March 2003 Gasification Archive

From joacim at YMEX.NET Sat Mar 1 20:21:51 2003
From: joacim at YMEX.NET (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: [BiomassGroup] Bush's H-Car Is Just Hot Air
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20030222134423.00b79100@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <SUN.2.MAR.2003.022151.0100.JOACIM@YMEX.NET>

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Peter Singfield wrote:

...
> Increase the cost of gasoline to $5.00 US per gallon (as indeed they have
> done in Europe)
>
> Say $1.00 is the true price -- the rest is "tax" -- and that money can be
> then used in productive manner to re-adjust the entire energy problem.

But instead the money (in Europe) is used in a counter-productive
manner. ;) The favourite occupation of politicians is inventing nonsense
bureaucracy, which makes it impossible to experiment. Necessity is the
mother of invention, but freedom is its father. Red tape is a
contraceptive.

But finding replacement energy (/and/ raw material) sources is not enough.
The whole structure (cultural-economical-geographical) of the
industrialised part of the world must, /will/, also go through a
fundamental change.

Joacim

From herleikv at STUDENT.HIT.NO Mon Mar 3 11:30:56 2003
From: herleikv at STUDENT.HIT.NO (Herleik V=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E5gslid?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
Message-ID: <MON.3.MAR.2003.113056.0500.HERLEIKV@STUDENT.HIT.NO>

During the past year or so i have read many e-mails on this list on the use
of produsergas fro biomass. It seemd like internal cumbustion engines where
much used, with tar deposits inside the engine beeing a problem.
If the gas was used in a burner which prodused steam, and the steam was
used in a steamturbine, would the tar bee a smaller problem? And maybee
more efficient too? Is the turbines too expensive for smallscale electric
plants? Does anyone have experience on this? I would bee happy for any
coments.
Kindest regards
Herleik V?gslid

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Mon Mar 3 12:23:58 2003
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
Message-ID: <MON.3.MAR.2003.122358.EST.>

In a message dated 3/3/03 10:05:21 AM, herleikv@STUDENT.HIT.NO writes:

<< During the past year or so i have read many e-mails on this list on the use

of produsergas fro biomass. It seemd like internal cumbustion engines where

much used, with tar deposits inside the engine beeing a problem.

If the gas was used in a burner which prodused steam, and the steam was

used in a steamturbine, would the tar bee a smaller problem? And maybee

more efficient too? Is the turbines too expensive for smallscale electric

plants? Does anyone have experience on this? I would bee happy for any

coments.

Kindest regards

Herleik V?gslid >>

Dear Mr. Vagslid,
IC engines are more efficient than steam cycle systems. In addition, the
process of using various waste materials which have negatively valued
feestock, have problems with emissions from indirect combustion processes
such as dual stage combustors typically used for steam cycle systems. Biomass
systems can and are set up using steam cycle operation, but power generation
economics limit their use over what gasifier systems can address in sizing
and efficiency. Many larger forest products companies have steam cycle
systems set up for power and process steam operations. Even some ofthese are
interested in more efficient operations which can use a wider variety of
feedstocks such as process wastes or bark which typically are not used in
their boiler systems but gasifiers can operate on.
Gasification is a very strong alternative to steam cycle conversion
systems and when the industries embrace the process, will make very large
differences in the process designs used.

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 psanders at ILSTU.EDU Mon Mar 3 15:19:10 2003
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
In-Reply-To: <LISTSERV%2003030311305654@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Message-ID: <MON.3.MAR.2003.141910.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Very good question.

I hope someone can add information about the sizes of the steam turbines,
especially on the smallest sizes.

Paul

At 11:30 AM 3/3/03 -0500, Herleik V?gslid wrote:
>During the past year or so i have read many e-mails on this list on the use
>of produsergas fro biomass. It seemd like internal cumbustion engines where
>much used, with tar deposits inside the engine beeing a problem.
>If the gas was used in a burner which prodused steam, and the steam was
>used in a steamturbine, would the tar bee a smaller problem? And maybee
>more efficient too? Is the turbines too expensive for smallscale electric
>plants? Does anyone have experience on this? I would bee happy for any
>coments.
>Kindest regards
>Herleik V?gslid

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

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Mon Mar 3 15:35:53 2003
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
Message-ID: <MON.3.MAR.2003.153553.EST.>

IC engines can be successfully operated if the tars, oils, and water borne
compounds are removed from the gas stream. We remove the tars down to
invisible and undetectable limits and separate them from the liquid removed
and are currently recycling them back to the reactor for additional breakdown
and to add to the heating value of the gas produced. There are plans on
making these tars into useful compounds as liquid fuels.
If water is not condensed and removed, it will carry trace or large
contaminants into the engine such as acetic and other acids which will
corrode the engine components. These are also successfully removed by our
process. The standard conditions which others are trying to do this do not
allow long engine lifetime.
The process for doing this is not difficult if done properly. It is much
cheaper and more reliable than what the industry has typically tried to do in
the past. Unfortunately, the lack of success of others doing this has kept
the industry from accepting gasification and being widely accepted and
marketed.

From Andries.Weststeijn at ESSENT.NL Mon Mar 3 17:52:30 2003
From: Andries.Weststeijn at ESSENT.NL (Weststeijn, Andries)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
Message-ID: <MON.3.MAR.2003.235230.0100.ANDRIES.WESTSTEIJN@ESSENT.NL>

Dear Listers,
Biomass gasification systems not only can be ...a very strong alternative to
steam cycle conversion systems..., they actually are being made part of
(existing) steam cycle conversion systems. No doubt a minimum size applies
as set by local economics. Also, stand-alone systems will be more expensive
than hook-up's to existing steam systems.

Nevertheless, nowadays, biomass gasifiers are being linked to existing steam
boilers / steam systems.
That means: Step 1 is in motion.
Steam is here to stay!

best regards,
Andries Weststeijn

-----Original Message-----
From: LINVENT@AOL.COM [mailto:LINVENT@AOL.COM]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 6:24 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Internal combustion or steamturbine

In a message dated 3/3/03 10:05:21 AM, herleikv@STUDENT.HIT.NO writes:

<< During the past year or so i have read many e-mails on this list on the
use

of produsergas fro biomass. It seemd like internal cumbustion engines where

much used, with tar deposits inside the engine beeing a problem.

