waste heat from the main
power turbine and install this after burner as a small independent power
production unit to feed grid??

What are capital costs per kwh for the main power plant??

That waste heat is there for the taking. It can be done in stages.

Where is the heat from these main gas turbines going now??

Your right about the huge amount of biomass needed to gasify and operate a
GE LM2500.

However -- remember the Vermont Project??

Here is an extract from my "notes":

Phase 3 will include gas conditioning and the addition of a gas
combustion turbine to the system. Once complete, the integrated
gasification and gas turbine system will be capable of generating
electricity from biomass at significantly higher efficiency than
existing steam-based biomass technologies.

This taken from:

http://www.future-energy.com/ProjectDetails.asp?ProjectID=1

Do not know if this Url still works.

I also found this com to this Gas list -- of interest:

Return-Path: <owner-gasification@crest.org>
From: JIRVING104@aol.com
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 17:26:32 EDT
Subject: Re: GAS-L: Burlington, Vermont, biomass gasification information
request
To: gasification@crest.org
Sender: owner-gasification@crest.org
Reply-To: gasification@crest.org

The Vermont Gasification Project first produced gas in February 1998. It is
located on the site of an existing 50 Mwe combustion biomass plant that has
been operating commercially since 1984.The gasifier project has been in the
process of shakedown and startup. There are several significant
modifications that were deemed necessary to the original design to improve
reliability and operation. The most significant of these changes is a major
modification to the product gas cooling system which is being installed
currently. The plant is scheduled to return to service in mid June. For
questions contact:

John Irving, McNeil Plant Manager
585 PineSt.
Burlington, VT 05401
Phone 802-865-7482
Fax 802-865-7481
email jirving104@aol.com

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

That message if four years old now. Wonder if John is still on this list --
if so -- certainly he has a lot of answers to all these questions.

Did the Vermont project work??

Peter

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

At 03:14 PM 6/2/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>Biogas compressor load is a straight forward investment and operational cost
>item, but no technological problem as far as I know.
>
>And, as long as it is ran on 100% low-CV biogas, the burner flame
>instability problem might not play up as badly as in case of biogas / natl
>gas mixing.
>
>In Holland we have one low-CV Japanese gas turbine (GT) running on iron ore
>reduction gas (from a steel mill).
>In the >100 MWe range.
>CV value of this gas is around 5 MJ/m3, which happens to be roughly equal to
>the producer gas from a biomass gasifier.
>(with exception of the FERCO/Battelle process, which is much higher; towards
>15 MJ/m3 I understand).
>
>No European GT manufacturer is specialized in low-CV gas GT's.
>Neither have I heard that GE is specialized in this.
>
>I have not heard of another plant site in Europe where either:
>a) a large Japanese GT is operating or
>b) another brand of GT manufacturer has a large GT operating on low-CV gas
>Perhaps other Listers have?
>
>The efficiency of large singular GT's is creeping past the 40% efficiency
>mark.
>The efficiency of large Pulverized Coal (PC) plants is creeping past the 47%
>mark.
>
>Both can up that efficiency by exporting surplus thermal power.
>(in case of a GT one then refers to CC = Combined Cycle, and the efficiency
>goes up to 55-60%)
>
>Both -in fact- can make use of an Ormat Organic Ranking Cycle as a low
>temperature "bottoming" cycle to do something useful with surplus thermal
>power. The limitation is economical, rather than technical.
>
>best regards,
>Andries Weststeijn
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: LINVENT@AOL.COM [mailto:LINVENT@AOL.COM]
>Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 6:36 PM
>To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
>Subject: Re: [GASL] GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification
>product
>
>
>Gas turbine operation has been looked at by Thermogenics and GE has
>discussed
>this with us somewhat. The major issue is the parasitic load for compressing
>the gas to a usable pressure, 350 psi or so unless the system is operated at
>pressure which is another costly step in the process.
> There have been some turbines operated on low btu gas, Europe I believe,
>but do not have the specifics on this.
> The heat rates for turbines are not very good in comparison to IC
>engines
>so the question is why get involved with them when IC engines are a better
>option?
>
>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 dknowles at ANTARES.ORG Mon Jun 2 10:25:53 2003
From: dknowles at ANTARES.ORG (Knowles, Dave)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:25 2004
Subject: GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product
Message-ID: <MON.2.JUN.2003.102553.0400.DKNOWLES@ANTARES.ORG>

In regards to the Vermont project:

This project was heavily supported by the US Dept of Energy for many years,
to the tune of $4-6 million per year.
FERCO is no longer in business; a new organization has been formed to try to
commercialize the technology.
No comprehensive report is in the works, so we'll never know how the
gasifier worked. It's a shame. A lot of taxpayer money went into it. They
had a lot of problems, some of which where overcome. In the end, it looks
like the system costs too much. The wood had to be relatively dry, and
minus .25". Coal and natural gas are too cheap. Even the Burlington
Electric Company is running the host boiler on natural gas these days.
They never got to the part where a gas turbine was to be tested on the
syngas.
Here in the US these days, biomass power is like pushing a rock uphill.
Biomass is not cheap, but coal is, and natural gas is relatively cheap.
Producing a gas is not the answer to the competitive problem - even if the
capital cost of the gasifier is zero (which is far from the reality), the
cost of biomass makes biomass power uncompetitive. Working on the current
set of gasifiers will not change that equation. Sorry.
Most people (99++%) of Americans aren't interested in paying for renewable
energy (despite the lip service they pay in surveys- look at participation
in green power programs). So tax credits really aren't the answer to
anything but sustaining an unsustainable industry.
Biomass power needs a technological breakthrough. What will it be?

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Singfield [mailto:snkm@BTL.NET]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 9:44 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product

Dear All;

First -- the GE LM2500 gas turbine presently being installed here in Belize
will be fueled with diesel.

If low-CV biogas is produced -- it will be to supplement diesel -- as in
dual fuel mode.

I does not have to start as a maximum supplement level -- can be 10% -- or
20% -- etc.

The hard part of that would be convincing the utility here that the turbine
would not be damaged by doing this.

Andries -- great to have your comments on all of this -- as you are the man
that works in this field of endeavor.

Strange -- the capital costs of installing an Ormat "after-burner" (OK --
slang expression) would be less than $1500 per kwh.

What are capital costs per kwh for the main power plant??

That waste heat is there for the taking. It can be done in stages.

Where is the heat from these main gas turbines going now??

Your right about the huge amount of biomass needed to gasify and operate a
GE LM2500.

However -- remember the Vermont Project??

Here is an extract from my "notes":

This taken from:

http://www.future-energy.com/ProjectDetails.asp?ProjectID=1

Do not know if this Url still works.

I also found this com to this Gas list -- of interest:

John Irving, McNeil Plant Manager
585 PineSt.
Burlington, VT 05401
Phone 802-865-7482
Fax 802-865-7481
email jirving104@aol.com

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

That message if four years old now. Wonder if John is still on this list --
if so -- certainly he has a lot of answers to all these questions.

Did the Vermont project work??

Peter

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

At 03:14 PM 6/2/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>Biogas compressor load is a straight forward investment and operational
cost
>item, but no technological problem as far as I know.
>
>And, as long as it is ran on 100% low-CV biogas, the burner flame
>instability problem might not play up as badly as in case of biogas / natl
>gas mixing.
>
>In Holland we have one low-CV Japanese gas turbine (GT) running on iron ore
>reduction gas (from a steel mill).
>In the >100 MWe range.
>CV value of this gas is around 5 MJ/m3, which happens to be roughly equal
to
>the producer gas from a biomass gasifier.
>(with exception of the FERCO/Battelle process, which is much higher;
towards
>15 MJ/m3 I understand).
>
>No European GT manufacturer is specialized in low-CV gas GT's.
>Neither have I heard that GE is specialized in this.
>
>I have not heard of another plant site in Europe where either:
>a) a large Japanese GT is operating or
>b) another brand of GT manufacturer has a large GT operating on low-CV gas
>Perhaps other Listers have?
>
>The efficiency of large singular GT's is creeping past the 40% efficiency
>mark.
>The efficiency of large Pulverized Coal (PC) plants is creeping past the
47%
>mark.
>
>Both can up that efficiency by exporting surplus thermal power.
>(in case of a GT one then refers to CC = Combined Cycle, and the efficiency
>goes up to 55-60%)
>
>Both -in fact- can make use of an Ormat Organic Ranking Cycle as a low
>temperature "bottoming" cycle to do something useful with surplus thermal
>power. The limitation is economical, rather than technical.
>
>best regards,
>Andries Weststeijn
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: LINVENT@AOL.COM [mailto:LINVENT@AOL.COM]
>Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 6:36 PM
>To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
>Subject: Re: [GASL] GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification
>product
>
>
>Gas turbine operation has been looked at by Thermogenics and GE has
>discussed
>this with us somewhat. The major issue is the parasitic load for
compressing
>the gas to a usable pressure, 350 psi or so unless the system is operated
at
>pressure which is another costly step in the process.
> There have been some turbines operated on low btu gas, Europe I
believe,
>but do not have the specifics on this.
> The heat rates for turbines are not very good in comparison to IC
>engines
>so the question is why get involved with them when IC engines are a better
>option?
>
>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 Andries.Weststeijn at ESSENT.NL Mon Jun 2 12:39:54 2003
From: Andries.Weststeijn at ESSENT.NL (Weststeijn, Andries)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:25 2004
Subject: GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product
Message-ID: <MON.2.JUN.2003.183954.0200.ANDRIES.WESTSTEIJN@ESSENT.NL>

Dear Peter and List,

On the LM2500 for Belize:

Combining biogas and diesel as co-fueling option for a GT would likely be a
"first-of-a-kind"!
And knowing your ingenuity you should be able to challenge those GE
engineers!
But in all honesty: even in an environment with many large stationary
CC/GT's around -and many experts and facilities close by- this would be a
hell of a debate (who is gonna be the first one to try etc).

Just a wild guess:
what may not have been looked into by anybody anywhere, is whether firing of
tar laden biogas might be "closer" to firing diesel fuel than firing natl
gas. In other words, perhaps the concern for tar laden biogas would be less
in case of diesel firing GT!
If so, that could be a selling point.
Since you would gasify from clean biomass (not waste) I presume, it is
primarily tar as a cause for concern. Clean biomass grown close to the sea
shore makes itself known in terms of a higher sodium content.
My earlier remarks re concern for flame instability induced vibration remain
standing: the diesel burners and gas burners would have to be arranged fully
symmetrical in a most careful way.
So the question is: could a diesel firing GT be less sensitive to biogas
co-firing?

On the Ormat ORC format:

Any power plant (oil, gas, coal, lignite, nuclear) can export 110 C water or
120 C steam for district heating and the like. Those are the conditions -I
believe- closely approximating geothermal sources.
At this temperature it doesn't come for free and can't be fully considered
waste heat.
So it would be no problem at all to "export" this kind of energy flow
"across the fence" to a separate business (in fact an interesting idea).
The underlying "thought model" then becomes whether the avoided cost of
piping in the geothermal heat, would compensate for the (relatively modest)
lost power at the power plant.
At the power plant side this calculation is often done for district heating
and industrial steam delivery, so it is a standardized calculation and no
problem at the power plant end.

Another thing would be to extract low temperature heat somewhere directly
from the coldest spot in the boiler (like an ash trough of a PC, or HRSG of
a GT/CC) or the flue gas ducting.
But that would bring Ormat ownership+operations back to the power plant.

The reason that Ormat-type extraction in power plants is not done more often
by utilities, is --simply put-- the rather low price for electricity
generated in bulk versus investment and O&M.
O&M never comes for free: it isn't done in spare time as a private owner
might expect to do.
Therefore, perhaps a smallish independent company could profit from certain
incentives for small scale generation which aren't available to a large
power generator.

On heat use and heat export:

Large power plants without heat export have a lot of waste heat, but that
only comes available (for moderate climates) below the range 20 C (for
seawater cooling) to 40 C (for cooling tower cooling).
As said, below that range it is a real waste, above that it still
contributes modestly to power production, although at a much lower
efficiency than averaged for the power plant. But consequently still
carrying a price tag per Megawatt-thermal delivered.

Exhaust heat at around 500 C from main GT power plants is being turned into
steam in a Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG). This is the dual cycle
mode, or "Combined Cycle" (CC)
From VHarris001 at AOL.COM Mon Jun 2 12:58:15 2003
From: VHarris001 at AOL.COM (VHarris001@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:25 2004
Subject: GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product
Message-ID: <MON.2.JUN.2003.125815.EDT.>

Dr. Malcolm D. Lefcort has posted here occasionally about his proposal for an
indirect fired turbine, where the biomass gas is burned in a combustor and
the heat is recovered (recuperated) to operate a turbine.

http://www.heuristicengineering.com/papers/Stockholm.pdf

Assuming his proposal is workable, it eliminates some technical problems
associated with gasification, including either (1) producing a clean gas (which
typically requires extensive fuel preparation), or (2) cleaning up a tar-laden
gas stream.

Since a tar-laden producer gas can be combusted to a very clean exhaust, Dr.
Lefcort's proposal would allow for the gasification of a wide range of
biofuels, most interestingly waste fuels, which provides the economic benefit of
disposal cost avoidance.

Typically waste fuels are combusted in a single stage to produce steam for a
steam turbine. In addition to the benefits of two-stage combustion, Dr.
Lefcort's proposal would also eliminate the necessity of managing the steam
generating portion of a plant -- which one would think is a very appealing prospect.

With the cost benefits of very little fuel preparation, and disposal cost
avoidance, it seems that Dr. Lefcort's proposal should be a very attractive
solution. Are there list members who have experience with or comments about his
proposal?

Vernon Harris

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Jun 2 13:51:24 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:25 2004
Subject: GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product
Message-ID: <MON.2.JUN.2003.115124.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Hi Vernon;

Yes -- I remember our past study of this. The problem was in achieving high
over all efficiencies -- but that can be easily negated by dual cycling --
using a geothermal power plant to recover waste heat into electric power.

The indirect fired turbine thus become a "Topping-device" -- generating
power from the highest temperatures.

Why go to all of this bother to begin with -- why not just go
combustion/boiler/steam turbine??

Ask the boys at Vermont --

In order to get high efficiencies out of a steam power plant one has to go
to exceptionally high temperatures -- and that is exceptionally costly.

The turbine is a much cheaper "topper" -- the waste heat recovery using
geothermal ORC plants is a well proven technology -- over 50 years now I
believe -- and the price is right.

But yes -- indirect fired turbine solves so many problems when working with
biomass.

One question -- why can't the indirect fired turbine operate on hot flu
gasses from a tradition direct combustion??

No reason -- right??

Or at least use a hybrid furnace like the Hurst Boilers do.

Replace boiler with indirect fired turbine -- voila!

Biomass Fuel "conditioning" is also a curse for biomass gasifiers. But the
Hurst Hybrid and digest biomass to 55% humidity!!

It offers high combustion efficiencies and a clean flu gas.

Peter Singfield - Belize

At 12:58 PM 6/2/2003 EDT, you wrote:
>Dr. Malcolm D. Lefcort has posted here occasionally about his proposal for an
>indirect fired turbine, where the biomass gas is burned in a combustor and
>the heat is recovered (recuperated) to operate a turbine.
>
>http://www.heuristicengineering.com/papers/Stockholm.pdf
>
>Assuming his proposal is workable, it eliminates some technical problems
>associated with gasification, including either (1) producing a clean gas
(which
>typically requires extensive fuel preparation), or (2) cleaning up a
tar-laden
>gas stream.
>
>Since a tar-laden producer gas can be combusted to a very clean exhaust, Dr.
>Lefcort's proposal would allow for the gasification of a wide range of
>biofuels, most interestingly waste fuels, which provides the economic
benefit of
>disposal cost avoidance.
>
>Typically waste fuels are combusted in a single stage to produce steam for a
>steam turbine. In addition to the benefits of two-stage combustion, Dr.
>Lefcort's proposal would also eliminate the necessity of managing the steam
>generating portion of a plant -- which one would think is a very appealing
prospect.
>
>With the cost benefits of very little fuel preparation, and disposal cost
>avoidance, it seems that Dr. Lefcort's proposal should be a very attractive
>solution. Are there list members who have experience with or comments
about his
>proposal?
>
>Vernon Harris
>

From luizmagri at YAHOO.COM Mon Jun 2 19:26:30 2003
From: luizmagri at YAHOO.COM (Luiz Alberto Magri)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:25 2004
Subject: GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product
In-Reply-To: <BD061DE469F0D511909400508B5C11D347D568@sp0044.epz.nl>
Message-ID: <MON.2.JUN.2003.162630.0700.LUIZMAGRI@YAHOO.COM>

The following extract taken from
http://www.sovereign-publications.com/alstom-power.htm.
More links obtained asking for "Varnamo + biomass". I
think most of them very interesting.

By the way, there has been a project for a wood based
demonstration IGCC plant in Brazil (shut down at end
of conceptual design), but I never been told about
"several" plants!

Luiz Magri
São Paulo

"The Company is the leading player in the non-fossil
fuels market, having supplied two Typhoon gas turbines
for operation on very low calorific value
biomass-derived fuel gases, and is aiming to increase
its contribution to carbon dioxide reduction through
the use of carbon-neutral fuels. Gasification of
biomass and use of the resultant gases in a combined
cycle gas turbine power generation plant enables
higher electrical efficiencies to be achieved than by
using direct combustion in boilers or incineration
with power generation using conventional steam
turbines. Efficiencies of over 40% can be achieved
with a small-scale biomass-fuelled combined cycle
scheme as opposed to around 25% for steam turbines,
improving the competitiveness of electricity generated
from biomass-fuelled plant. Gasification technology
can also lead to significantly lower emissions of
pollutants such as NOx and dust.

The first unit was supplied by ALSTOM Power was to
Sydkraft of Sweden for the Varnamo demonstration
plant, the world's first Biomass Integrated
Gasification Combined Cycle (B-IGCC) scheme. The gas
turbine has completed nearly 4000 hours operation on
gases derived from a variety of biomass fuels,
including wood, wood/bark mixtures, straw and Refuse
Derived Fuel. This demonstration plant provided 6MW of
electricity to the local grid and 9MW of heat to the
town's district heating scheme and successfully
demonstrated the potential of biomass gasification
technology when combined with a gas turbine."

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

From dglickd at PIPELINE.COM Mon Jun 2 20:08:09 2003
From: dglickd at PIPELINE.COM (Dick Glick)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:25 2004
Subject: GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product
Message-ID: <MON.2.JUN.2003.200809.0400.DGLICKD@PIPELINE.COM>

Hello --

Although clearly not low btu gas, the example below has been feeding the system indicated system since 1987 and claims 95% on-line operation -- the original attempt was with an LM6000 that seems to have disappeared.

Best, Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County -- LANDFILL GAS - A NATURAL RESOURCE! -- Clean Fuels Program

The Districts' solid waste management activities have traditionally centered around sanitary landfills as the primary means for solid waste disposal. Solid waste begins to decompose biologically shortly after being buried in landfills and, through the anaerobic decomposition process, generates landfill gas (LFG). Landfill gas, comprised primarily of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2), would contribute to the formation of smog or global warming, cause odors, and even pose safety and health hazards if not properly controlled. The Districts were among the leaders in the landfill industry to install extensive networks of LFG collection systems on all of its sanitary landfills for controlling gas migration and eliminating LFG pollution or hazards. The collected landfill gas is either utilized as a valuable renewable energy source or safely disposed through thermal incineration in landfill gas flares. The majority of the collected landfill gas is utilized for electrical power generation in three steam power plants and one gas turbine facility.
Landfill gas is combustible and can be used as an energy source. To convert landfill gas to energy, the Districts constructed, in the mid 1980's and continues to operate:
a.. Three gas-to-energy facilities
a.. Puente Hills (48 megawatts [MW])
b.. Palos Verdes (6 MW)
c.. Spadra (8.5 MW)
a.. A gas transmission pipeline system to nearby facilities
b.. A compressed natural gas (CNG) facility that dispenses fuel for vehicles.
These energy programs offer four significant benefits:

1. Effective management of methane gas collected at landfills.
2. Revenue from the sale of energy and landfill gas
3. Substantial reductions in emissions by not burning gas by using flares
4. Substantial reductions in emissions that would otherwise be generated by traditional power plants.

The gas-to-energy facilities are conventional Rankine Cycle Steam Power Plants using landfill gas as fuel to generate electricity. Landfill gas is fired in the plant's boilers producing superheated steam. The superheated steam is used to drive the steam turbine/generator to generate electric power. Currently, the three gas-to-energy facilities produce approximately 63 megawatts (MW) net of electric power. The power is sold to the local utility company, Southern California Edison (SCE).

Power sales contracts were negotiated with the utility company during the mid 1980s. At that time, power was in demand, and thus favorable power rates and terms were offered in the contracts. Since the plants' commercial operation, the sales of electricity to the utility company have generated substantial revenues for the Districts. Capital debts for the three facilities have been paid off and the only cost for power production are the operation and maintenance costs. The O&M costs which range from $0.016/kwhr for the Puente Hills Facility to over $0.04/kwhr for the other two smaller facilities. The 1997 net revenues were $16.5 million for the Puente Hills Facility, $6.9 million for the Palos Verdes Facility, and $5.9 million for the Spadra Facility

By using boilers to combust the gas and a landfill gas pretreatment system customized for each facility, the Districts maintain emission rates well below those required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and those of natural, gas-fueled utility power plants. Overall, the three facilities have successfully demonstrated that a landfill gas-to-energy plant can combust low-Btu landfill gas as boiler fuel, reduce air emissions, and provide significant economic benefits for landfill owners. For further information contact: Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Department 1955 Workman Mill Road P.O. Box 4998 Whittier, CA 90607 (562) 699-7411, extension 2428

----- Original Message -----
From: "Luiz Alberto Magri" <luizmagri@YAHOO.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product

> The following extract taken from
> http://www.sovereign-publications.com/alstom-power.htm.
> More links obtained asking for "Varnamo + biomass". I
> think most of them very interesting.
>
> By the way, there has been a project for a wood based
> demonstration IGCC plant in Brazil (shut down at end
> of conceptual design), but I never been told about
> "several" plants!
>
> Luiz Magri
> S?o Paulo
>
> "The Company is the leading player in the non-fossil
> fuels market, having supplied two Typhoon gas turbines
> for operation on very low calorific value
> biomass-derived fuel gases, and is aiming to increase
> its contribution to carbon dioxide reduction through
> the use of carbon-neutral fuels. Gasification of
> biomass and use of the resultant gases in a combined
> cycle gas turbine power generation plant enables
> higher electrical efficiencies to be achieved than by
> using direct combustion in boilers or incineration
> with power generation using conventional steam
> turbines. Efficiencies of over 40% can be achieved
> with a small-scale biomass-fuelled combined cycle
> scheme as opposed to around 25% for steam turbines,
> improving the competitiveness of electricity generated
> from biomass-fuelled plant. Gasification technology
> can also lead to significantly lower emissions of
> pollutants such as NOx and dust.
>
> The first unit was supplied by ALSTOM Power was to
> Sydkraft of Sweden for the Varnamo demonstration
> plant, the world's first Biomass Integrated
> Gasification Combined Cycle (B-IGCC) scheme. The gas
> turbine has completed nearly 4000 hours operation on
> gases derived from a variety of biomass fuels,
> including wood, wood/bark mixtures, straw and Refuse
> Derived Fuel. This demonstration plant provided 6MW of
> electricity to the local grid and 9MW of heat to the
> town's district heating scheme and successfully
> demonstrated the potential of biomass gasification
> technology when combined with a gas turbine."
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> http://calendar.yahoo.com

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Jun 2 21:17:26 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:25 2004
Subject: GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product
Message-ID: <MON.2.JUN.2003.191726.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Which brings us around full circle to four or so years back --

Steam reforming biomass to produce mostly methane.

Doing that using super heated water.

To date -- every such effort has been to production of synthesis gas --
which requires higher temperatures is more complicated process.

Methane is easier to produce by steam reformation -- lower temperatures.

A super critcal water bath under high pressure is a quick solution to steam
reforming.

It is all in the Gas List archives.

Remember this fellows:

HYDROGEN PRODUCTION FROM HIGH-MOISTURE CONTENT BIOMASS IN
SUPERCRITICAL WATER
[IMAGE]

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

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is investigating the use of water as the medium for
converting biomass to gas. Previous work showed that low
concentrations of a model compound (glucose) and various wet biomass
species could be completely gasified in supercritical water at 600C
and 34.5 MPa (5,000 psi) after 30 seconds. But higher concentrations
of glucose resulted in incomplete conversion. For this reason, flow
reactors have been constructed that accommodate packed beds of
catalyst. The goal is to identify active catalysts for steam
reforming biomass slurries in supercritical water. Carbon-based
catalysts promote complete conversion (>99%) of high-concentration
glucose (up to 22% by weight) to a hydrogen-rich synthesis gas. The
catalyst is stable over a period of several hours, is inexpensive,
and exists in a wide variety of forms. The gaseous products
(primarily hydrogen, CO2, and methane) separate from the water upon
cooling at the reactor exit and are then available for storage or
further processing at a pressure of 34.5 MPa.
PARTICIPANT

University of Hawaii

STATUS
Project is ongoing

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

No one tried the easier route -- gearing for production of methane -- a
high energy (relatively) gas fuel that solves so many problems when
extracting power by IC or gas turbine engines.

Peter Singfield - Belize

At 08:08 PM 6/2/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>Hello --
>
>Although clearly not low btu gas, the example below has been feeding the
system indicated system since 1987 and claims 95% on-line operation -- the
original attempt was with an LM6000 that seems to have disappeared.
>
>Best, Dick
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
>Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County -- LANDFILL GAS - A NATURAL
RESOURCE! -- Clean Fuels Program
>
>The Districts' solid waste management activities have traditionally
centered around sanitary landfills as the primary means for solid waste
disposal. Solid waste begins to decompose biologically shortly after being
buried in landfills and, through the anaerobic decomposition process,
generates landfill gas (LFG). Landfill gas, comprised primarily of methane
(CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2), would contribute to the formation of smog
or global warming, cause odors, and even pose safety and health hazards if
not properly controlled. The Districts were among the leaders in the
landfill industry to install extensive networks of LFG collection systems
on all of its sanitary landfills for controlling gas migration and
eliminating LFG pollution or hazards. The collected landfill gas is either
utilized as a valuable renewable energy source or safely disposed through
thermal incineration in landfill gas flares. The majority of the collected
landfill gas is utilized for electrical power generation in three steam
power plants and one gas turbine facility.
>Landfill gas is combustible and can be used as an energy source. To
convert landfill gas to energy, the Districts constructed, in the mid
1980's and continues to operate:
> a.. Three gas-to-energy facilities
> a.. Puente Hills (48 megawatts [MW])
> b.. Palos Verdes (6 MW)
> c.. Spadra (8.5 MW)
> a.. A gas transmission pipeline system to nearby facilities
> b.. A compressed natural gas (CNG) facility that dispenses fuel for
vehicles.
>These energy programs offer four significant benefits:
>
>1. Effective management of methane gas collected at landfills.
>2. Revenue from the sale of energy and landfill gas
>3. Substantial reductions in emissions by not burning gas by using
flares
>4. Substantial reductions in emissions that would otherwise be
generated by traditional power plants.
>
>
>
>The gas-to-energy facilities are conventional Rankine Cycle Steam Power
Plants using landfill gas as fuel to generate electricity. Landfill gas is
fired in the plant's boilers producing superheated steam. The superheated
steam is used to drive the steam turbine/generator to generate electric
power. Currently, the three gas-to-energy facilities produce approximately
63 megawatts (MW) net of electric power. The power is sold to the local
utility company, Southern California Edison (SCE).
>
>
>
>Power sales contracts were negotiated with the utility company during the
mid 1980s. At that time, power was in demand, and thus favorable power
rates and terms were offered in the contracts. Since the plants'
commercial operation, the sales of electricity to the utility company have
generated substantial revenues for the Districts. Capital debts for the
three facilities have been paid off and the only cost for power production
are the operation and maintenance costs. The O&M costs which range from
$0.016/kwhr for the Puente Hills Facility to over $0.04/kwhr for the other
two smaller facilities. The 1997 net revenues were $16.5 million for the
Puente Hills Facility, $6.9 million for the Palos Verdes Facility, and $5.9
million for the Spadra Facility
>
>
>
>By using boilers to combust the gas and a landfill gas pretreatment system
customized for each facility, the Districts maintain emission rates well
below those required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) and those of natural, gas-fueled utility power plants. Overall,
the three facilities have successfully demonstrated that a landfill
gas-to-energy plant can combust low-Btu landfill gas as boiler fuel, reduce
air emissions, and provide significant economic benefits for landfill
owners. For further information contact: Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County Solid Waste Management Department 1955 Workman Mill Road
P.O. Box 4998 Whittier, CA 90607 (562) 699-7411, extension 2428
>
>

From dglickd at PIPELINE.COM Tue Jun 3 05:20:31 2003
From: dglickd at PIPELINE.COM (Dick Glick)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:25 2004
Subject: GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product
Message-ID: <TUE.3.JUN.2003.052031.0400.DGLICKD@PIPELINE.COM>

Hello --

I want to apologize for not appropriately referencing my previous email on this issue, i.e., that covering power at the Puente Hills Landfill. I did not author the included information; the material presented below my signing was that from:
http://www.lacsd.org/swaste/Facilities/LFGas/Gas-To-EnergyFacilities.htm

Thank you and Best, Dick

From Andries.Weststeijn at ESSENT.NL Tue Jun 3 10:02:01 2003
From: Andries.Weststeijn at ESSENT.NL (Weststeijn, Andries)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:25 2004
Subject: GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product
Message-ID: <TUE.3.JUN.2003.160201.0200.ANDRIES.WESTSTEIJN@ESSENT.NL>

Dear Luiz,

On TPS gasification:

The Brazil plants were done by TPS with RD/Shell (stopped during design
phase)
The 8 MWe Arbre plant in the UK was done by TPS with KMS (plant started up
but cancelled)
The 6 MWe Varnam? plant in Sweden was the first gasifier from TPS (Plant
stopped after demonstration phase).

Why Varnam? worked and Arbre not, I don't know off hand.
All I know is the Arbre was supposed to be commercial, while Varnam? was a
demonstration plant.
Nevertheless, they were about the same size and both with a tar cracker.
In any case, Varnam? worked only for a limited length of time, so the number
of full power running hours on the turbine was relatively limited, given
that the total running time was only 4000 hours.
So, not even half a year's worth of running time and perhaps 2 or 3 month of
full load running time?
A good start, but certainly not more than a start.

On efficiencies:

(statement from gasifier company copied from your attachment):
"Efficiencies of over 40% can be achieved with a small-scale biomass-fuelled
combined cycle scheme as opposed to around 25% for steam turbines, improving
the competitiveness of electricity generated from biomass-fuelled plant".