If the gas was used in a burner which prodused steam, and the steam was

used in a steamturbine, would the tar bee a smaller problem? And maybee

more efficient too? Is the turbines too expensive for smallscale electric

plants? Does anyone have experience on this? I would bee happy for any

coments.

Kindest regards

Herleik V?gslid >>

Dear Mr. Vagslid,
IC engines are more efficient than steam cycle systems. In addition, the
process of using various waste materials which have negatively valued
feestock, have problems with emissions from indirect combustion processes
such as dual stage combustors typically used for steam cycle systems.
Biomass
systems can and are set up using steam cycle operation, but power generation
economics limit their use over what gasifier systems can address in sizing
and efficiency. Many larger forest products companies have steam cycle
systems set up for power and process steam operations. Even some ofthese are
interested in more efficient operations which can use a wider variety of
feedstocks such as process wastes or bark which typically are not used in
their boiler systems but gasifiers can operate on.
Gasification is a very strong alternative to steam cycle conversion
systems and when the industries embrace the process, will make very large
differences in the process designs used.

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 renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ Mon Mar 3 17:38:17 2003
From: renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ (Ken Calvert)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
Message-ID: <TUE.4.MAR.2003.113817.1300.RENERTECH@XTRA.CO.NZ>

Herleik, Its mainly a matter of economics. And I think the cross over is
around 250kw. Below that figure, one IC engine and gas cleanup gear will
cost less than a boiler and a steam device every time. Its all the
regulations. You have to employ a brace of qualified engineers to run a
steam pressure vessel, but anybody can push the button on a I.C. engine.
Ken Calvert.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Herleik V?gslid" <herleikv@STUDENT.HIT.NO>
To: <Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 5:30 AM
Subject: [GASL] Internal combustion or steamturbine

> During the past year or so i have read many e-mails on this list on the
use
> of produsergas fro biomass. It seemd like internal cumbustion engines
where
> much used, with tar deposits inside the engine beeing a problem.
> If the gas was used in a burner which prodused steam, and the steam was
> used in a steamturbine, would the tar bee a smaller problem? And maybee
> more efficient too? Is the turbines too expensive for smallscale electric
> plants? Does anyone have experience on this? I would bee happy for any
> coments.
> Kindest regards
> Herleik V?gslid
>

From cicbcal at CAL2.VSNL.NET.IN Tue Mar 4 02:04:31 2003
From: cicbcal at CAL2.VSNL.NET.IN (Kollol Dey)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
Message-ID: <TUE.4.MAR.2003.123431.0530.CICBCAL@CAL2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Ken, Herleik, and others,

You are right. Its all a matter of economics and hence will be strongly depend on local conditions.
However, a TG set with the steam turbine operating on a back pressure mode, will always be more attractive than the IC Engine route when the turbine exhaust steam is used for process purpose - basically on a combined cycle mode. In such case the overall cycle efficiency can be really high.

When process steam is not required, I think an IC engine route to power may be a more economical choice since a typical Rankin cycle's overall efficiency will be only ~ 17 to 18% (since bulk of the energy is lost to the condenser) where as the IC engine's overall efficiency will be at least ~ 30 to 34% !

In going for the IC engine route, the gas cleaning of course has to be very dependable and unfortunately is expensive.
I think this fact alone precludes small power generation plants, as such costly gas cleaning system can hardly be borne by smaller units. My experience is that units of say 400 KW and above, can easily bear the cost of an extensive Gas Cleaning & Cooling system which will ensure sustained good, clean and cooled gas free of ash, tar and water droplets to the gasifier. As I said earlier, there is nothing sanctimonious about the 400 KW figure, and I will certainly expect it to vary in other countries.

Regards

Kollol Dey.

----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Calvert
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 4:08 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Internal combustion or steamturbine

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Tue Mar 4 09:43:51 2003
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
In-Reply-To: <00b701c2e21c$80d37aa0$02c741db@kdey>
Message-ID: <TUE.4.MAR.2003.084351.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Dear Killol and others.

Your comment below is VERY appreciated.

I hope that you and some others can assist concerning the SMALL scale
operation of the steam turbine. Maybe the Gasification List is not the
place to get the info on small steam turbines. Can you suggest other sources?

I am working on the VERY SMALL gasifiers based on Tom Reed's concepts. How
much wood (biomass) burning is needed to run a small steamturbine? If I
can make my Juntos gasifier larger (and still inexpensive) then electricity
can be had in remote rural areas for the cost of the steamturbine and
whatever else is needed AFTER the heat is supplied.

Is our student friend Herleik receiving messages that only go to the
Gasification List Serve? If not, he needs to subscribe (or tell us to be
sure to copy to him.)

I leave for Africa on Saturday for 2 months, so during that time e-mail
contact is "occassional" and selective. Any messages specifically for me
to read should have a subject title that gets my attention.