Perhaps in the size range of 40% efficiency for GT/CC, for steam 32% would
be a more reasonable number here.
Which would still leave the GT/CC a comparable advantage of (40-32)/32 = 25%
from which to finance the additional investment in and O&M of the gasifier
plant close-coupled to the GT/CC plant.

I keep hacking away at these statements for the sake for fair comparability.
It doesn't make sense to continuously underrate steam boiler + steam turbine
performance, although there is nothing wrong with the high efficiencies of a
Combined Cycle (gas turbine + steam turbine) scheme.
But in these cases the best of the best in GT combined cycle technology
typically get compared with the oldest of the oldest in steam technology.
That gives the wrong impression when looking for the most economical process
of applying biomass for power generation (and mitigate long cyclic CO2
emissions).

"Highest efficiency" might not necessarily always equal "most economical".
Carving out a stable, permanent position for biomass fuel, however,
definitely requires that most economical solution.

best regards,
Andries

-----Original Message-----
From: Luiz Alberto Magri [mailto:luizmagri@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 1:27 AM
To: Weststeijn, Andries; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification
product

The following extract taken from
http://www.sovereign-publications.com/alstom-power.htm.
More links obtained asking for "Varnamo + biomass". I
think most of them very interesting.

By the way, there has been a project for a wood based
demonstration IGCC plant in Brazil (shut down at end
of conceptual design), but I never been told about
"several" plants!

Luiz Magri
S?o Paulo

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

From luizmagri at YAHOO.COM Tue Jun 3 13:31:29 2003
From: luizmagri at YAHOO.COM (Luiz Alberto Magri)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:25 2004
Subject: GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product
In-Reply-To: <BD061DE469F0D511909400508B5C11D347D56E@sp0044.epz.nl>
Message-ID: <TUE.3.JUN.2003.103129.0700.LUIZMAGRI@YAHOO.COM>

Dear Andries,

I just want to add information on the discussion. I
understand there was a question on whether gas
turbines have ever been running under producer gas or
not. At Varnamo they have for sure.

Both Bioflow and TPS have been working on the
Brazilian project (each one offering a different
design: pressurized against atmospheric gasification).
But I am quite sure there was only one project -
sponsored by WB. At least I have never been told of
anyone else.

Regarding efficiencies, brochures type releases like
the one I have forwarded seldom provide reliable
information. But it happens Alstom is not totally
wrong this time. For a 25% steam cycle, the related CC
(assuming simple GT is around 30%) would be in the
range of 40%. A 32% steam cycle would lead to some 45%
CC efficiency. The trick in all this is that pure
steam cycle units will be more efficcient because they
will run under more sophisticated conditions
(regeneration, higher pressures, multiple passes etc).
This is not a matter of how old is the technology, the
difference is linked to the boiler design. Anyway, I
agree the comparison is unfair.

Luiz Magri
São Paulo

--- "Weststeijn, Andries"
<Andries.Weststeijn@ESSENT.NL> wrote:
> Dear Luiz,
>
> On TPS gasification:
>
> The Brazil plants were done by TPS with RD/Shell
> (stopped during design
> phase)
> The 8 MWe Arbre plant in the UK was done by TPS with
> KMS (plant started up
> but cancelled)
> The 6 MWe Varnamö plant in Sweden was the first
> gasifier from TPS (Plant
> stopped after demonstration phase).
>
> Why Varnamö worked and Arbre not, I don't know off
> hand.
> All I know is the Arbre was supposed to be
> commercial, while Varnamö was a
> demonstration plant.
> Nevertheless, they were about the same size and both
> with a tar cracker.
> In any case, Varnamö worked only for a limited
> length of time, so the number
> of full power running hours on the turbine was
> relatively limited, given
> that the total running time was only 4000 hours.
> So, not even half a year's worth of running time and
> perhaps 2 or 3 month of
> full load running time?
> A good start, but certainly not more than a start.
>
> On efficiencies:
>
> (statement from gasifier company copied from your
> attachment):
> "Efficiencies of over 40% can be achieved with a
> small-scale biomass-fuelled
> combined cycle scheme as opposed to around 25% for
> steam turbines, improving
> the competitiveness of electricity generated from
> biomass-fuelled plant".
>
> Perhaps in the size range of 40% efficiency for
> GT/CC, for steam 32% would
> be a more reasonable number here.
> Which would still leave the GT/CC a comparable
> advantage of (40-32)/32 = 25%
> from which to finance the additional investment in
> and O&M of the gasifier
> plant close-coupled to the GT/CC plant.
>
> I keep hacking away at these statements for the sake
> for fair comparability.
> It doesn't make sense to continuously underrate
> steam boiler + steam turbine
> performance, although there is nothing wrong with
> the high efficiencies of a
> Combined Cycle (gas turbine + steam turbine) scheme.
> But in these cases the best of the best in GT
> combined cycle technology
> typically get compared with the oldest of the oldest
> in steam technology.
> That gives the wrong impression when looking for the
> most economical process
> of applying biomass for power generation (and
> mitigate long cyclic CO2
> emissions).
>
> "Highest efficiency" might not necessarily always
> equal "most economical".
> Carving out a stable, permanent position for biomass
> fuel, however,
> definitely requires that most economical solution.
>
> best regards,
> Andries
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luiz Alberto Magri
> [mailto:luizmagri@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 1:27 AM
> To: Weststeijn, Andries;
> GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [GASL] GE LM2500 Gas turbine and
> Biomass gasification
> product
>
>
>
> The following extract taken from
>
http://www.sovereign-publications.com/alstom-power.htm.
> More links obtained asking for "Varnamo + biomass".
> I
> think most of them very interesting.
>
> By the way, there has been a project for a wood
> based
> demonstration IGCC plant in Brazil (shut down at end
> of conceptual design), but I never been told about
> "several" plants!
>
> Luiz Magri
> São Paulo
>
> "The Company is the leading player in the non-fossil
> fuels market, having supplied two Typhoon gas
> turbines
> for operation on very low calorific value
> biomass-derived fuel gases, and is aiming to
> increase
> its contribution to carbon dioxide reduction through
> the use of carbon-neutral fuels. Gasification of
> biomass and use of the resultant gases in a combined
> cycle gas turbine power generation plant enables
> higher electrical efficiencies to be achieved than
> by
> using direct combustion in boilers or incineration
> with power generation using conventional steam
> turbines. Efficiencies of over 40% can be achieved
> with a small-scale biomass-fuelled combined cycle
> scheme as opposed to around 25% for steam turbines,
> improving the competitiveness of electricity
> generated
> from biomass-fuelled plant. Gasification technology
> can also lead to significantly lower emissions of
> pollutants such as NOx and dust.
>
> The first unit was supplied by ALSTOM Power was to
> Sydkraft of Sweden for the Varnamo demonstration
> plant, the world's first Biomass Integrated
> Gasification Combined Cycle (B-IGCC) scheme. The gas
> turbine has completed nearly 4000 hours operation on
> gases derived from a variety of biomass fuels,
> including wood, wood/bark mixtures, straw and Refuse
> Derived Fuel. This demonstration plant provided 6MW
> of
> electricity to the local grid and 9MW of heat to the
> town's district heating scheme and successfully
> demonstrated the potential of biomass gasification
> technology when combined with a gas turbine."
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to
> Outlook(TM).
> http://calendar.yahoo.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

From Andries.Weststeijn at ESSENT.NL Tue Jun 3 16:25:01 2003
From: Andries.Weststeijn at ESSENT.NL (Weststeijn, Andries)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:25 2004
Subject: GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product
Message-ID: <TUE.3.JUN.2003.222501.0200.ANDRIES.WESTSTEIJN@ESSENT.NL>

Dear Luiz and Listers,

Thank you for the additional info re Brazil.
Me for one, I would like to know why TPS succeeded in Varnam? (a they
claim), while apparently it didn't work out at Arbre.
Both projects have a similar set-up of TPS gasifier, TPS tar cracker and
close-coupled gas turbine.
Unit size approximately equal (6 MWe in Sweden, 8 MWe in the UK).

On the steam cycle:
I understood the steam cycle efficiency to belong to a smallish stand-alone
steam boiler/steam turbine (i.e. no GT).
In order to compare this stand-alone steam cycle to a GT/CC plant, I choose
the size and power of the steam plant to be about equal to a GT/CC plant
with an given efficiency of 40%. This 40% shows that it is a smallish GT/CC
plant, since a truly large GT/CC plant is in the order of 55-58%.
For a stand-alone steam plant sized to the given GT/CC plant, I found 25%
efficiency to be quite low and went to 32% (which is still low).

Listers, don't confuse the steam cycle of a stand-alone steam plant with the
steam cycle of a GT/CC plant! The latter raises steam in a Heat Recovery
Steam Generator (or HRSG) driven by GT exhaust gases of only around 500 C.
For steam cycles this is a quite low temperature heat source, since
stand-alone steam cycles commonly raise steam at twice the temperature (by
flue gases of 1000 C and higher).
Therefore, given the lower driving gas temperature of a GT/CC steam
generator, the steam cycle of a GT/CC plant will have a much more modest
efficiency compared to a stand-alone steam plant. Thermal-dynamics 101.
Also, this is quite understandable, given that the steam cycle of a GT plant
(i.e. the CC part of the plant) really only is a "waste heat" recovery
cycle, not a prime mover cycle of the plant.

best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

-----Original Message-----
From: Luiz Alberto Magri [mailto:luizmagri@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 7:31 PM
To: Weststeijn, Andries; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification
product

Dear Andries,

I just want to add information on the discussion. I
understand there was a question on whether gas
turbines have ever been running under producer gas or
not. At Varnamo they have for sure.

Luiz Magri
S?o Paulo

--- "Weststeijn, Andries"
<Andries.Weststeijn@ESSENT.NL> wrote:
> Dear Luiz,
>
> On TPS gasification:
>
> The Brazil plants were done by TPS with RD/Shell
> (stopped during design
> phase)
> The 8 MWe Arbre plant in the UK was done by TPS with
> KMS (plant started up
> but cancelled)
> The 6 MWe Varnam? plant in Sweden was the first
> gasifier from TPS (Plant
> stopped after demonstration phase).
>
> Why Varnam? worked and Arbre not, I don't know off
> hand.
> All I know is the Arbre was supposed to be
> commercial, while Varnam? was a
> demonstration plant.
> Nevertheless, they were about the same size and both
> with a tar cracker.
> In any case, Varnam? worked only for a limited
> length of time, so the number
> of full power running hours on the turbine was
> relatively limited, given
> that the total running time was only 4000 hours.
> So, not even half a year's worth of running time and
> perhaps 2 or 3 month of
> full load running time?
> A good start, but certainly not more than a start.
>
> On efficiencies:
>
> (statement from gasifier company copied from your
> attachment):
> "Efficiencies of over 40% can be achieved with a
> small-scale biomass-fuelled
> combined cycle scheme as opposed to around 25% for
> steam turbines, improving
> the competitiveness of electricity generated from
> biomass-fuelled plant".
>
> Perhaps in the size range of 40% efficiency for
> GT/CC, for steam 32% would
> be a more reasonable number here.
> Which would still leave the GT/CC a comparable
> advantage of (40-32)/32 = 25%
> from which to finance the additional investment in
> and O&M of the gasifier
> plant close-coupled to the GT/CC plant.
>
> I keep hacking away at these statements for the sake
> for fair comparability.
> It doesn't make sense to continuously underrate
> steam boiler + steam turbine
> performance, although there is nothing wrong with
> the high efficiencies of a
> Combined Cycle (gas turbine + steam turbine) scheme.
> But in these cases the best of the best in GT
> combined cycle technology
> typically get compared with the oldest of the oldest
> in steam technology.
> That gives the wrong impression when looking for the
> most economical process
> of applying biomass for power generation (and
> mitigate long cyclic CO2
> emissions).
>
> "Highest efficiency" might not necessarily always
> equal "most economical".
> Carving out a stable, permanent position for biomass
> fuel, however,
> definitely requires that most economical solution.
>
> best regards,
> Andries
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luiz Alberto Magri
> [mailto:luizmagri@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 1:27 AM
> To: Weststeijn, Andries;
> GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [GASL] GE LM2500 Gas turbine and
> Biomass gasification
> product
>
>
>
> The following extract taken from
>
http://www.sovereign-publications.com/alstom-power.htm.
> More links obtained asking for "Varnamo + biomass".
> I
> think most of them very interesting.
>
> By the way, there has been a project for a wood
> based
> demonstration IGCC plant in Brazil (shut down at end
> of conceptual design), but I never been told about
> "several" plants!
>
> Luiz Magri
> S?o Paulo
>
> "The Company is the leading player in the non-fossil
> fuels market, having supplied two Typhoon gas
> turbines
> for operation on very low calorific value
> biomass-derived fuel gases, and is aiming to
> increase
> its contribution to carbon dioxide reduction through
> the use of carbon-neutral fuels. Gasification of
> biomass and use of the resultant gases in a combined
> cycle gas turbine power generation plant enables
> higher electrical efficiencies to be achieved than
> by
> using direct combustion in boilers or incineration
> with power generation using conventional steam
> turbines. Efficiencies of over 40% can be achieved
> with a small-scale biomass-fuelled combined cycle
> scheme as opposed to around 25% for steam turbines,
> improving the competitiveness of electricity
> generated
> from biomass-fuelled plant. Gasification technology
> can also lead to significantly lower emissions of
> pollutants such as NOx and dust.
>
> The first unit was supplied by ALSTOM Power was to
> Sydkraft of Sweden for the Varnamo demonstration
> plant, the world's first Biomass Integrated
> Gasification Combined Cycle (B-IGCC) scheme. The gas
> turbine has completed nearly 4000 hours operation on
> gases derived from a variety of biomass fuels,
> including wood, wood/bark mixtures, straw and Refuse
> Derived Fuel. This demonstration plant provided 6MW
> of
> electricity to the local grid and 9MW of heat to the
> town's district heating scheme and successfully
> demonstrated the potential of biomass gasification
> technology when combined with a gas turbine."
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to
> Outlook(TM).
> http://calendar.yahoo.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

From snkm at BTL.NET Tue Jun 3 20:44:48 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product
Message-ID: <TUE.3.JUN.2003.184448.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Dear Luis, Andries and listers;

At 10:25 PM 6/3/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>Dear Luiz and Listers,

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

>Listers, don't confuse the steam cycle of a stand-alone steam plant with the
>steam cycle of a GT/CC plant! The latter raises steam in a Heat Recovery
>Steam Generator (or HRSG) driven by GT exhaust gases of only around 500 C.
>For steam cycles this is a quite low temperature heat source, since
>stand-alone steam cycles commonly raise steam at twice the temperature (by
>flue gases of 1000 C and higher).

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

Problem is simple. For Stem power plants less than 10 megs (or even less
than 100 megs!!) it is just to capital intensive to go to high
pressure/temp steam with all the attached bells and whistles for increased
over all efficiencies.

Scale of economics -- etc.

Steam can be dual cycled along the same lines as the gas turbine. It is
truly ancient technology. I have an old Mark's Engineering handbook -- 1921
-- where great increases in system efficiency are achieved by fitting a
refrigeration working fluid cycle to the exhaust of a steam engine. These
both being piston engines -- not even turbines.

Like fitting an Ormat to the exhaust of a gas turbine.

Why bother with after fitting an ORC to a steam system -- or a gas turbine
(rather than steam as you mention above)

If you got to this Url:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mbiddle/LS-GSE.htm

You should be looking at a chart that demonstrates Gross System
Efficiencies at different temperatures using different working fluids.

It is all in relation to the same turbine -- and that being of just 70%
efficiency. This is a small system. No exotic bells and whistles.

But the turbine efficiency in this example is the same for all working
fluids compared.

One can not help but notice this:

Pentane working fluid achieves 26% efficiencies at 275 C

Steam achieves 23% at 500 C

(Both are more or less -- being viewed as a graph)

Look -- one can shift efficiencies up greatly by going to a refrigerant at
lower process temperatures. This is a "given" and is certainly well
understood by the geothermal crowd.

So where does this all fit together??

You can do as they did pre 1921 with turbines.

First turbine being high temperature steam. Second turbine being a low
temperature ORC turbine.

Why bother??

Because in small systems -- a topping turbine with it's (steam) exhaust
mated to an ORC turbine will give exceptional over all efficiencies for
exceptionally low prices -- plus be extremely reliable and much less
maintenance.

Think well on this -- if you can't grasp the concept -- the reasoning -- I
can certainly demonstrate it in math. But it will take pages and pages.

The "trick" inherent in this:

Combustion of bagasse -- as example -- is very "dirty" and means much
problems with boiler tubing. This limits boiler designs to fire tube --
rather than water tube.

But such fire tube boilers are happiest below 400 PSI -- and this severely
limits system efficiencies.

On the other hand -- the cost of a fire tube boiler is a fraction of a same
capacity water tube -- high pressure -- high temperature -- boiler.

To increase the efficiencies of this fire tube boiler can be accomplished
by adding a lot of super heat to the 400 psi steam (say to 600 C) and
running that through a topping turbine.

The exhaust from this topping turbine then running an ORC turbine.

A topping turbine is an extremely reliable and economic turbine. Normally
applied in industry when some power needs be extracted -- and all the
exhaust steam used for processes. But that exhaust steam must still be of
high quality --

Definitely no condenser --

Think on this concept -- it is quite clear when pondered.

Peter Singfield / Belize

From Steve.Goldthorpe at XTRA.CO.NZ Tue Jun 3 21:29:42 2003
From: Steve.Goldthorpe at XTRA.CO.NZ (Steve Goldthorpe)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product
Message-ID: <WED.4.JUN.2003.132942.1200.STEVE.GOLDTHORPE@XTRA.CO.NZ>

Peter Singfield wrote

"Problem is simple. For steam power plants less than 10 megawatts (or even
less than 100 megawatts) it is just too capital intensive to go to high
pressure/temp steam with all the attached bells and whistles for increased
over all efficiencies.
Scale of economics -- etc."

I agree that this is the traditional engineering thinking, which governs
what is currently on the market. However, in these days of electronic
controls, integrated engineering and modularization, some of the traditional
cost barriers are being broken down. Just look at the sophistication of
cheap consumer items that surround us. Whilst we cannot get around the laws
of thermodynamics, the laws of economics are fair game for the inventive
entrepreneur.

Regards

Steve

Steve Goldthorpe Energy Analyst Limited
PO Box 96, Waipu 0254, New Zealand
and Waipu Wanderers Backpackers
25 St Mary's Road, Waipu, Northland
Phone/Fax (NZ) 09 432 0532
Mobile (NZ) 0274 849 764
Email Steve.Goldthorpe@xtra.co.nz
and Waipu.Wanderers@xtra.co.nz

From d.j.fulford at READING.AC.UK Wed Jun 4 04:03:43 2003
From: d.j.fulford at READING.AC.UK (David Fulford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product
In-Reply-To: <BD061DE469F0D511909400508B5C11D347D575@sp0044.epz.nl>
Message-ID: <WED.4.JUN.2003.090343.0100.D.J.FULFORD@READING.AC.UK>

Dear Andries and listers,

As a search for material for a course on renewable energy, I downloaded
several articles from the TPS web site before they reorganised it and
removed them. Reading this information (and somewhat interpreting what it
was saying), they actually found very similar problems both at Varnamo and
Arbre, in terms of particulates and tars blocking their main filters. They
had enough finance at Varnamo to replace the filters with an improved
version. Even so, they did not seem to run the turbines for very long on
the gas. They did not ever generate on a commercial level.

The collapse at Arbre was caused by the failure to get to the point of
running commercially. Some of the investors pulled out, because they could
not see that the plant could achieve a full-time generating operation (even
though they had already accepted that it would not be economic to do so).
So, both plants seemed to have reached the same stage at a technical level,
but the Arbre plant failed when they tried to take it one stage further.

Other people on the list might have some better insights into the situation.

David

At 22:25 03/06/2003 +0200, Andries Weststeijn wrote:

>Thank you for the additional info re Brazil.
>Me for one, I would like to know why TPS succeeded in Varnam? (a they
>claim), while apparently it didn't work out at Arbre.
>Both projects have a similar set-up of TPS gasifier, TPS tar cracker and
>close-coupled gas turbine.
>Unit size approximately equal (6 MWe in Sweden, 8 MWe in the UK).
>
>On the steam cycle:
>I understood the steam cycle efficiency to belong to a smallish stand-alone
>steam boiler/steam turbine (i.e. no GT).
>In order to compare this stand-alone steam cycle to a GT/CC plant, I choose
>the size and power of the steam plant to be about equal to a GT/CC plant
>with an given efficiency of 40%. This 40% shows that it is a smallish GT/CC
>plant, since a truly large GT/CC plant is in the order of 55-58%.
>For a stand-alone steam plant sized to the given GT/CC plant, I found 25%
>efficiency to be quite low and went to 32% (which is still low).
>
>Listers, don't confuse the steam cycle of a stand-alone steam plant with the
>steam cycle of a GT/CC plant! The latter raises steam in a Heat Recovery
>Steam Generator (or HRSG) driven by GT exhaust gases of only around 500 C.
>For steam cycles this is a quite low temperature heat source, since
>stand-alone steam cycles commonly raise steam at twice the temperature (by
>flue gases of 1000 C and higher).
>Therefore, given the lower driving gas temperature of a GT/CC steam
>generator, the steam cycle of a GT/CC plant will have a much more modest
>efficiency compared to a stand-alone steam plant. Thermal-dynamics 101.
>Also, this is quite understandable, given that the steam cycle of a GT plant
>(i.e. the CC part of the plant) really only is a "waste heat" recovery
>cycle, not a prime mover cycle of the plant.

*** Dr David Fulford, Energy Group, Engineering Building ***
*** School of Construction Management and Engineering ***
*** The University of Reading, Whiteknights, ***
*** Reading RG6 6AY, UK Tel: +44-(0)118-378 8563, ***
*** Fax: +44-(0)118-931 3327 E-mail: D.J.Fulford@Reading.ac.uk ***

From tombreed at ATTBI.COM Wed Jun 4 06:56:42 2003
From: tombreed at ATTBI.COM (Thomas B. Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: Biomass power: Question of scale...
Message-ID: <WED.4.JUN.2003.105642.0000.>

Dear Andreis and all:

This has been a very interesting discussion of the various combined heat and
power projects. It seems that BIG BIOMASS may be dead or at least on hold.
Meanwhile, SMALL BIOMASS seems to be growing.

During World War II over a million vehicles, boats, buses ... used SMALL
biomass gasifiers. (I have called this the Golden age of biomass
gasification). As soon as oil became cheap after the war the small gas
producers were discarded on the ash heap of history, except that there were a
lot of people who remembered that emergency era.

At the time of the first energy crisis, 1973, there was then a resurgence of
interest in biomass gasification. In its wisdom the US Department of Energy
was only interested in biomass at the >10 MW level. They supported a number of
projects with IGT, Battelle etc. that have since gone belly up.

I have been interested in the potential of biomass gasification for application
at the small end. Our 3 kW cookstove is as small as I have experimented so
far, but biomass gasifiers can be even smaller. Biomass occurs everywhere in
reasonable quantities, but not in mine mouth quantities, so will always be
suitable for distributed uses and unsuitable for massive use.

A major help for biomass gasification is densification of sawdust, paper etc.
which can supply a uniform dry fuel for development and use. I look forward to
the day when biomass pellets and briquettes will supply most of the uses for
gasification.

Hmmm.....

Tom Reed Haverhill, MA and on the road

> Dear Luiz,
>
> On TPS gasification:
>
> The Brazil plants were done by TPS with RD/Shell (stopped during design
> phase)
> The 8 MWe Arbre plant in the UK was done by TPS with KMS (plant started up
> but cancelled)
> The 6 MWe Varnamö plant in Sweden was the first gasifier from TPS (Plant
> stopped after demonstration phase).
>
> Why Varnamö worked and Arbre not, I don't know off hand.
> All I know is the Arbre was supposed to be commercial, while Varnamö was a
> demonstration plant.
> Nevertheless, they were about the same size and both with a tar cracker.
> In any case, Varnamö worked only for a limited length of time, so the number
> of full power running hours on the turbine was relatively limited, given
> that the total running time was only 4000 hours.
> So, not even half a year's worth of running time and perhaps 2 or 3 month of
> full load running time?
> A good start, but certainly not more than a start.
>
> On efficiencies:
>
> (statement from gasifier company copied from your attachment):
> "Efficiencies of over 40% can be achieved with a small-scale biomass-fuelled
> combined cycle scheme as opposed to around 25% for steam turbines, improving
> the competitiveness of electricity generated from biomass-fuelled plant".
>
> Perhaps in the size range of 40% efficiency for GT/CC, for steam 32% would
> be a more reasonable number here.
> Which would still leave the GT/CC a comparable advantage of (40-32)/32 = 25%
> from which to finance the additional investment in and O&M of the gasifier
> plant close-coupled to the GT/CC plant.
>
> I keep hacking away at these statements for the sake for fair comparability.
> It doesn't make sense to continuously underrate steam boiler + steam turbine
> performance, although there is nothing wrong with the high efficiencies of a
> Combined Cycle (gas turbine + steam turbine) scheme.
> But in these cases the best of the best in GT combined cycle technology
> typically get compared with the oldest of the oldest in steam technology.
> That gives the wrong impression when looking for the most economical process
> of applying biomass for power generation (and mitigate long cyclic CO2
> emissions).
>
> "Highest efficiency" might not necessarily always equal "most economical".
> Carving out a stable, permanent position for biomass fuel, however,
> definitely requires that most economical solution.
>
> best regards,
> Andries
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luiz Alberto Magri [mailto:luizmagri@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 1:27 AM
> To: Weststeijn, Andries; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [GASL] GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification
> product
>
>
>
> The following extract taken from
> http://www.sovereign-publications.com/alstom-power.htm.
> More links obtained asking for "Varnamo + biomass". I
> think most of them very interesting.
>
> By the way, there has been a project for a wood based
> demonstration IGCC plant in Brazil (shut down at end
> of conceptual design), but I never been told about
> "several" plants!
>
> Luiz Magri
> São Paulo
>
> "The Company is the leading player in the non-fossil
> fuels market, having supplied two Typhoon gas turbines
> for operation on very low calorific value
> biomass-derived fuel gases, and is aiming to increase
> its contribution to carbon dioxide reduction through
> the use of carbon-neutral fuels. Gasification of
> biomass and use of the resultant gases in a combined
> cycle gas turbine power generation plant enables
> higher electrical efficiencies to be achieved than by
> using direct combustion in boilers or incineration
> with power generation using conventional steam
> turbines. Efficiencies of over 40% can be achieved
> with a small-scale biomass-fuelled combined cycle
> scheme as opposed to around 25% for steam turbines,
> improving the competitiveness of electricity generated
> from biomass-fuelled plant. Gasification technology
> can also lead to significantly lower emissions of
> pollutants such as NOx and dust.
>
> The first unit was supplied by ALSTOM Power was to
> Sydkraft of Sweden for the Varnamo demonstration
> plant, the world's first Biomass Integrated
> Gasification Combined Cycle (B-IGCC) scheme. The gas
> turbine has completed nearly 4000 hours operation on
> gases derived from a variety of biomass fuels,
> including wood, wood/bark mixtures, straw and Refuse
> Derived Fuel. This demonstration plant provided 6MW of
> electricity to the local grid and 9MW of heat to the
> town's district heating scheme and successfully
> demonstrated the potential of biomass gasification
> technology when combined with a gas turbine."
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> http://calendar.yahoo.com

From luiz.pellegrini at POLI.USP.BR Thu Jun 5 12:34:22 2003
From: luiz.pellegrini at POLI.USP.BR (Luiz Felipe Pellegrini)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: RES: [GASL] GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product
Message-ID: <THU.5.JUN.2003.133422.0300.LUIZ.PELLEGRINI@POLI.USP.BR>

Dear All,

Don't you have any information regarding the Hawaian Project (IGCC plant)? I think that this project was under the resposability of Mr. Kinoshita....

Best regards,

Luiz F. Pellegrini
USP - S?o Paulo

-----Mensagem original-----
De: David Fulford [mailto:d.j.fulford@READING.AC.UK]
Enviada: qua 04/06/2003 05:03
Para: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Cc:
Assunto: Re: [GASL] GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product

Dear Andries and listers,

Other people on the list might have some better insights into the situation.

David

At 22:25 03/06/2003 +0200, Andries Weststeijn wrote:

From renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ Sat Jun 7 05:55:59 2003
From: renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ (Ken Calvert)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: Gas turbines and E.Vs.
Message-ID: <SAT.7.JUN.2003.215559.1200.RENERTECH@XTRA.CO.NZ>

Gentlemen, can I screw this discussion on small gas turbines to change the
subject a trifle?
It has tickled my imagination more than once, that a good stepping stone to
the future would be to have an electric vehicle with minimum battery power,
but some sort of small high revving gas turbine that would run on CNG, LPG
or vaporised liquid fuel, and direct drive an alternator or some sort of
generator that would get around all the gear reduction problems and keep
the car cruising on the open road, with the ability to add in the battery
power for passing and take it out again for regenerative braking etc.
Is there such a small turbine alternator combination available today?
Sincerely, Casey Jones.

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Sat Jun 7 11:38:18 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: Gas turbines and E.Vs.
In-Reply-To: <003201c32cda$ffd9eab0$fa4b36d2@coppermine>
Message-ID: <SAT.7.JUN.2003.103818.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

You might want to look at work being done on the Tesla turbine, also on
Tesla's high-frequency electric motors and alternators, which are perfectly
suited to hybrid vehicles.

http://my.execpc.com/~teba/main.html
http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/gmpr/ptbc.htm
http://www.geocities.com/vair65_2000/tesla/

But why does it have to be a turbine? Wouldn't a nice small diesel engine
give you much higher efficiency and milage? And a diesel will probably outlast
any bladed turbine (which is one of the reasons Tesla designed his bladeless
turbine) not to mention that you could use one now and then install the turbine
after you found/built one.
Also there seems to be a definite sound problem with turbine vehicles, at
least all the homebuilt ones I've read about so far require the driver to wear
very good hearing protectors.

On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 09:55:59PM +1200, Ken Calvert wrote:
> Gentlemen, can I screw this discussion on small gas turbines to change the
> subject a trifle?
> It has tickled my imagination more than once, that a good stepping stone to
> the future would be to have an electric vehicle with minimum battery power,
> but some sort of small high revving gas turbine that would run on CNG, LPG
> or vaporised liquid fuel, and direct drive an alternator or some sort of
> generator that would get around all the gear reduction problems and keep
> the car cruising on the open road, with the ability to add in the battery
> power for passing and take it out again for regenerative braking etc.
> Is there such a small turbine alternator combination available today?
> Sincerely, Casey Jones.