Paul

At 12:34 PM 3/4/03 +0530, Kollol Dey wrote:
>Dear Ken, Herleik, and others,
>
>You are right. Its all a matter of economics and hence will be strongly
>depend on local conditions.
>However, a TG set with the steam turbine operating on a back pressure
>mode, will always be more attractive than the IC Engine route when the
>turbine exhaust steam is used for process purpose - basically on a
>combined cycle mode. In such case the overall cycle efficiency can be
>really high.
>
>When process steam is not required, I think an IC engine route to power
>may be a more economical choice since a typical Rankin cycle's overall
>efficiency will be only ~ 17 to 18% (since bulk of the energy is lost to
>the condenser) where as the IC engine's overall efficiency will be at
>least ~ 30 to 34% !
>
>In going for the IC engine route, the gas cleaning of course has to be
>very dependable and unfortunately is expensive.
>I think this fact alone precludes small power generation plants, as such
>costly gas cleaning system can hardly be borne by smaller units. My
>experience is that units of say 400 KW and above, can easily bear the cost
>of an extensive Gas Cleaning & Cooling system which will ensure sustained
>good, clean and cooled gas free of ash, tar and water droplets to the
>gasifier. As I said earlier, there is nothing sanctimonious about the 400
>KW figure, and I will certainly expect it to vary in other countries.
>
>Regards
>
>Kollol Dey.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ken Calvert
> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 4:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Internal combustion or steamturbine
>
>
> Herleik, Its mainly a matter of economics. And I think the cross over is
> around 250kw. Below that figure, one IC engine and gas cleanup gear will
> cost less than a boiler and a steam device every time. Its all the
> regulations. You have to employ a brace of qualified engineers to run a
> steam pressure vessel, but anybody can push the button on a I.C. engine.
> Ken Calvert.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Herleik V?gslid" <herleikv@STUDENT.HIT.NO>
> To: <Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 5:30 AM
> Subject: [GASL] Internal combustion or steamturbine
>
>
> > During the past year or so i have read many e-mails on this list on the
> use
> > of produsergas fro biomass. It seemd like internal cumbustion engines
> where
> > much used, with tar deposits inside the engine beeing a problem.
> > If the gas was used in a burner which prodused steam, and the steam was
> > used in a steamturbine, would the tar bee a smaller problem? And maybee
> > more efficient too? Is the turbines too expensive for smallscale electric
> > plants? Does anyone have experience on this? I would bee happy for any
> > coments.
> > Kindest regards
> > Herleik V?gslid
> >

From tbollman at TWLAKES.NET Tue Mar 4 10:56:25 2003
From: tbollman at TWLAKES.NET (tbollman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Small scale gasification
Message-ID: <TUE.4.MAR.2003.095625.0600.TBOLLMAN@TWLAKES.NET>

To all discussing small scale electrical production,

I cannot address all the issues of filtering producer gas for IC engines, but, as a veteran electricity producer, allow me to
draw your attention to some facts of life for successful eletrical production.

First and foremost, any electrical generation equipment MUST BE reliable, long-lived, easy to maintain, and spare parts
must be easy to obtain. Keeping it simple is a must for successful continuos operation.

I contend to you, that a steam turbine system based on a producer gas - while certainly sexy and exotic- fails to
meet all the above criteria, with the possible exception of longevity.

In addition to the initial expense of the boiler and turbine system, there is the long term maintainence, repair and upkeep of the
additional components to consider. Also, as some one else mentioned, a steam boiler operator must be trained, liscensed and certified.

It would seem to me, that extensive filtration and conditioning of the producer gas could be accomplished with far less effort and
expense, than one would expend upon a boiler/turbine system. Also, as noted "uplist", the loss of efficiency would double by merit of the fact that
you are converting the same energy twice before use, rather than once.

It also occurs to me that millions of autos' were run successfully on poorly filtered gas (WWII Europe). These autos' were neither designed
to run on producer gas, nor were they as reliable and inexpensive as many of todays IC engines, but they ran none-the-less.

Having spent many mant hours over the last 4 years, investigating and considering the available alternatives, I have determined that the best
possible small-scale (1-2 KW) electrical generating system will be as follows;

*Small open topped stratified downdraft gassifier, either batch or continous fed. Capable of using feedstock of various sizes and shapes
to minimize the energy and time consumed by procurring and processing the fuel, Feeding a....

*Small (5-10 hp) IC engine, converted to a dual fuel system. Wood-gas for normal scheduled generation, gasoline as back-up and for
unforseen circumstances. Said engine driving a.....

*DC Alternator/generator, feeding a battery storage bank, which in turn can be drawn off and used as DC current or passed thru an inverter to
power AC loads.

As for filtration of the gas, I intend to investigate filtration thru a sawdust pack. The main reason being that, any tars that become intrained in the
filter can be recycled back to the gasifier, thus reducing the hassle of disposing of them elsewise.

Least you think that the above represent wishfull thinking, I have built most of the above system and am currently working on the gasifier that
completes it.

Enough of my drivel for now,
Best of luck on your endeavors.

From tbollman at TWLAKES.NET Tue Mar 4 15:43:10 2003
From: tbollman at TWLAKES.NET (tbollman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Small Scale Gassification
Message-ID: <TUE.4.MAR.2003.144310.0600.TBOLLMAN@TWLAKES.NET>

Mr Musgrove,

If you are attempting to ascertain my bona fides, I have none. Not a PHD, MD, PE or even a VP.

What I do have is an abiding dislike of public utilities, petroleum refiners, and academics that know something MUST BE done, but are to busy to do it themslves.

I determined 4 years ago that I would become totaly self-sufficient (electrically at least).

While I am not 100% to that point yet, I am well on the way.

Signed
Timothy T. Bollman
Owner, Bottle-washer and Chief Engineer
Bollman Water and Power
:)

>Dan Musgrove wrote:

>Tbollman ~ How do we qualify your comments if you don't provide your
>insights with a signature. While I found your response interesting and
>informative, it would be nice to know who it is coming from.

>UE is a resource management company in Phoenix, working on industrial and
>small-scale utility biomass power projects (haven't gotten deal #1 done
>yet), and through a large collaboration are part of a group working on
>biomass to ethanol.

>Thanks, Daniel A. Musgrove
>VP - Technology & Business Development

From renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ Tue Mar 4 17:38:15 2003
From: renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ (Ken Calvert)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Small scale gasification
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAR.2003.113815.1300.RENERTECH@XTRA.CO.NZ>

O.K. TB, we won't worry about your bona fides, I don't have too many
either. But at least a personal name would be good to reply to?? What you
seem to be advocating, we did on a remote pacific island, starting in 1973
out of necessity. It was the beginning of the First OPEC price hikes and
we couldn't afford to ship in fuel. However, we differed in a couple of
things from your outline. Be prepared for some difficulties with your gas
cleanup. Temperature wise go high or low but avoid the actual point of
condensation when you are dealing with what can become a very messy
emulsion of oily and watery substances which will clog every thing. What
we ended up with was electrostatic precipitation. Namely a 44 gallon drum,
to slow the flow rate, with an electrode made of wire netting.
The high voltage DC supply was made out of an old automotive ignition coil
powered by a vibrator and rectified by stick diodes, later on the power
supply out of a B&W TV. That willl clear smoke, fog,
tars, condensation the lot. Then use your sawdust or a cloth filter for
the remaining moisture. Our first engine was a petrol one with a tee
manifold. The gas supply on one side and a carburretor on the other, with
2 accelerator pedals, just like the old automotive gasifiers in the
wartime. For a governor we adapted an electronic "Cruise control"
kitset. However, even with the carburretor butterfly valve shut off tight,
we still burnt far too much petrol. So, a gate valve was placed on the
carburretor side. That reduced the petrol usage, but meant a quick sprint
when the lights started to dim. However, you will find out that one of the
characteristics of small gasifiers is that they can start losing
combustible gas very quickly because of the small throat area. We ended
switching over to a diesel engine which dual fuels very nicely, with about
12-15% of full load diesel injection, just enough to give ignition, has
its own built in governor system and will compensate for gas variation
with out the engine missing a single beat. And when we ran out of diesel
then it was kerosene with a dash of lubricating oil, rancid coconut oil,
hot tallow, old engine oil that had been left for the solids to settle
out. I once even stole the cooking oil out of the wifes kitchen cupboard.
Ah Sweet Memories!
Ken C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "tbollman" <tbollman@TWLAKES.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 4:56 AM
Subject: [GASL] Small scale gasification

> To all discussing small scale electrical production,
>
> I cannot address all the issues of filtering producer gas for IC engines,
but, as a veteran electricity producer, allow me to
> draw your attention to some facts of life for successful eletrical
production.
>
> First and foremost, any electrical generation equipment MUST BE reliable,
long-lived, easy to maintain, and spare parts
> must be easy to obtain. Keeping it simple is a must for successful
continuos operation.
>
> I contend to you, that a steam turbine system based on a producer gas -
while certainly sexy and exotic- fails to
> meet all the above criteria, with the possible exception of longevity.
>
> In addition to the initial expense of the boiler and turbine system, there
is the long term maintainence, repair and upkeep of the
> additional components to consider. Also, as some one else mentioned, a
steam boiler operator must be trained, liscensed and certified.
>
> It would seem to me, that extensive filtration and conditioning of the
producer gas could be accomplished with far less effort and
> expense, than one would expend upon a boiler/turbine system. Also, as
noted "uplist", the loss of efficiency would double by merit of the fact
that
> you are converting the same energy twice before use, rather than once.
>
> It also occurs to me that millions of autos' were run successfully on
poorly filtered gas (WWII Europe). These autos' were neither designed
> to run on producer gas, nor were they as reliable and inexpensive as many
of todays IC engines, but they ran none-the-less.
>
> Having spent many mant hours over the last 4 years, investigating and
considering the available alternatives, I have determined that the best
> possible small-scale (1-2 KW) electrical generating system will be as
follows;
>
> *Small open topped stratified downdraft gassifier, either batch or
continous fed. Capable of using feedstock of various sizes and shapes
> to minimize the energy and time consumed by procurring and processing the
fuel, Feeding a....
>
> *Small (5-10 hp) IC engine, converted to a dual fuel system. Wood-gas for
normal scheduled generation, gasoline as back-up and for
> unforseen circumstances. Said engine driving a.....
>
> *DC Alternator/generator, feeding a battery storage bank, which in turn
can be drawn off and used as DC current or passed thru an inverter to
> power AC loads.
>
> As for filtration of the gas, I intend to investigate filtration thru a
sawdust pack. The main reason being that, any tars that become intrained in
the
> filter can be recycled back to the gasifier, thus reducing the hassle of
disposing of them elsewise.
>
> Least you think that the above represent wishfull thinking, I have built
most of the above system and am currently working on the gasifier that
> completes it.
>
> Enough of my drivel for now,
> Best of luck on your endeavors.
>

From arnt at C2I.NET Tue Mar 4 19:18:15 2003
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Small scale gasification
In-Reply-To: <001301c2e29e$bf3559d0$140058db@renertecewp7x5>
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAR.2003.011815.0100.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:38:15 +1300,
Ken Calvert <renertech@XTRA.CO.NZ> wrote in message
<001301c2e29e$bf3559d0$140058db@renertecewp7x5>:

> O.K. TB, we won't worry about your bona fides, I don't have too
> many either. But at least a personal name would be good to reply to??

..Ken, Timothy offers in <01KT4QYJRKBU91KL5D@SMTP00.InfoAve.Net>:
>
> Signed
> Timothy T. Bollman
> Owner, Bottle-washer and Chief Engineer
> Bollman Water and Power
> :)

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

From tbollman at TWLAKES.NET Tue Mar 4 22:57:03 2003
From: tbollman at TWLAKES.NET (tbollman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <TUE.4.MAR.2003.215703.0600.TBOLLMAN@TWLAKES.NET>

Listers,

The following is why I continue to monitor this list.

In one paragraph...LMAO...I have recieved more info than a year of web-research.
I'll try to deconstruct it as follows ...still LMAO.

>Ken Calvert wrote
>O.K. TB, we won't worry about your bona fides, I don't have too many
>either. But at least a personal name would be good to reply to??

My name is Tim, but you can call me Jay or Jack or anything you wish..... as long as you reply with more of the same info.

>What you seem to be advocating, we did on a remote pacific island, starting in 1973
>out of necessity. It was the beginning of the First OPEC price hikes and
>we couldn't afford to ship in fuel.

As a child of the 60s' my motivation is much the same as yours. Seem to be experiencing Deja Vew al over again all of a sudden.
But it matters not, Hubberts' peak has passed. This time I am not 12.....and I won't be held captive by multi-nation slave traiders again.
These matters won't be solved by war, or politics or "diplomacy". The problem will be solved by US or those of like mind.
Onward.

> However, we differed in a couple of
>things from your outline. Be prepared for some difficulties with your gas
>cleanup. Temperature wise go high or low but avoid the actual point of
>condensation when you are dealing with what can become a very messy
>emulsion of oily and watery substances which will clog every thing. What
>we ended up with was electrostatic precipitation.

I have anticipated this, cogitated upon it, mulled it over again and came up with the following;

*I choose (hope I spelled "choose" correctly. Lost the Wyoming state spelling bee in 1978 on that word) low temperature.
Because I am dealing with a stationary plant, I have decided to use the geothermal energy God gave me to cool my gas.