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

From Arotstein at ORMAT.COM Tue Jun 10 09:02:33 2003
From: Arotstein at ORMAT.COM (Ariel Rotstein)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: Oxygen sensor
Message-ID: <TUE.10.JUN.2003.150233.0200.AROTSTEIN@ORMAT.COM>

Dear Group,

I am trying to improve a furnace efficiency by determining the amount of fuel to enter the combustion chamber according to the Oxygen level of the flue gas in the exhaust.
I have seen such sensors in the car industry. The flue gas maximum temperature is 400 Deg. C.
Can someone direct me to an Oxygen sensor that is powered by 48 Vdc or 230Vac@50Hz and that the output signal is 4-20 mA or 0-10V

Best regards
Ariel Rotstein

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Tue Jun 10 08:39:45 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: Oxygen sensor
In-Reply-To: <7AE84FC91388474AB37B4FBEF2FF41F367BF44@EX2K.ORMAT.COM>
Message-ID: <TUE.10.JUN.2003.073945.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

Have you looked at the Kuenzel boilers? They use O2 sensors, the part might
be applicable. http://www.kuenzel.de/English/products/indexEP.htm

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 03:02:33PM +0200, Ariel Rotstein wrote:
> Dear Group,
>
> I am trying to improve a furnace efficiency by determining the amount of fuel to enter the combustion chamber according to the Oxygen level of the flue gas in the exhaust.
> I have seen such sensors in the car industry. The flue gas maximum temperature is 400 Deg. C.
> Can someone direct me to an Oxygen sensor that is powered by 48 Vdc or 230Vac@50Hz and that the output signal is 4-20 mA or 0-10V
>
> Best regards
> Ariel Rotstein

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

From mnorris at DEKARESEARCH.COM Tue Jun 10 09:37:49 2003
From: mnorris at DEKARESEARCH.COM (Mike Norris)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: Oxygen sensor
Message-ID: <TUE.10.JUN.2003.093749.0400.MNORRIS@DEKARESEARCH.COM>

There has been alot of discussion of O2 sensors, but I have not
seen specific sources of O2 sensors. I thought I would
add my 2-cents on sources.

Over the last several years I have worked with a variety of O2
sensors for burner control. The automotive wide-band lambda
sensors are by far the best option. They are rugged, reliable and fast.

I've liked a couple for sources of O2 sensors and controllers.
These businesses are oriented toward automotive applications
and use Air-Fuel-Ratio based on gasoline. However, the sensor
acutally measures O2 concentration and the electronics scale
it into an AFR. We have found it a simple matter to scale
the outputs to O2%.

The sensors take ~10 seconds to warmup, but then the response is
nearly instantaneous. In anycase, it is much faster than a
throttle plate.

We have not tried, but the sensors could be used in the rich
mixture coming off the the gasifier to control the primary
fuel-air ratio. The sensors are setup to measure fuel-air ratios
in the rich region, so it should be possible.

SOURCES OF O2 SENSORS AND CONTROLLERS
I like the FJO sensor and controller for a fully assembled
and functional unit. It does run off 12 VDC (car battery voltage)
but it's a simple matter to add a power supply,. Ignore the amp
rating and use a 2 amp supply.

http://www.fjoinc.com/automotive/products.htm

A cheaper solution, but may require some assembly is available at
http://www.techedge.com.au/vehicle/wbo2/default.htm

The key is using an relatively inexpensive L1H1 NJK 5 wire sensor
avaiable an autoparts store. I've used our NAPA store and ordered
an Echlin part number ECHOS791.

Mike Norris

-----Original Message-----
From: Ariel Rotstein [mailto:Arotstein@ORMAT.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 9:03 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] Oxygen sensor

Dear Group,

I am trying to improve a furnace efficiency by determining the amount of
fuel to enter the combustion chamber according to the Oxygen level of the
flue gas in the exhaust.
I have seen such sensors in the car industry. The flue gas maximum
temperature is 400 Deg. C.
Can someone direct me to an Oxygen sensor that is powered by 48 Vdc or
230Vac@50Hz and that the output signal is 4-20 mA or 0-10V

Best regards
Ariel Rotstein

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Tue Jun 10 11:15:31 2003
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: Oxygen sensor
In-Reply-To: <20030610123945.GA23436@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.10.JUN.2003.161531.0100.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

I'm UK agent for Kunzel,
Yes they do use a lambda sensor in sme of their high end units.
It's a bosch cell used almost universally in the euro car industry. With
their own linearisation software.
The Bosch units do not give a linear output and bosch are not mega helpful
when it comes to software or hardware linearisers. However most euro boielr
makers use this cell and (presumably) have acquired linearisation data to
add to their micro controllers.

I have rigged up a lambda sensor with one of these unit s and calibrated it
with a hired testo electrochemical cell unit which worked Ok

Hope this helps

gavin

Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
3G Energi,

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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 13:40
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Oxygen sensor

Have you looked at the Kuenzel boilers? They use O2 sensors, the part
might
be applicable. http://www.kuenzel.de/English/products/indexEP.htm

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 03:02:33PM +0200, Ariel Rotstein wrote:
> Dear Group,
>
> I am trying to improve a furnace efficiency by determining the amount of
fuel to enter the combustion chamber according to the Oxygen level of the
flue gas in the exhaust.
> I have seen such sensors in the car industry. The flue gas maximum
temperature is 400 Deg. C.
> Can someone direct me to an Oxygen sensor that is powered by 48 Vdc or
230Vac@50Hz and that the output signal is 4-20 mA or 0-10V
>
> Best regards
> Ariel Rotstein

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

From Andries.Weststeijn at ESSENT.NL Tue Jun 10 12:52:42 2003
From: Andries.Weststeijn at ESSENT.NL (Weststeijn, Andries)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: Biomass power: Question of scale...
Message-ID: <TUE.10.JUN.2003.185242.0200.ANDRIES.WESTSTEIJN@ESSENT.NL>

Dear Tom,

A belated reply, I was gone for a few days.

It always is a joy to read up on the practical experience many of the
Listers have with actual gasifying systems.
And very often quite interesting.
The small biomass systems (your call) seem to be on their way and not
lacking supporters.

In the end it would not surprise me if biomass gasifiers will know the same
gradual increase in size and capacity, based on thorough experience with
smaller systems, known from other technologies. The evolutionary route.

In the mean time, a market for large (prototype) gasifiers no doubt is there
to stay, but the scaling rules seem to apply as everywhere else in
technology.
These rules include the old wisdom: the larger the prototype the costlier
the modifications.
That's tough.

But eventually there will be good matches of (large) gasifiers and befitting
fuel.
With rather expensive gasifiers that means a match with modestly priced
fuel, otherwise it is a "no go".

In the mean time, NOT hooking up a large gasifier to a combustion turbine
(CT) saves a lot of headaches, since a combustion turbine is sensitive in
its operations and especially its maintenance.
Just looking at a CT for the added efficiency only, will therefore come in
the next generation or so.
For now: concentrate on a flawless gasifying system and hook it up to
something proven and less sensitive, like a boiler.
Another old saying: one step at a time.

Also in the meantime, the only large gasifier consistently NOT showing up in
Tom's List of Gasifiers (our Lurgi gasifier of 150.000 tons of dry
demolition wood per year) is making steady progress ... yes, after
modification.

best regards,
Andries

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas B. Reed [mailto:tombreed@ATTBI.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 12:57 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] Biomass power: Question of scale...

Dear Andreis and all:

This has been a very interesting discussion of the various combined heat and
power projects. It seems that BIG BIOMASS may be dead or at least on hold.
Meanwhile, SMALL BIOMASS seems to be growing.

During World War II over a million vehicles, boats, buses ... used SMALL
biomass gasifiers. (I have called this the Golden age of biomass
gasification). As soon as oil became cheap after the war the small gas
producers were discarded on the ash heap of history, except that there were
a
lot of people who remembered that emergency era.

At the time of the first energy crisis, 1973, there was then a resurgence of
interest in biomass gasification. In its wisdom the US Department of Energy
was only interested in biomass at the >10 MW level. They supported a number
of
projects with IGT, Battelle etc. that have since gone belly up.

I have been interested in the potential of biomass gasification for
application
at the small end. Our 3 kW cookstove is as small as I have experimented so
far, but biomass gasifiers can be even smaller. Biomass occurs everywhere
in
reasonable quantities, but not in mine mouth quantities, so will always be
suitable for distributed uses and unsuitable for massive use.

A major help for biomass gasification is densification of sawdust, paper
etc.
which can supply a uniform dry fuel for development and use. I look forward
to
the day when biomass pellets and briquettes will supply most of the uses for
gasification.

Hmmm.....

Tom Reed Haverhill, MA and on the road

> Dear Luiz,
>
> On TPS gasification:
>
> The Brazil plants were done by TPS with RD/Shell (stopped during design
> phase)
> The 8 MWe Arbre plant in the UK was done by TPS with KMS (plant started up
> but cancelled)
> The 6 MWe Varnam? plant in Sweden was the first gasifier from TPS (Plant
> stopped after demonstration phase).
>
> Why Varnam? worked and Arbre not, I don't know off hand.
> All I know is the Arbre was supposed to be commercial, while Varnam? was a
> demonstration plant.
> Nevertheless, they were about the same size and both with a tar cracker.
> In any case, Varnam? worked only for a limited length of time, so the
number
> of full power running hours on the turbine was relatively limited, given
> that the total running time was only 4000 hours.
> So, not even half a year's worth of running time and perhaps 2 or 3 month
of
> full load running time?
> A good start, but certainly not more than a start.
>
> On efficiencies:
>
> (statement from gasifier company copied from your attachment):
> "Efficiencies of over 40% can be achieved with a small-scale
biomass-fuelled
> combined cycle scheme as opposed to around 25% for steam turbines,
improving
> the competitiveness of electricity generated from biomass-fuelled plant".
>
> Perhaps in the size range of 40% efficiency for GT/CC, for steam 32% would
> be a more reasonable number here.
> Which would still leave the GT/CC a comparable advantage of (40-32)/32 =
25%
> from which to finance the additional investment in and O&M of the gasifier
> plant close-coupled to the GT/CC plant.
>
> I keep hacking away at these statements for the sake for fair
comparability.
> It doesn't make sense to continuously underrate steam boiler + steam
turbine
> performance, although there is nothing wrong with the high efficiencies of
a
> Combined Cycle (gas turbine + steam turbine) scheme.
> But in these cases the best of the best in GT combined cycle technology
> typically get compared with the oldest of the oldest in steam technology.
> That gives the wrong impression when looking for the most economical
process
> of applying biomass for power generation (and mitigate long cyclic CO2
> emissions).
>
> "Highest efficiency" might not necessarily always equal "most economical".
> Carving out a stable, permanent position for biomass fuel, however,
> definitely requires that most economical solution.
>
> best regards,
> Andries
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luiz Alberto Magri [mailto:luizmagri@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 1:27 AM
> To: Weststeijn, Andries; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [GASL] GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification
> product
>
>
>
> The following extract taken from
> http://www.sovereign-publications.com/alstom-power.htm.
> More links obtained asking for "Varnamo + biomass". I
> think most of them very interesting.
>
> By the way, there has been a project for a wood based
> demonstration IGCC plant in Brazil (shut down at end
> of conceptual design), but I never been told about
> "several" plants!
>
> Luiz Magri
> S?o Paulo
>
> "The Company is the leading player in the non-fossil
> fuels market, having supplied two Typhoon gas turbines
> for operation on very low calorific value
> biomass-derived fuel gases, and is aiming to increase
> its contribution to carbon dioxide reduction through
> the use of carbon-neutral fuels. Gasification of
> biomass and use of the resultant gases in a combined
> cycle gas turbine power generation plant enables
> higher electrical efficiencies to be achieved than by
> using direct combustion in boilers or incineration
> with power generation using conventional steam
> turbines. Efficiencies of over 40% can be achieved
> with a small-scale biomass-fuelled combined cycle
> scheme as opposed to around 25% for steam turbines,
> improving the competitiveness of electricity generated
> from biomass-fuelled plant. Gasification technology
> can also lead to significantly lower emissions of
> pollutants such as NOx and dust.
>
> The first unit was supplied by ALSTOM Power was to
> Sydkraft of Sweden for the Varnamo demonstration
> plant, the world's first Biomass Integrated
> Gasification Combined Cycle (B-IGCC) scheme. The gas
> turbine has completed nearly 4000 hours operation on
> gases derived from a variety of biomass fuels,
> including wood, wood/bark mixtures, straw and Refuse
> Derived Fuel. This demonstration plant provided 6MW of
> electricity to the local grid and 9MW of heat to the
> town's district heating scheme and successfully
> demonstrated the potential of biomass gasification
> technology when combined with a gas turbine."
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> http://calendar.yahoo.com

From Andries.Weststeijn at ESSENT.NL Tue Jun 10 13:09:02 2003
From: Andries.Weststeijn at ESSENT.NL (Weststeijn, Andries)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product
Message-ID: <TUE.10.JUN.2003.190902.0200.ANDRIES.WESTSTEIJN@ESSENT.NL>

David, thank you for the added info.

My first impression -reading it- was: why doesn't Arbre throw out the gas
turbine and install a clean straightforward steam boiler capable of taking
the tar-laden product gas as well as the gasification dust?
The answer probably is in the down rating of the plant efficiency, bringing
it even further below the (economically) permissible level.

But then: the FERCO/Battelle gasifier at the McNeil plant in Vermont has the
gasifier coupled to an existing (wood fired) steam boiler. So why no
technical (and economical) success there?

best regards,
Andries

-----Original Message-----
From: David Fulford [mailto:d.j.fulford@READING.AC.UK]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 10:04 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification
product

Dear Andries and listers,

Other people on the list might have some better insights into the situation.

David

At 22:25 03/06/2003 +0200, Andries Weststeijn wrote:

>Thank you for the additional info re Brazil.
>Me for one, I would like to know why TPS succeeded in Varnam? (a they
>claim), while apparently it didn't work out at Arbre.
>Both projects have a similar set-up of TPS gasifier, TPS tar cracker and
>close-coupled gas turbine.
>Unit size approximately equal (6 MWe in Sweden, 8 MWe in the UK).
>
>On the steam cycle:
>I understood the steam cycle efficiency to belong to a smallish stand-alone
>steam boiler/steam turbine (i.e. no GT).
>In order to compare this stand-alone steam cycle to a GT/CC plant, I choose
>the size and power of the steam plant to be about equal to a GT/CC plant
>with an given efficiency of 40%. This 40% shows that it is a smallish GT/CC
>plant, since a truly large GT/CC plant is in the order of 55-58%.
>For a stand-alone steam plant sized to the given GT/CC plant, I found 25%
>efficiency to be quite low and went to 32% (which is still low).
>
>Listers, don't confuse the steam cycle of a stand-alone steam plant with
the
>steam cycle of a GT/CC plant! The latter raises steam in a Heat Recovery
>Steam Generator (or HRSG) driven by GT exhaust gases of only around 500 C.
>For steam cycles this is a quite low temperature heat source, since
>stand-alone steam cycles commonly raise steam at twice the temperature (by
>flue gases of 1000 C and higher).
>Therefore, given the lower driving gas temperature of a GT/CC steam
>generator, the steam cycle of a GT/CC plant will have a much more modest
>efficiency compared to a stand-alone steam plant. Thermal-dynamics 101.
>Also, this is quite understandable, given that the steam cycle of a GT
plant
>(i.e. the CC part of the plant) really only is a "waste heat" recovery
>cycle, not a prime mover cycle of the plant.

From Andries.Weststeijn at ESSENT.NL Tue Jun 10 14:27:25 2003
From: Andries.Weststeijn at ESSENT.NL (Weststeijn, Andries)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product
Message-ID: <TUE.10.JUN.2003.202725.0200.ANDRIES.WESTSTEIJN@ESSENT.NL>

Dear Peter,

Pointing out the ORC (Organic Ranking Cycle) as a means to extract more use
out of low temperature heat is quite correct.

It is all in the investment, though.
Does it pay or doesn't it pay in that particular case (..that's the
question).
And perhaps in the maintenance as well, I don't have the details there.
But years of operations in geothermal service should have the bugs out of
the system.
But less maintenance than a steam turbine?
Seeing is believing.

ORC coupled to relatively "cheap" Btu's from geothermal looks like an ideal
fit.
The "residual" Btu's from biomass plants are either not cheap (at 100 C) or
haven't much work left in them (at 30 C).

Direct ORC at 500 C exhaust gas turbines looks at first glance quite risky
to me.
But the ORMAT web site tells me it is done by means of an intermediate water
loop into an organic fluid vaporizer.
Well, that's almost like raising steam in a waste heat boiler.

The beauty of steam is that it is inert when in contact with high
temperatures like 500 C.
That was my concern with a discussion we had a while ago also, when you
wanted to pipe butane through boiler pipes.
Those boiler pipes happen to blow, every so often..
I for one wouldn't sleep well ..

What you say about topping turbines is true.
It's also the common way to link a HP turbine into a steam system (or to
export steam).
I don't think you would want to go from a HP topping steam turbine straight
into an ORC, but perhaps into another steam turbine first. A smaller ORC
could then extract heat in parallel to (or in stead of?) a condenser.
A certain amount of condensing you need one way or another, to get
sufficient boiler feed water back.
(that's not a concern in case of geothermal I guess ..).

I lack good cost data on smallish steam turbines, ORC's, biomass product gas
combustion turbines and heat pumps (also an option for low level heat). So I
can't be instrumental in comparing different business cases.
But I am pretty sure that it is a fairly straightforward financial
comparison.
With perhaps the product gas driven combustion turbine technically the least
"proven technology".

In fact it would be interesting to compare investment and O&M costs on those
4 options: ST, ORC, bio-CT, Heatpump, at the same thermal capacity.

best regards,
Andries

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Singfield [mailto:snkm@BTL.NET]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 2:45 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification
product

Dear Luis, Andries and listers;

At 10:25 PM 6/3/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>Dear Luiz and Listers,

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

>Listers, don't confuse the steam cycle of a stand-alone steam plant with
the
>steam cycle of a GT/CC plant! The latter raises steam in a Heat Recovery
>Steam Generator (or HRSG) driven by GT exhaust gases of only around 500 C.
>For steam cycles this is a quite low temperature heat source, since
>stand-alone steam cycles commonly raise steam at twice the temperature (by
>flue gases of 1000 C and higher).

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

Scale of economics -- etc.

Like fitting an Ormat to the exhaust of a gas turbine.

Why bother with after fitting an ORC to a steam system -- or a gas turbine
(rather than steam as you mention above)

If you got to this Url:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mbiddle/LS-GSE.htm

You should be looking at a chart that demonstrates Gross System
Efficiencies at different temperatures using different working fluids.

It is all in relation to the same turbine -- and that being of just 70%
efficiency. This is a small system. No exotic bells and whistles.

But the turbine efficiency in this example is the same for all working
fluids compared.

One can not help but notice this:

Pentane working fluid achieves 26% efficiencies at 275 C

Steam achieves 23% at 500 C

(Both are more or less -- being viewed as a graph)

Look -- one can shift efficiencies up greatly by going to a refrigerant at
lower process temperatures. This is a "given" and is certainly well
understood by the geothermal crowd.

So where does this all fit together??

You can do as they did pre 1921 with turbines.

First turbine being high temperature steam. Second turbine being a low
temperature ORC turbine.

Why bother??

Think well on this -- if you can't grasp the concept -- the reasoning -- I
can certainly demonstrate it in math. But it will take pages and pages.

The "trick" inherent in this:

Combustion of bagasse -- as example -- is very "dirty" and means much
problems with boiler tubing. This limits boiler designs to fire tube --
rather than water tube.

But such fire tube boilers are happiest below 400 PSI -- and this severely
limits system efficiencies.

On the other hand -- the cost of a fire tube boiler is a fraction of a same
capacity water tube -- high pressure -- high temperature -- boiler.

To increase the efficiencies of this fire tube boiler can be accomplished
by adding a lot of super heat to the 400 psi steam (say to 600 C) and
running that through a topping turbine.

The exhaust from this topping turbine then running an ORC turbine.

Definitely no condenser --

Think on this concept -- it is quite clear when pondered.

Peter Singfield / Belize

From mahishi at UFL.EDU Wed Jun 11 11:14:03 2003
From: mahishi at UFL.EDU (Madhukar (Mak) Mhishi)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: Fluidised bed
Message-ID: <WED.11.JUN.2003.111403.0400.MAHISHI@UFL.EDU>

Hi,

I am a Grad student working on biomass gasification for my thesis. I would
like to know the following about Fluidised Bed Gasifiers:

1) What is a Fluidised bed made up of? Is it a Silica Bed (I have read
about silica beds in some journal papers) or is it a mix of Silica and
Biomass or is it purely a Biomass feedstock bed?
2) What is the purpose of the bed?
3)How do we go about designing a Fluidised Bed Biomass Gasifier?

Thanking You,

Sincerely,

Mak

From dknowles at ANTARES.ORG Thu Jun 12 09:22:49 2003
From: dknowles at ANTARES.ORG (Knowles, Dave)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product
Message-ID: <THU.12.JUN.2003.092249.0400.DKNOWLES@ANTARES.ORG>

The FERCO gasifier is too expensive, and the wood fuel is too expensive, to
justify the meager benefits offered.

David Knowles

-----Original Message-----
From: Weststeijn, Andries [mailto:Andries.Weststeijn@ESSENT.NL]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 1:09 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product

David, thank you for the added info.

My first impression -reading it- was: why doesn't Arbre throw out the gas
turbine and install a clean straightforward steam boiler capable of taking
the tar-laden product gas as well as the gasification dust? The answer
probably is in the down rating of the plant efficiency, bringing it even
further below the (economically) permissible level.

But then: the FERCO/Battelle gasifier at the McNeil plant in Vermont has the
gasifier coupled to an existing (wood fired) steam boiler. So why no
technical (and economical) success there?

best regards,
Andries

Dear Andries and listers,

As a search for material for a course on renewable energy, I downloaded
several articles from the TPS web site before they reorganised it and
removed them. Reading this information (and somewhat interpreting what it
was saying), they actually found very similar problems both at Varnamo and
Arbre, in terms of particulates and tars blocking their main filters. They
had enough finance at Varnamo to replace the filters with an improved
version. Even so, they did not seem to run the turbines for very long on the
gas. They did not ever generate on a commercial level.

Other people on the list might have some better insights into the situation.

David

At 22:25 03/06/2003 +0200, Andries Weststeijn wrote:

>Thank you for the additional info re Brazil.
>Me for one, I would like to know why TPS succeeded in Varnam? (a they
>claim), while apparently it didn't work out at Arbre. Both projects
>have a similar set-up of TPS gasifier, TPS tar cracker and
>close-coupled gas turbine. Unit size approximately equal (6 MWe in
>Sweden, 8 MWe in the UK).
>
>On the steam cycle:
>I understood the steam cycle efficiency to belong to a smallish
>stand-alone steam boiler/steam turbine (i.e. no GT). In order to
>compare this stand-alone steam cycle to a GT/CC plant, I choose the
>size and power of the steam plant to be about equal to a GT/CC plant
>with an given efficiency of 40%. This 40% shows that it is a smallish
>GT/CC plant, since a truly large GT/CC plant is in the order of 55-58%.
>For a stand-alone steam plant sized to the given GT/CC plant, I found
>25% efficiency to be quite low and went to 32% (which is still low).
>
>Listers, don't confuse the steam cycle of a stand-alone steam plant
>with
the
>steam cycle of a GT/CC plant! The latter raises steam in a Heat
>Recovery Steam Generator (or HRSG) driven by GT exhaust gases of only
>around 500 C. For steam cycles this is a quite low temperature heat
>source, since stand-alone steam cycles commonly raise steam at twice
>the temperature (by flue gases of 1000 C and higher). Therefore, given
>the lower driving gas temperature of a GT/CC steam generator, the steam
>cycle of a GT/CC plant will have a much more modest efficiency compared
>to a stand-alone steam plant. Thermal-dynamics 101. Also, this is quite
>understandable, given that the steam cycle of a GT
plant
>(i.e. the CC part of the plant) really only is a "waste heat" recovery
>cycle, not a prime mover cycle of the plant.

From patravis at ENERGYPRODUCTS.COM Thu Jun 12 12:09:44 2003
From: patravis at ENERGYPRODUCTS.COM (Pat Travis)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: GE LM2500 Gas turbine and Biomass gasification product
Message-ID: <THU.12.JUN.2003.090944.0700.PATRAVIS@ENERGYPRODUCTS.COM>

Dear All,

EPI has built fluidized bed gasifiers operating on a wide range of fuels since 1983. EPI built the first commercial biomass gasification power plant in the US in 1985. It originally produced 5.5 MWe from waste wood, but has subsequently been moved to a new location and the fuel is now a wide mix of agricultural and industrial wastes. This system is in full commercial operation today.

The system combines an EPI fluidized bed gasifier with an "A" type boiler equipped with burners specifically designed to fire hot, low Btu gas.

EPI's fluidized bed biomass gasifier is cost competitive with traditional biomass combustion systems. In addition to power production, EPI's gasifiers have been used to replace natural gas in calciners and for district heat, all on a commercial scale.

In addition to using their fluidized bed gasifier in a greenfield application, EPI has completed 3 feasibility studies for the co-location of a biomass gasifier with a coalfired utility boiler.

EPI uses the term "Gasifier Add-On" to describe these systems. By converting the biomass to a low Btu gas, and removing the majority of the ash prior to injecting the low Btu gas (LBG) into the boiler, the negative impacts associated with direct biomass cofiring are virtually eliminated.

Besides replacing large amounts of coal with biomass LBG (averaging 18% energy input to the boiler on a Btu basis), the LBG can be used as a reburn gas for NOx control. By taking advantage of the existing infrastructure, the capital cost of producing green power from biomass drops to about 1/4-1/2 the cost of a greenfield installation.

For additional data on this process, you can access the final report on the completed feasibility study performed for Nebraska Public Power District. It is available on EPI's website www.energyproducts.com. The study was partially funded by the Western Regional Biomass Energy Program. The study partners were Nebraska Public Power District, Black & Veatch, and EPI.

Similar studies have been completed for Progress Energy (Carolina Power and Light) by Antares Group, General Electric Energy and Environmental Research, and EPI, and for Pinnacle West Capital (Arizona Public Service) by Black & Veatch and EPI.

In all cases the biomass gasifier add-on was shown to be technically feasible, with significant emissions reduction and even slight improvements in overall plant operating efficiencies.

Patrick Travis

>>> "Knowles, Dave" <dknowles@ANTARES.ORG> 06/12/03 06:22AM >>>
The FERCO gasifier is too expensive, and the wood fuel is too expensive, to
justify the meager benefits offered.

David Knowles

David, thank you for the added info.

My first impression -reading it- was: why doesn't Arbre throw out the gas
turbine and install a clean straightforward steam boiler capable of taking
the tar-laden product gas as well as the gasification dust? The answer
probably is in the down rating of the plant efficiency, bringing it even
further below the (economically) permissible level.

But then: the FERCO/Battelle gasifier at the McNeil plant in Vermont has the
gasifier coupled to an existing (wood fired) steam boiler. So why no
technical (and economical) success there?

best regards,
Andries

Dear Andries and listers,

As a search for material for a course on renewable energy, I downloaded
several articles from the TPS web site before they reorganised it and
removed them. Reading this information (and somewhat interpreting what it
was saying), they actually found very similar problems both at Varnamo and
Arbre, in terms of particulates and tars blocking their main filters. They
had enough finance at Varnamo to replace the filters with an improved
version. Even so, they did not seem to run the turbines for very long on the
gas. They did not ever generate on a commercial level.

Other people on the list might have some better insights into the situation.

David

At 22:25 03/06/2003 +0200, Andries Weststeijn wrote:

From mishrag1 at YAHOO.COM Wed Jun 18 05:51:17 2003
From: mishrag1 at YAHOO.COM (=?iso-8859-1?q?gaurav=20mishra?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: Fwd:
Message-ID: <WED.18.JUN.2003.105117.0100.MISHRAG1@YAHOO.COM>

Note: forwarded message attached.

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: multipart/alternative
Size: 375 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20030618/d35f63f9/attachment.bin
From tombreed at ATTBI.COM Sat Jun 21 08:22:02 2003
From: tombreed at ATTBI.COM (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: Toplit Updraft gasifier nomenclature?
Message-ID: <SAT.21.JUN.2003.062202.0600.TOMBREED@ATTBI.COM>

Dear Ron and all:

When I first developed the stove gasifier in 1985 I used the name
"Upsidedowndraft gasifier stove", since it was an "upsidedown" version of
the WWII downdraft gasifiers I know a lot about.
Sort of a joke... ; (

I found out soon that "upside down" is not a familiar work to foreigners, so
I changed it to "inverted downdraft" gasifier stove. That was fine in the
gasification world.