Nearly immediately my gas will go subterranian(sp?) to a drain sump. Upward from there it will travel thru a series of large pipes....
untill it reaches my filter/blower/flare/combuster. A "prefilter" of some kind would be good. But, it must be high flow and high temp. Suggestions?

If I don't miss my hunch, Moisture won't be a problem at this point. Emulsification and water precipitation should happen in this loop. And drain to the sump.
Your opinion on this detail would be greatly appreciated.

> Namely a 44 gallon drum,
>to slow the flow rate, with an electrode made of wire netting.
>The high voltage DC supply was made out of an old automotive ignition coil
>powered by a vibrator and rectified by stick diodes, later on the power
>supply out of a B&W TV. That willl clear smoke, fog,
t>ars, condensation the lot.

Again LMAO, mmmmm, what kinda vibrator? Concrete or??? Gives new meaning to "stick" diodes.......LMAO...Diodes even.
Just to reiterate, electrical supply is not constant, and will be available only when absolutely neccessary. (a KW saved is a KW generated).

>Then use your sawdust or a cloth filter for
>the remaining moisture. Our first engine was a petrol one with a tee
>manifold. The gas supply on one side and a carburretor on the other, with
>2 accelerator pedals, just like the old automotive gasifiers in the
>wartime.

10-4 Rodger on that

> For a governor we adapted an electronic "Cruise control"
>kitset. However, even with the carburretor butterfly valve shut off tight,
>we still burnt far too much petrol. So, a gate valve was placed on the
>carburretor side.

Governer is not an issue......batteries are charged with constant current method....once engine speed is set, it is constant, or nearly so.

> That reduced the petrol usage, but meant a quick sprint
>when the lights started to dim.

LMAO again...bet I can beat you to my gen set......

>However, you will find out that one of the
>characteristics of small gasifiers is that they can start losing
>combustible gas very quickly because of the small throat area. We ended
>switching over to a diesel engine which dual fuels very nicely, with about
>12-15% of full load diesel injection, just enough to give ignition, has>
>its own built in governor system and will compensate for gas variation
>with out the engine missing a single beat. And when we ran out of diesel
>then it was kerosene with a dash of lubricating oil, rancid coconut oil,
>hot tallow, old engine oil that had been left for the solids to settle
>out.

One of the things I wish to accomplish with this gassifirier is constant generation......I.E. it's gonna have a pilot light.
Contiouos operation like a gas plant from days of yore.

> I once even stole the cooking oil out of the wifes kitchen cupboard.

LMAO.....the stories my wife could tell.

>Ah Sweet Memories!

When was the last time you remembered the joy of paying a light bill? and DAMN YES, sweet memories.

>Ken C.

LMAO, thank you for the inspiration sir.

Signed
Timothy T. Bollman
Owner, Bottle-washer and Chief Engineer
Bollman Water and Power
:)

From VHarris001 at AOL.COM Tue Mar 4 23:30:33 2003
From: VHarris001 at AOL.COM (VHarris001@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
Message-ID: <TUE.4.MAR.2003.233033.EST.>

In a message dated 03/03/2003 12:31:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
LINVENT@AOL.COM writes:

> IC engines are more efficient than steam cycle systems. In addition, the
> process of using various waste materials which have negatively valued
> feestock, have problems with emissions from indirect combustion processes
> such as dual stage combustors typically used for steam cycle systems.

I'm not sure I understand the point you are making. Variation in feedstock
will of course, regardless of combustion method, result in a change in the
emissions characteristics of the exhaust. But with any given feedstock, are
you suggesting that the emissions from a single stage, high temperature,
short duration combustion system such as that occurring in an IC engine would
be an improvement over the emissions from a two stage (low temp. / high
temp.), long duration combustion system such as used in steam cycle systems?
How so?

Vernon Harris

From VHarris001 at AOL.COM Tue Mar 4 23:39:16 2003
From: VHarris001 at AOL.COM (VHarris001@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
Message-ID: <TUE.4.MAR.2003.233916.EST.>

In a message dated 03/03/2003 6:51:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,
renertech@XTRA.CO.NZ writes:

> Its mainly a matter of economics. And I think the cross over is
> around 250kw. Below that figure, one IC engine and gas cleanup gear will
> cost less than a boiler and a steam device every time. Its all the
> regulations. You have to employ a brace of qualified engineers to run a
> steam pressure vessel, but anybody can push the button on a I.C. engine.
> Ken Calvert.

Can you also explain about what is called a "monotube steam generator." I've
heard considerable discussion (and disagreement) about whether or not they
are regulated as a boiler. The argument is that since they don't really
build up a "head of steam," they frequently do not fall under boilermaker
regulations. The steam-car folks use this technical loophole to avoid having
to register their vehicles and obtain a boilermaker's license. Comments?

Thanks,
Vernon Harris

From VHarris001 at AOL.COM Wed Mar 5 00:18:18 2003
From: VHarris001 at AOL.COM (VHarris001@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAR.2003.001818.EST.>

In a message dated 03/04/2003 2:15:26 AM Eastern Standard Time,
cicbcal@CAL2.VSNL.NET.IN writes:

> When process steam is not required, I think an IC engine route to power may
> be a more economical choice since a typical Rankin cycle's overall
> efficiency will be only ~ 17 to 18% (since bulk of the energy is lost to
> the condenser) where as the IC engine's overall efficiency will be at least
> ~ 30 to 34% !
>
> In going for the IC engine route, the gas cleaning of course has to be very
> dependable and unfortunately is expensive.
> I think this fact alone precludes small power generation plants, as such
> costly gas cleaning system can hardly be borne by smaller units.

I know that long-time listers Tom Reed and Doug Williams advocate simply
producing "clean" gas in the first place, while Leland Taylor promotes a
system of inexpensive gas cleanup and residue recycling. Hopefully these
solutions work. Nonetheless, we seem to live in an ever-expanding world of
tar-generating gas producers with expensive cleanup systems and expensive
disposal costs.

Wouldn't these considerations constitute a strong argument for combustion of
"dirty" producer gas in a burner / boiler systems - even in small systems
that suffer from efficiency problems.