Then I worked with Ron Larson about 1995 and he wanted to call it a
"charcoal making stove" or a top lit stove". Lots of confusion outside the
gasifier field, and I would like to be both clear and descriptive.
~~~~~~~
How about "Toplit-Updraft" WoodGas Cookstove? It then contains instructions
for lighting which is the principle difference from "Bottom-Lit-Updraft"
gasifiers (that make lots of smoke and burn inefficiently).

Thoughts???

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

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

From tombreed at ATTBI.COM Sun Jun 22 12:09:35 2003
From: tombreed at ATTBI.COM (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: "Gasification" vs "pyrolyser" vs combustor
Message-ID: <SUN.22.JUN.2003.100935.0600.TOMBREED@ATTBI.COM>

Dear Ron and All:

Ron Larson at "stoves" said

> (RWL): I would urge you not to use the word "gasifier" to describe
> what you are doing - I prefer "pyrolyzer." I find that the people expert
in
> "gasifiers" are interested in minimizing the production of charcoal.
>
I would like to take issue with Ron on this - too bad we get so little time
to discuss these matters, considering we are only 1 mile apart (as the crow
flies).

I have been working in the field of biomass pyrolysis, combustion and
gasification since 1974, so I try to be very careful of my use of words in a
field where there are many redundant terms.

I developed the "inverted downdraft gasifier" in 1985 while traveling in
Africa and gave it that name because it was derived from the conventional
downdraft gasifiers that I had worked with extensively. I soon discovered
that inverted downdraft is in a sense a double negative, so could be
confusing to anyone not familiar with downdraft gasifiers, which is
99.9999999% of the world.

I recently in an "I surrender" Email recommended that it might be called a
"toplit-updraft gasifier, since the flow of air is like an updraft gasifier,
but it is lit on top. This is all important, since lighting an updraft
gasifier on the bottom (conventional) burns all the charcoal and liberates
copious tars and makes tall flare flames.

Meanwhile, Ron Larson, when I first showed it to him in 1995, decided,
independently, to call it a "charcoal making gasifier", then later a "toplit
gasifier". Now he recommends that we call it a "pyrolyser". Shifting
sands!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Conventional "slow pyrolysis" produces charcoal, gas and condensable
volatile materials (tars) in about equal proportions and was practiced
widely from Egyptian times through 1950 when the last plant closed down in
the U.S. "Fast Pyrolysis" has become the darling of the liquid fuel teams,
since it can produce > 60% liquid tar-fuel from biomass. Is that what Ron
is recommending as a name?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All downdraft gasifiers produce 5-25% charcoal, but their major intent is to
produce a combustible gas for heat or engines. They also produce typically
0.1% volatile tars that must be removed. But since their intent is to
produce gas, they are called downdraft gasifiers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We will continue to call our forced draft toplit-updraft gasifier a "WoodGas
stove", since it makes a combustible gas which can be burned cleanly with
the right proportion of combustion/gasification air (about 6/1). If Ron
wants to call it a pyrolyser (which doesn't draw attention to the fact that
75% of the energy comes off as a gas) I can't stop him.

Comments?

Yours for better and standard nomenclature - Tom
- The BEF

Dr. Thomas B. Reed
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone; 303 265 9184 Fax
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Larson" <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 6:36 AM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Gasification for biomass briquettes

> Peter (cc AD and Stoves):
>
> I am taking the liberty of sending your request for information on
> efficiently using the pyrolysis gases from your charcoal briquette making
> operation on to our full "stoves" list. This is to ask all "stovers" to
> assist as this is a most important question.
>
> There are a number of people on the list who are using gasifiers for
> producing gases for engines and/or stoves. There are also others
developing
> pyrolysis units - attempting to get charcoal. My own interest is in using
> small cookstoves to produce charcoal as a co-product. I feel this is at a
> stage where persons like yourself need to see if this could be
profitable -
> you supply the fuel in a suitable biomass form (pillows or cylinders, etc)
> and the stove user returns charcoal to you for your processing into a
final
> product. There is plenty of material on this type of charcoal-making
stove
> in the early archives of "stoves" - but no commercial activity yet. More
> development is needed. We have also talked about using the pyrolysis
gases
> for larger commercial operations like bakeries, pottery kilns, cement
> making, or any place where biomass is being consumed for large thermal
> operations. In all of these, I believe charcoal can be a useful and
> income-generating sideline. So far, I am not aware of anyone doing this -
> the pyrolysis gases are usually exhausted - and as you point out - should
> not be. Here is hoping you will have generated the interest of some
> manufacturer of gasifiers to instead produce a charcoal maker. I just
did
> a google search on "India gasifier manufacturers" and found many lists.
> Perhaps Dr. Karve or others in India can tell who has a unit that might
> emphasize charcoal rather than gases.
>
> Several more answers below.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter [mailto:peter.gathercole@raha.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 10:53 AM
> To: ronallarson@qwest.net
> Cc: adkarve@PN2.VSNL.NET.IN
> Subject: Gasification for biomass briquettes
>
>
> Dear Ron/Mr Karve/Paul,
>
> I am Peter Gathercole of Biomass Energy Tanzania Limited and we are
> developing the biomass briquetting market in Tanzania. I have been in
> contact with NEWDAWN and Crispin who has kindly send me your contact
details
> for advise on the questions I raised below. Would it be possible to obtain
> some imfo from you guys on a way ahead for us to encourage the use of the
> product by removing the volatiles efficiently and usefully, which then
> enable the briquettes to be more user friendly than without carbonisation.
> We are looking at many issues relating to improved stoves (NEWDAWN) and
> locally made insulated units with increase secondary air ways to improve
> combustion and use up the gases rather than waste them.
>
>
>
> If you can assist I would be highly appreciative.
>
>
>
> Please find questions I raised to Crispin:
>
>
>
> Dear Crispin,
>
> We are looking at extracting the volatiles from our biomass briquettes
on
> a commercial basis to improve the saleability of the briquette product and
> also to harness the gas from the wood waste. Do you have any base date on
> wood fuel gas constituents or composition of the gases, on a variety of
> biomass woody wastes.
>
>
>
> (RWL): I do not have much other than that there will be a
tremendous
> array of constituents - and of course many pyrolyzers are attempting to
> condense and capture various liquids. The gases are primarily methane, CO
> and hydrogen. Your main concern will be that the effluent gases not
contain
> too much moisture vapor - so that fairly dry biomass must be the starting
> point. Otherwise, the gases will not be ignitable. here is hoping that
> people like Dr. Michael Antal or Dr. Tom reed can answer your question
with
> full literature citations. There is plenty of scientific literature on
this
> subject.
>
>
>
> Also any data on gasifiers which could be used on small scale to
produce
> such gas and leave a carbonised briquette which could then be sold. We are
> looking at a more efficient way of empowering the current charcoal
producers
> to continue with briquettes and harness the energy within their
communities
> to produce alternative charcoal, cook at the same time on the gas
extracted.
> (communal cooking and making charcoal).
>
>
>
>
> Best of luck.
>
> Ron
>
>
>
> BRs
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter Gathercole
>
> Development Director
>
> Biomass Energy Tanzania Limited
>
> PO Box 31748, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania
>
> Tel/Fax: +255 22 2666667 Cell:+ 255 (0)744 785340
>
> The data contained within this email and any accompanying or attached
file
> is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity for whom it was intended. If you are not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, storing,
> distribution or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this
> email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error,
you
> please notify us immediately by telephone, fax or return email and
> thereafter delete the transmission you have received. We shall be pleased
to
> reimburse any reasonable costs incurred.

From sschuck at BIGPOND.NET.AU Sun Jun 22 20:42:04 2003
From: sschuck at BIGPOND.NET.AU (Stephen Schuck)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: Fuel tolerant gasifier
Message-ID: <MON.23.JUN.2003.104204.1000.SSCHUCK@BIGPOND.NET.AU>

Dear List,

I am interested in finding commercially available gasification technology up
to 1 MW thermal, suitable for electricity production using green wastes plus
a lesser amount of wood waste (eg pallets) and 'urban' wastes in an isolated
location. The green waste would be tree loppings, prunings..... What level
or fuel preparation would be required?

Steve Schuck
Bioenergy Australia Manager &

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 vvnk at TERI.RES.IN Mon Jun 23 02:51:48 2003
From: vvnk at TERI.RES.IN (V V N Kishore)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: "Gasification" vs "pyrolyser" vs combustor
Message-ID: <MON.23.JUN.2003.122148.0530.VVNK@TERI.RES.IN>

We simply call it the "Tom Reed (Improved) Charcoal making Stove" or TRICS. I appeal to everyone to adopt this name.
-Kishore

V V N Kishore, Ph.D
Senior Fellow
Biomass Energy Technology Applications
T E R I
Darbari Seth Block, India Habitat Centre
Lodi Road
New Delhi - 110 003 / India
Fax 468 2144 and 468 2145 Country code 91
Tel 468 2100 and 468 2111 City code 11
Web www.teriin.org

>>> Tom Reed <tombreed@attbi.com> 06/22/03 09:39PM >>>
Dear Ron and All:

Ron Larson at "stoves" said

I have been working in the field of biomass pyrolysis, combustion and
gasification since 1974, so I try to be very careful of my use of words in a
field where there are many redundant terms.

Comments?

Yours for better and standard nomenclature - Tom
- The BEF

From PletkaRJ at BV.COM Wed Jun 25 12:26:58 2003
From: PletkaRJ at BV.COM (Pletka, Ryan J.)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: POWER-GEN Renewable Energy Call for Abstracts
Message-ID: <WED.25.JUN.2003.112658.0500.PLETKARJ@BV.COM>

Next year will be the inaugural POWER-GEN Renewable Energy conference. The
conference website is http://pgre04.events.pennnet.com/
<http://pgre04.events.pennnet.com/> .

Below is their call for papers. It would be good if biomass had a strong
showing:

CALL FOR PAPERS:
ABSTRACT DEADLINE IS AUGUST 1, 2003

March 1-3, 2004 - Flamingo Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada

POWER-GEN Renewable Energy is currently accepting abstracts that provide
educational and relevant information to the present and future of renewable
energy. Submit your abstract by August 1, 2003 and share your insight and
ideas with industry colleagues. Topics of interest to the POWER-GEN
Renewable Energy conference audience include, but are not limited to, the
following:

Solar photovoltaics
Solar heating and cooling
Solar thermal-electric (solar concentrators)
Solar passive design and architecture
Wind power
Hydropower
Geothermal energy for power generation
Geothermal energy for direct heat applications
Biomass energy power generation
Biofuels (principally ethanol and bio-diesel)
Biomass feedstocks and refining
Waste-to-energy including landfill gas
Hydrogen generation, transport, storage, and use
Fuel cells
Energy efficiency
Green pricing
Green buildings
Green power marketing
Other technologies and solutions in and related to clean and renewable
energy
Energy storage in support of renewable energy installations
Renewable portfolio standards
Federal, state and local incentive programs
Interconnection issues

Speaker Registration: Accepted speaker will receive one (1) complimentary
registration per paper presentation or up to four (4) complimentary
registrations for panels. Each complimentary registration includes:

One copy of conference proceedings on CD-ROM
Access to all delegate luncheons and receptions
Access to all conference sessions and exhibit hall

Speaker Requirements: Each accepted presentation is expected to:

Provide a full text manuscript by January 29, 2004
Provide a short biography for each presenter/panelist
Provide their own travel and hotel accommodations
Meet all deadlines

If you have any questions concerning the abstract submittal process, please
contact Jan Simpson at (918) 831-9736 or via email at jsimpson@pennwell.com.

Ryan

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

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Wed Jun 25 22:57:55 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: Sugar to Hydrogen?
Message-ID: <WED.25.JUN.2003.215755.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

Spent last weekend at the Midwest Renewable Energy Fair -- the
largest event of it's kind. Totally awesome. I went last year for two
days, this year I just camped there for the whole 3 day affair, wish
they'd make it a week long. Anyway, one of the seminars was on this new
process for making H2. Seems pretty promising.

http://www.virent.com/technology.htm

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

From snkm at BTL.NET Thu Jun 26 08:51:37 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: Sugar to Hydrogen?
Message-ID: <THU.26.JUN.2003.065137.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 09:57 PM 6/25/2003 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> Spent last weekend at the Midwest Renewable Energy Fair -- the
>largest event of it's kind. Totally awesome. I went last year for two
>days, this year I just camped there for the whole 3 day affair, wish
>they'd make it a week long. Anyway, one of the seminars was on this new
>process for making H2. Seems pretty promising.
>
>
>http://www.virent.com/technology.htm
>
>
>--
>Harmon Seaver
>CyberShamanix
>http://www.cybershamanix.com

Dear Listers;

Below is the clip from that page. Not much hard info there at all.

But this line:

"via the liquid-phase reforming of biomass-derived compounds such as sugars
and sugar alcohols."

Sounds like the high pressure super critical water process. With addition
of a catalyst processing.

You remember?? The one I have been harping on for the past many years.

HYDROGEN PRODUCTION FROM HIGH-MOISTURE CONTENT BIOMASS IN
SUPERCRITICAL WATER

University of Hawaii

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

It is very suitable for micro-scale production of H2 or methane. Very
efficient -- and very ignored by this mail list!!

Well -- time always tells -- we wait -- and we watch -- observers only --
no "doers" here.

With minimal resources I could have constructed a micro unit to do this
years ago!

Well, back to my micro-cane crusher -- setting up to produce lots of cane
juice -- but not for gasifying. For producing a local wine called "Chee-Cha"

How easy it would be to process cane juice to methane in a super critical
water reactor -- burning the bagasse as the heat energy for this
endothermic reaction.

All on a micro -- rsingle 3rd world house -- level.

Well -- one day -- maybe --

Peter Singfield
Belize

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

The ACR Process

Virent Energy Systems is developing a new catalytic process that allows the
generation of either hydrogen rich fuel gas or medium to high-energy
density hydrocarbon fuel gas (20 to 34 MJ/Nm3) via the liquid-phase
reforming of biomass-derived compounds such as sugars and sugar alcohols.
The ACR process was discovered at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
Chemical Engineering Department in 2001 by Dr. Randy Cortright and
Professor James Dumesic. The process has the following characteristics and
advantages:

Liquid-Phase Reforming - The ACR process generates gas without the need to
volatilize water, which represents a major energy savings compared to
conventional gasification or anaerobic digestion. This exothermic process
generates its own processing energy when producing hydrocarbons, and over
85% of the sugar’s thermal energy is retained in the product fuel gas.
Furthermore, the ACR process requires only a simple two-phase separator to
remove the product gases - this also requires very little energy.

Low-Temperature Processing - The ACR process is most efficient at
temperatures where the water-gas shift reaction is also favorable for low
CO concentrations. Undesirable decomposition reactions typically
encountered when carbohydrates are heated are minimized at the low
temperature of the ACR process. Finally, the ACR process could also
utilize low-temperature waste heat as processing energy. (Process heat
equivalent to approximately 25 percent of hydrogen production stream will
be required if pure hydrogen is produced.)

Carbohydrate Feedstocks - The heterogeneous catalysts utilized in the ACR
process are expected to be effective for processing any water-soluble sugar
or sugar alcohol, regardless of carbon number and stereoisomer.
Accordingly, this process is expected to be able to produce fuel from a
single sugar, mixture of sugars, and oligomers of sugars. Finally, this
process is not adversely affected by furans and acetic acid that may be
found in some carbohydrate streams as a result of the extraction processes
utilized to remove the carbohydrates from biomass.

From dknowles at ANTARES.ORG Thu Jun 26 09:31:13 2003
From: dknowles at ANTARES.ORG (Knowles, Dave)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: Sugar to Hydrogen?
Message-ID: <THU.26.JUN.2003.093113.0400.DKNOWLES@ANTARES.ORG>

So Peter, where are you in the development of this technology? Do you need
to do further research or are you ready to commercialize? Are you getting
support from government or private investors? Do you have a business plan?

By the way, the fuel cells which are currently under development in the
mainstream all require high purity hydrogen. Developing a specialized
reformer for your product is problematic from a commercialization standpoint
(IMHO)

David F. Knowles, P.E.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Singfield [mailto:snkm@BTL.NET]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 8:52 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Sugar to Hydrogen?

Dear Listers;

Below is the clip from that page. Not much hard info there at all.

But this line:

"via the liquid-phase reforming of biomass-derived compounds such as sugars
and sugar alcohols."

Sounds like the high pressure super critical water process. With addition
of a catalyst processing.

You remember?? The one I have been harping on for the past many years.

HYDROGEN PRODUCTION FROM HIGH-MOISTURE CONTENT BIOMASS IN
SUPERCRITICAL WATER

University of Hawaii

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

It is very suitable for micro-scale production of H2 or methane. Very
efficient -- and very ignored by this mail list!!

Well -- time always tells -- we wait -- and we watch -- observers only --
no "doers" here.

With minimal resources I could have constructed a micro unit to do this
years ago!

Well, back to my micro-cane crusher -- setting up to produce lots of cane
juice -- but not for gasifying. For producing a local wine called "Chee-Cha"

How easy it would be to process cane juice to methane in a super critical
water reactor -- burning the bagasse as the heat energy for this
endothermic reaction.

All on a micro -- rsingle 3rd world house -- level.

Well -- one day -- maybe --

Peter Singfield
Belize

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

The ACR Process

Liquid-Phase Reforming - The ACR process generates gas without the need to
volatilize water, which represents a major energy savings compared to
conventional gasification or anaerobic digestion. This exothermic process
generates its own processing energy when producing hydrocarbons, and over
85% of the sugar's thermal energy is retained in the product fuel gas.
Furthermore, the ACR process requires only a simple two-phase separator to
remove the product gases - this also requires very little energy.

From snkm at BTL.NET Thu Jun 26 10:45:06 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: Sugar to Hydrogen?
Message-ID: <THU.26.JUN.2003.084506.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Dear David;

The major design problem is the reaction vessel and the "valving" --

I have that -- since 1976 -- excellent design. Was for "shooting" extremely
high intensity sound signals for seismic oil exploration.

Operated at 800 F -- 15000 PSI. "Discharged" super critical water into
surrounding ocean medium -- producing water hammer sound source.

Worked extremely well --

Was financed by the Canadian Research Council.

Largest ever built was 40 cubic inches. That produced sufficient sound
energy for the purpose.

Easy to upgrade to 500 cubic inches.

Cycle rate was one shot every 6 seconds. But that was what was demanded for
the seismic array computers. Easy to speed up.

If I injected sugar/water instead of pure water --

Dual cycle power -- the energy put in to heat the water to super critical
can be recovered from the valving mechanism actuation.

The gas so produced -- extracted from the exhaust -- can be used to
directly power a small and efficient reciprocating gas engine -- or for
cooking/heating.

Think of a sterling design running on water and producing methane at the
exhuast???

As there is no change of state involved -- mechanical/thermodynamic
efficiencies are extremely high.

I am not interested in fuel cells -- those obviously -- for the grant
animals -- it is the hot topic of this day and age.

According to the chart at:

http://www.virent.com/thermodymanic.htm

800 F is a good temperature for this.

As for catalysts -- no secrets there -- but I'll not post what must be so
obvious to the "experts" -- right??

Maybe -- one day -- I'll find sufficient resources to build this device.
But as it stands now -- other interests beg my attention.

Simply -- to people on this list concerned with commercialization of
gasification -- keep an open mind.

There is more to gasification than WWII gasification technologies.

The above is so simple to accomplish -- I am sorely tempted -- but no --
can -- must -- resist.

Can't waste time pound square pegs into round holes -- right?? No "grant"
money there -- right??

Go with the "program" -- try not to think about what is meant to be
accomplished -- just do what gets a grant.

Peter

At 09:31 AM 6/26/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>>>>
RE: [GASL] Sugar to Hydrogen?

David F. Knowles, P.E.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Singfield [<mailto:snkm@BTL.NET>mailto:snkm@BTL.NET]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 8:52 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Sugar to Hydrogen?

At 09:57 PM 6/25/2003 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> Spent last weekend at the Midwest Renewable Energy Fair -- the
>largest event of it's kind. Totally awesome. I went last year for two
>days, this year I just camped there for the whole 3 day affair, wish
>they'd make it a week long. Anyway, one of the seminars was on this new
>process for making H2. Seems pretty promising.
>
>
><http://www.virent.com/technology.htm>http://www.virent.com/technology.htm
>
>
>--
>Harmon Seaver
>CyberShamanix
><http://www.cybershamanix.com>http://www.cybershamanix.com

Dear Listers;

Below is the clip from that page. Not much hard info there at all.

But this line:

"via the liquid-phase reforming of biomass-derived compounds such as sugars
and sugar alcohols."

Sounds like the high pressure super critical water process. With addition
of a catalyst processing.

You remember?? The one I have been harping on for the past many years.

HYDROGEN PRODUCTION FROM HIGH-MOISTURE CONTENT BIOMASS IN
SUPERCRITICAL WATER

University of Hawaii

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

It is very suitable for micro-scale production of H2 or methane. Very
efficient -- and very ignored by this mail list!!

Well -- time always tells -- we wait -- and we watch -- observers only --
no "doers" here.

With minimal resources I could have constructed a micro unit to do this
years ago!

Well, back to my micro-cane crusher -- setting up to produce lots of cane
juice -- but not for gasifying. For producing a local wine called "Chee-Cha"

How easy it would be to process cane juice to methane in a super critical
water reactor -- burning the bagasse as the heat energy for this
endothermic reaction.

All on a micro -- rsingle 3rd world house -- level.

Well -- one day -- maybe --

Peter Singfield
Belize

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

The ACR Process

Liquid-Phase Reforming - The ACR process generates gas without the need to
volatilize water, which represents a major energy savings compared to
conventional gasification or anaerobic digestion. This exothermic process
generates its own processing energy when producing hydrocarbons, and over
85% of the sugar's thermal energy is retained in the product fuel gas.
Furthermore, the ACR process requires only a simple two-phase separator to
remove the product gases - this also requires very little energy.

From CAVM at AOL.COM Thu Jun 26 17:42:09 2003
From: CAVM at AOL.COM (Cornelius A. Van Miligen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: Renewable energy fair
Message-ID: <THU.26.JUN.2003.174209.EDT.>

The schedule had some very interesting issues being discussed. Too bad it
wasn't better advertised.

Neal Van Miligen

> Spent last weekend at the Midwest Renewable Energy Fair -- the
> largest event of it's kind. Totally awesome. I went last year for two
> days, this year I just camped there for the whole 3 day affair, wish
> they'd make it a week long.

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Thu Jun 26 19:10:50 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: Sugar to Hydrogen?
In-Reply-To: <608B598A10CA084B8AD019674E3D192C08568A@mail2.antaresgroupinc.com>
Message-ID: <THU.26.JUN.2003.181050.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 09:31:13AM -0400, Knowles, Dave wrote:
> So Peter, where are you in the development of this technology? Do you need
> to do further research or are you ready to commercialize? Are you getting
> support from government or private investors? Do you have a business plan?
>
> By the way, the fuel cells which are currently under development in the
> mainstream all require high purity hydrogen. Developing a specialized
> reformer for your product is problematic from a commercialization standpoint
> (IMHO)

The Virent people are building quite small units -- they claim they will have
one small enough -- including the fuel cell -- to replace laptop batteries in
commercial production within 2-3 years. The H2 their process produces is good
enough now to run fuel cells, or, alternately, they can produce LPG with it
instead.

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

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Thu Jun 26 19:22:46 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: Renewable energy fair
In-Reply-To: <188.1bb22864.2c2cc2b1@aol.com>
Message-ID: <THU.26.JUN.2003.182246.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

Yes, they have a lot of excellent seminars and also a great many vendor
exhibets. And while you might not have heard of it, their advertising must be
pretty good as they draw quite a crowd. People from all over the US.

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 05:42:09PM -0400, Cornelius A. Van Miligen wrote:
> The schedule had some very interesting issues being discussed. Too bad it
> wasn't better advertised.
>
> Neal Van Miligen
>
>
> > Spent last weekend at the Midwest Renewable Energy Fair -- the
> > largest event of it's kind. Totally awesome. I went last year for two
> > days, this year I just camped there for the whole 3 day affair, wish
> > they'd make it a week long.

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

From snkm at BTL.NET Thu Jun 26 19:49:17 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: Sugar to Hydrogen?
Message-ID: <THU.26.JUN.2003.174917.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

> The Virent people are building quite small units -- they claim they
will have
>one small enough -- including the fuel cell -- to replace laptop batteries in
>commercial production within 2-3 years. The H2 their process produces is good
>enough now to run fuel cells, or, alternately, they can produce LPG with it
>instead.
>
>
>
>Harmon Seaver
>CyberShamanix
>http://www.cybershamanix.com
>

Dear Harmon;

I researched their site further -- lot's of good stuff under the "News" page.

Yes -- they are going micro power plants!! Fantastic -- the clip:

Virent's first target markets for hydrogen are laptop computers, where
miniaturization is the key. The firm envisions little cartridges of liquid
glycol to power fuel cells replacing today's batteries.

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

Though one finds references to temperature of operation (390 to 440 F) --
and catalyst (platinum) -- nothing at all in regards to "pressure" -- big
secret!!

OK -- they do mention they are running "liquid" -- with water sugar
solution (they are also very vague on how much glucose -- or glycol is in
that solution -- but do mention they wish they could operate at higher
solutions)

Anyway -- minimum pressure to keep water liquid at 440 F = 400 PSI

Would not be surprised to find out they operate at 5000 psi or over.

"We think we have a good solution for autos because the problem with autos
is storing the hydrogen" which is explosive and requires pressurized tanks,
Daugherty said. "With our technology we can store a safe, non-flammable,
non-toxic liquid in just a plastic tank at atmospheric pressure. And then
the reformer (to convert it to hydrogen) is on-board."

OK --atmospheric in the tank -- then to the "injector"

Their prototype is:

In a Virent demonstration unit, glycerol is converted to hydrogen and
carbon dioxide. The hydrogen feeds a fuel cell (center) which powers the
propeller.

http://www.engr.wisc.edu/graphics/photos/research-anim/glycellprop.jpg

Shows a 3000 PSI pressure guage -- so go figure -- eh??

And last:

James Dumesic, Steenbock Professor of Chemical Engineering, and Randy
Cortright, a chemical engineering researcher, discovered the "Aqueous-Phase
Carbohydrate Reforming" process at the UW in 2001 while working to generate
chemicals from biomass such as corn stalks.

Oh sure -- Hawaii should be interested to hear that!

Peter / Belize

From snkm at BTL.NET Thu Jun 26 20:06:21 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: "Aqueous-Phase Carbohydrate Reforming"
Message-ID: <THU.26.JUN.2003.180621.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Oops -- more stuff --

http://www.engr.wisc.edu/graphics/photos/research-anim/glycellprop.jpg

Shows a 3000 PSI pressure gauge -- so go figure -- eh??

Photo also shows:

Container of Fuel marked -- 10% glycerol in water.

Harmon -- did you see the prototype at the fair??

Notice what pressures it runs at??

Numerous pressure gauges -- only one is a close up.

The whole "rig" is shown at:

http://www.engr.wisc.edu/graphics/photos/research-groups/virentchemnews.jpg

In my old seismic sound device -- I injected into a 40 cubic inch reaction
vessel at 1500 PSI and released 6 seconds later at 15,000 PSI -- 800 F.

That pressure gauge shown is direct in line -- so has to be the "cold"
side. The injection side.

more "clues":

To be truly useful, the team says several process improvements must first
be made. The platinum-based catalyst that drives the reaction is expensive
and new combinations of catalysts and reactor configurations are needed to
obtain higher hydrogen yields from more concentrated solutions of sugars.

"Our goal in a perfect situation would be to achieve a process where 25
percent of the hydrogen would be used to heat the solution with the
remaining 75 percent free to be used as fuel," Dumesic said. "But we are a
long way from that."

At present in the laboratory bench process, hydrogen constitutes about half
of the product from a catalyzed glucose solution. But with further refining
of the sugar solution the percentage rises.

Because the Wisconsin process occurs in a liquid phase at low reaction
temperatures (227 degrees Celsius, 440 degrees Fahrenheit) the hydrogen is
made without the need to vaporize water. That represents a major energy
savings compared to ethanol production or other conventional methods for
producing hydrogen from fossil fuels based on vapor-phase, steam-reforming
processes.

in the science journal Nature, found that heating the sugar solution to 392
degrees Fahrenheit and passing it over a platinum-based catalyst broke it
down into hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

Peter / Belize

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Fri Jun 27 20:50:22 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: "Aqueous-Phase Carbohydrate Reforming"
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20030626180421.009cfdc0@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <FRI.27.JUN.2003.195022.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 06:06:21PM -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
> Oops -- more stuff --
>
> http://www.engr.wisc.edu/graphics/photos/research-anim/glycellprop.jpg
>
> Shows a 3000 PSI pressure gauge -- so go figure -- eh??
>
> Photo also shows:
>
> Container of Fuel marked -- 10% glycerol in water.
>
> Harmon -- did you see the prototype at the fair??
>
> Notice what pressures it runs at??

No, didn't see a prototype, just caught the seminar, and almost accidently at
that -- there were far too many exhibits and seminars to attend in 3 days, so I
hope they go longer next year.
However, I've been to a great many such presentations over the years,
especially at the Experimental Aircraft Assoc. and have developed a bit of a
nose for snake oil, and this fellow seemed really like a straight arrow. So I
found his presentation quite interesting.
I'm not sure about pressures, but I know he kept making two specific points
about this being remarkable for the fact that they were doing it at quite low
temps (220C-230C) and only a single vessel, compared to the much higher temps
and multiple vessels of ordinary methane -> hydrogen production. IIRC, he also
mentioned low (or lower) pressures too, but not 100% on that -- however, being
able to produce 3000lb pressures in something small enough to replace (with the
fuel cell no less) a laptop battery boggles the mind.

(snip)

>
> To be truly useful, the team says several process improvements must first
> be made. The platinum-based catalyst that drives the reaction is expensive
> and new combinations of catalysts and reactor configurations are needed to
> obtain higher hydrogen yields from more concentrated solutions of sugars.

Right -- he mentioned a number of times the ability to do this process with
various catalysts -- in fact, towards the end I specifically asked him which
metals worked, and he replied that they had done so with a number of common
metals, besides the rare ones.

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

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Fri Jun 27 21:24:31 2003
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: "Aqueous-Phase Carbohydrate Reforming"
Message-ID: <FRI.27.JUN.2003.212431.EDT.>

In a message dated 6/27/03 7:00:39 PM, hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM writes:

<< http://www.engr.wisc.edu/graphics/photos/research-anim/glycellprop.jpg >>

In addition to the pressure gauge, the high pressure pump is a HPLC pump
which will run up to 5000-6000 psi normally. This is what is used for the
pressure. Our small prototype blew up a 10,000 psi pressure gauge and can operate at
800F.
The use of high cost organics such as glycerine or sugars is counter to
inexpensive energy production as I can determine. Los Alamos and some of the
scientists who left the laboratory to develop a private company for
commercialization of the technology had a methanol fuel cell than ran on a 3% methanol in
water solution and was touted to be the next big cell phone and computer power
supply. Not heard from in some time.

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 hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Sat Jun 28 12:42:18 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:26 2004
Subject: "Aqueous-Phase Carbohydrate Reforming"
In-Reply-To: <4f.3104b5e4.2c2e484f@aol.com>
Message-ID: <SAT.28.JUN.2003.114218.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 09:24:31PM -0400, LINVENT@aol.com wrote:
>
> The use of high cost organics such as glycerine or sugars is counter to
> inexpensive energy production as I can determine.

How do you determine that? Gasification of switchgrass seems like a great
idea for stationary producers of electricity, especially if they grow the grass
themselves and don't have to transport it far, but, as it was pointed out to me
in one seminar at the MREA fair, pelleted fuels, with all their associated
transport fees, are not really environmentally friendly. Densification of
biomass needs to be done locally -- as in "on the farm" -- to be competitive.
So, sugar solutions, say farm processed sugar beets (or better yet cattail
roots) which can -- supposidly, if the ACR process proves successful -- be
converted to H2 in the vehicle (or laptop) are not a solution? I certainly
wouldn't mind at all a laptop battery that I just had to pour in some sugar
water. Recharging a laptop battery is one thing, replacing it periodically is
quite another.
I used to be (30 years ago) a H2 enthusiast. This process (if it really
works) seems like the first viable method I've seen so far. Yes, if I had enough
capital to buy enough solar cells, I could hydrolize water to produce sufficient
H2 to power my car, but being able to grow a sugar crop seems like a much better
idea.

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

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

June 2003 Gasification Archive