Vernon Harris

From vvnk at TERI.RES.IN Wed Mar 5 00:21:20 2003
From: vvnk at TERI.RES.IN (V V N Kishore)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Small scale gasification
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAR.2003.105120.0530.VVNK@TERI.RES.IN>

We have almost exactly the system sketched by tbollman operational in our labs with a rating of 3.5 kW. Only pl don't ask for details which I cannot give for obvious reasons. Too many "respected" people have taken ideas from our systems without even acknowledging.

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

>>> tbollman <tbollman@TWLAKES.NET> 03/04/03 09:26PM >>>
To all discussing small scale electrical production,

I contend to you, that a steam turbine system based on a producer gas - while certainly sexy and exotic- fails to
meet all the above criteria, with the possible exception of longevity.

*Small (5-10 hp) IC engine, converted to a dual fuel system. Wood-gas for normal scheduled generation, gasoline as back-up and for
unforseen circumstances. Said engine driving a.....

*DC Alternator/generator, feeding a battery storage bank, which in turn can be drawn off and used as DC current or passed thru an inverter to
power AC loads.

Least you think that the above represent wishfull thinking, I have built most of the above system and am currently working on the gasifier that
completes it.

Enough of my drivel for now,
Best of luck on your endeavors.

From cicbcal at CAL2.VSNL.NET.IN Wed Mar 5 02:40:53 2003
From: cicbcal at CAL2.VSNL.NET.IN (Kollol Dey)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAR.2003.131053.0530.CICBCAL@CAL2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Mr. Harris,

My response to your mail is as marked in BLUE for ease of identification:
----- Original Message -----
From: VHarris001@aol.com
To: cicbcal@CAL2.VSNL.NET.IN ; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Internal combustion or steamturbine

In a message dated 03/04/2003 2:15:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, cicbcal@CAL2.VSNL.NET.IN writes:

Isn't steam system efficiency most related to a system's ability to generate and utilize superheated steam? If so, is there something that tends to limit the ability of small systems to utilize superheat?
You are absolutely right. Steam superheat temperature is one of the major factor which determines steam turbine eficiency. But with bhigher temperatures (say beyond 400C, material of construction becomes a problem for such small boilers!)

But when you are talking about small steam turbines (below 1000 KW range) you are essentially working with single stage impulse turbines whose adiabatic efficiency, as compared to multistage reaction turbines are very very low.
The cost of setting up a small boiler with facility for generating superheated steam in a gas fired (low BTU gas) can be an expensive proposition as the cost of boiler fittings are determined by the design steam temperature and pressure.
Further, once you go for superheated steam, you cannot avoid using demineralised water, which again is a pain in the neck to install, operate and maintain.

If condensing system is to be adopted then the whole cooling tower system also comes in.
I personally think generation of electricity through the gas combustion route is just not economical and practical at such small capacity levels.

At levels of 5.0 MW and above, a steam Rankine cycle is a viable option, but then why gasify the biomass when you can use it direct in the boiler and avoid all the problems of tar and gas cleaning?

Co-generation is of course a differant matter and should be looked into on a case to case basis.

I would say direct use of an IC engine for small capacities makes sense efforts in tacking tar is not really that much of a problem, if one knows how to handle it

I know that long-time listers Tom Reed and Doug Williams advocate simply producing "clean" gas in the first place, while Leland Taylor promotes a system of inexpensive gas cleanup and residue recycling. Hopefully these solutions work. Nonetheless, we seem to live in an ever-expanding world of tar-generating gas producers with expensive cleanup systems and expensive disposal costs.

Wouldn't these considerations constitute a strong argument for combustion of "dirty" producer gas in a burner / boiler systems - even in small systems that suffer from efficiency problems.

Vernon Harris

From piolenc at MOZCOM.COM Wed Mar 5 05:31:25 2003
From: piolenc at MOZCOM.COM (Marc de Piolenc)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAR.2003.183125.0800.>

A monotube steam generator is just that - a long tube. Water comes in
one end and steam comes out the other. There is no circulation - all
fluid moves one-way - and no storage of energy except for the slight
quantity of steam occupying the tube at any one time. It is therefore
NOT a vessel of any kind, as nothing is stored. Now as to whether any
particular entrenched bureaucracy will see it that way or not...

Another loophole, by the way, is to use a fluid other than water, as
many regulations still limit themselves to steam...

Marc de Piolenc

VHarris001@AOL.COM wrote:

> Can you also explain about what is called a "monotube steam generator." I've
> heard considerable discussion (and disagreement) about whether or not they
> are regulated as a boiler. The argument is that since they don't really
> build up a "head of steam," they frequently do not fall under boilermaker
> regulations. The steam-car folks use this technical loophole to avoid having
> to register their vehicles and obtain a boilermaker's license. Comments?
>
> Thanks,
> Vernon Harris

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Wed Mar 5 08:55:14 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAR.2003.095514.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Kollol

Your message came through as having uniformly black text., except for
portions of the header.

Far simpler is to transmit messages in Plain Text, rather than HTML, with
the >> thingy feature enabled. If you are using Lookout Express, go to
"Tools/ Options/ Send/ Plain Text/ , and then click the "Indent Box".

HTML is bad stuff for virus transmission. When one is using HTML, one has to
be Expressly on the Outlook for virii. :-)

Kevin Chisholm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kollol Dey" <cicbcal@CAL2.VSNL.NET.IN>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 3:40 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Internal combustion or steamturbine

Dear Mr. Harris,

In a message dated 03/04/2003 2:15:26 AM Eastern Standard Time,
cicbcal@CAL2.VSNL.NET.IN writes:

When process steam is not required, I think an IC engine route to power
may be a more economical choice since a typical Rankin cycle's overall
efficiency will be only ~ 17 to 18% (since bulk of the energy is lost to the
condenser) where as the IC engine's overall efficiency will be at least ~ 30
to 34% !

Isn't steam system efficiency most related to a system's ability to
generate and utilize superheated steam? If so, is there something that
tends to limit the ability of small systems to utilize superheat?
You are absolutely right. Steam superheat temperature is one of the major
factor which determines steam turbine eficiency. But with bhigher
temperatures (say beyond 400C, material of construction becomes a problem
for such small boilers!)

But when you are talking about small steam turbines (below 1000 KW range)
you are essentially working with single stage impulse turbines whose
adiabatic efficiency, as compared to multistage reaction turbines are very
very low.
The cost of setting up a small boiler with facility for generating
superheated steam in a gas fired (low BTU gas) can be an expensive
proposition as the cost of boiler fittings are determined by the design
steam temperature and pressure.
Further, once you go for superheated steam, you cannot avoid using
demineralised water, which again is a pain in the neck to install, operate
and maintain.

If condensing system is to be adopted then the whole cooling tower system
also comes in.
I personally think generation of electricity through the gas combustion
route is just not economical and practical at such small capacity levels.

At levels of 5.0 MW and above, a steam Rankine cycle is a viable option,
but then why gasify the biomass when you can use it direct in the boiler and
avoid all the problems of tar and gas cleaning?

Co-generation is of course a differant matter and should be looked into on
a case to case basis.

I would say direct use of an IC engine for small capacities makes sense
efforts in tacking tar is not really that much of a problem, if one knows
how to handle it

Wouldn't these considerations constitute a strong argument for combustion
of "dirty" producer gas in a burner / boiler systems - even in small systems
that suffer from efficiency problems.

Vernon Harris

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Wed Mar 5 12:16:54 2003
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAR.2003.121654.EST.>

In a message dated 3/4/03 9:30:33 PM, VHarris001 writes:

<< 'm not sure I understand the point you are making. Variation in feedstock
will of course, regardless of combustion method, result in a change in the
emissions characteristics of the exhaust. But with any given feedstock, are
you suggesting that the emissions from a single stage, high temperature,
short duration combustion system such as that occurring in an IC engine would
be an improvement over the emissions from a two stage (low temp. / high
temp.), long duration combustion system such as used in steam cycle systems?
How so?

Vernon Harris >>

Dear Vernon,
Name a steam system which can produce a 34-43% thermal conversion as
engines do and don't require a full time round the clock engineer plus all of
the water treatment and process controls?
IC engines are so ubiquitous that repair and maintenance is likewise,
unlike boilers and steam turbines. Emissions do not seem to be a concern.
The comments about negatively valued feedstock is that MSW/RDF, hazardous
wastes, tires, are all feedstock which you can get paid to take and this
dramatically increases economics of any energy facility. Combustors (I am
including two stage combustors which misuse the name "gasifier") which can
accept these materials may be set up to accept one as a steam plant, but
cannot accept others or a mix, whereas gasifiers can, at least ours, with
minimal changes in the operating system such as changing the air fuel ratio
to the engine. This also adds flexibility to the system in that if the
economics of one feed changes, others can be used to substitute.
Emissions from the two stage combustors are of concern and a major cost
is cleaning up the gas from the two stage combustor. This is not the case
with a properly designed gasifier.
With waste heat recovery on the gasifier and engine system, efficiencies
are quite high.
Does this clarify the points?

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Wed Mar 5 14:04:37 2003
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Monotube steam generator
In-Reply-To: <3E65D1FD.30C46771@mozcom.com>
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAR.2003.130437.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Hello,

I (and some others) are VERY interested in this. Does anyone have any good
leads to quality information and / or descriptions about this. How long,
what diameter, what "Pressure" comes out in relation to what amount of heat
is applied?

If this topic stays on the GASL list, that is fine with me. But if the
conversation goes really far, we should identify who wants to receive those
messages. Please be sure that I am included.

Paul

At 06:31 PM 3/5/03 +0800, Marc de Piolenc wrote:
>A monotube steam generator is just that - a long tube. Water comes in
>one end and steam comes out the other. There is no circulation - all
>fluid moves one-way - and no storage of energy except for the slight
>quantity of steam occupying the tube at any one time. It is therefore
>NOT a vessel of any kind, as nothing is stored. Now as to whether any
>particular entrenched bureaucracy will see it that way or not...
>
>Another loophole, by the way, is to use a fluid other than water, as
>many regulations still limit themselves to steam...
>
>Marc de Piolenc
>
>VHarris001@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> > Can you also explain about what is called a "monotube steam
> generator." I've
> > heard considerable discussion (and disagreement) about whether or not they
> > are regulated as a boiler. The argument is that since they don't really
> > build up a "head of steam," they frequently do not fall under boilermaker
> > regulations. The steam-car folks use this technical loophole to avoid
> having
> > to register their vehicles and obtain a boilermaker's license. Comments?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Vernon Harris

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Wed Mar 5 15:02:26 2003
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Monotube steam generator
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20030305125836.01d6e240@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAR.2003.200226.0000.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

Pressure in =Pressure out, however you add energy to the water to create
steam and hence can gain useful work form the steam (in excess of the work
to pump the water in.) Open cycle efficiency is not good but pressures are
usually not high so its no too hi tech

[GGG] try some car brake pipe in a coil in the just out of the flame path.
Add a head of water and get lots of steam- then design your turbine and you
are away!
Hope this helps
gavin
Hello,

If this topic stays on the GASL list, that is fine with me. But if the
conversation goes really far, we should identify who wants to receive those
messages. Please be sure that I am included.

Paul

At 06:31 PM 3/5/03 +0800, Marc de Piolenc wrote:
>A monotube steam generator is just that - a long tube. Water comes in
>one end and steam comes out the other. There is no circulation - all
>fluid moves one-way - and no storage of energy except for the slight
>quantity of steam occupying the tube at any one time. It is therefore
>NOT a vessel of any kind, as nothing is stored. Now as to whether any
>particular entrenched bureaucracy will see it that way or not...
>
>Another loophole, by the way, is to use a fluid other than water, as
>many regulations still limit themselves to steam...
>
>Marc de Piolenc
>
>VHarris001@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> > Can you also explain about what is called a "monotube steam
> generator." I've
> > heard considerable discussion (and disagreement) about whether or not
they
> > are regulated as a boiler. The argument is that since they don't really
> > build up a "head of steam," they frequently do not fall under
boilermaker
> > regulations. The steam-car folks use this technical loophole to avoid
> having
> > to register their vehicles and obtain a boilermaker's license.
Comments?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Vernon Harris

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Wed Mar 5 15:02:28 2003
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
In-Reply-To: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGEEDKCKAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAR.2003.200228.0000.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

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: Gavin Gulliver-Goodall [mailto:Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 18:58
To: Paul S. Anderson
Subject: RE: [GASL] Internal combustion or steamturbine

See the tesla list - then realise that small steam just isn't feasible-
neither is ic engines on a small scale- try a windmill and battery for
electric and wood for heat and cooking gasifying for control and clean
complete combustion. Poodles don naturally walk on 2 legs and humans don't
bark- lets all do what we do best!

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>

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Paul S. Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 14:44
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Internal combustion or steamturbine

Dear Killol and others.

Your comment below is VERY appreciated.

Is our student friend Herleik receiving messages that only go to the
Gasification List Serve? If not, he needs to subscribe (or tell us to be
sure to copy to him.)

Paul

At 12:34 PM 3/4/03 +0530, Kollol Dey wrote:
>Dear Ken, Herleik, and others,
>
>You are right. Its all a matter of economics and hence will be strongly
>depend on local conditions.
>However, a TG set with the steam turbine operating on a back pressure
>mode, will always be more attractive than the IC Engine route when the
>turbine exhaust steam is used for process purpose - basically on a
>combined cycle mode. In such case the overall cycle efficiency can be
>really high.
>
>When process steam is not required, I think an IC engine route to power
>may be a more economical choice since a typical Rankin cycle's overall
>efficiency will be only ~ 17 to 18% (since bulk of the energy is lost to
>the condenser) where as the IC engine's overall efficiency will be at
>least ~ 30 to 34% !
>
>In going for the IC engine route, the gas cleaning of course has to be
>very dependable and unfortunately is expensive.
>I think this fact alone precludes small power generation plants, as such
>costly gas cleaning system can hardly be borne by smaller units. My
>experience is that units of say 400 KW and above, can easily bear the cost
>of an extensive Gas Cleaning & Cooling system which will ensure sustained
>good, clean and cooled gas free of ash, tar and water droplets to the
>gasifier. As I said earlier, there is nothing sanctimonious about the 400
>KW figure, and I will certainly expect it to vary in other countries.
>
>Regards
>
>Kollol Dey.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ken Calvert
> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 4:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Internal combustion or steamturbine
>
>
> Herleik, Its mainly a matter of economics. And I think the cross over
is
> around 250kw. Below that figure, one IC engine and gas cleanup gear
will
> cost less than a boiler and a steam device every time. Its all the
> regulations. You have to employ a brace of qualified engineers to run
a
> steam pressure vessel, but anybody can push the button on a I.C.
engine.
> Ken Calvert.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Herleik V?gslid" <herleikv@STUDENT.HIT.NO>
> To: <Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 5:30 AM
> Subject: [GASL] Internal combustion or steamturbine
>
>
> > During the past year or so i have read many e-mails on this list on
the
> use
> > of produsergas fro biomass. It seemd like internal cumbustion engines
> where
> > much used, with tar deposits inside the engine beeing a problem.
> > If the gas was used in a burner which prodused steam, and the steam
was
> > used in a steamturbine, would the tar bee a smaller problem? And
maybee
> > more efficient too? Is the turbines too expensive for smallscale
electric
> > plants? Does anyone have experience on this? I would bee happy for any
> > coments.
> > Kindest regards
> > Herleik V?gslid
> >

From luizmagri at YAHOO.COM Wed Mar 5 17:42:57 2003
From: luizmagri at YAHOO.COM (Luiz Alberto Magri)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Monotube steam generator
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20030305125836.01d6e240@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAR.2003.144257.0800.LUIZMAGRI@YAHOO.COM>

Paul,

I think this is one of the classic difficulties
regarding understanding of boiler´s operation. Indeed,
for a FIXED MECHANICAL DESIGN, the pressure will be
controlled via heat load (in short, more heat -> more
pressure + more flow -> more power). At design stage,
by the other hand, the pressure is an engineering
decision. With a tight closed outlet valve every
boiler will increase pressure up to pressure relief
valves setting point sooner or later - it doesn´t
matter how small is the heat load.

I would suggest the first approach for this "monotube"
(for me well known as a single pass boiler) design
would take a good piping manual in orther to check
diameters and wall thickness. Then some
thermodynamical calculation in order to fix piping
lenght (Kern´s Process Heat Transfer will do all the
required job).

None of the above should be converted into hard stuff
without carefull allowable pressure calculations. It
doesn´t matter the boiler will be given a license or
not. The ASME boiler code has to be used. Steam is
VERY DANGEROUS.

Regards,

Luiz Magri
São Paulo

--- "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders@ILSTU.EDU> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I (and some others) are VERY interested in this.
> Does anyone have any good
> leads to quality information and / or descriptions
> about this. How long,
> what diameter, what "Pressure" comes out in relation
> to what amount of heat
> is applied?
>
> If this topic stays on the GASL list, that is fine
> with me. But if the
> conversation goes really far, we should identify who
> wants to receive those
> messages. Please be sure that I am included.
>
> Paul
>
> At 06:31 PM 3/5/03 +0800, Marc de Piolenc wrote:
> >A monotube steam generator is just that - a long
> tube. Water comes in
> >one end and steam comes out the other. There is no
> circulation - all
> >fluid moves one-way - and no storage of energy
> except for the slight
> >quantity of steam occupying the tube at any one
> time. It is therefore
> >NOT a vessel of any kind, as nothing is stored. Now
> as to whether any
> >particular entrenched bureaucracy will see it that
> way or not...
> >
> >Another loophole, by the way, is to use a fluid
> other than water, as
> >many regulations still limit themselves to steam...
> >
> >Marc de Piolenc
> >
> >VHarris001@AOL.COM wrote:
> >
> > > Can you also explain about what is called a
> "monotube steam
> > generator." I've
> > > heard considerable discussion (and disagreement)
> about whether or not they
> > > are regulated as a boiler. The argument is that
> since they don't really
> > > build up a "head of steam," they frequently do
> not fall under boilermaker
> > > regulations. The steam-car folks use this
> technical loophole to avoid
> > having
> > > to register their vehicles and obtain a
> boilermaker's license. Comments?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Vernon Harris
>
> Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to
> Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
> Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10
> mo of 2001-2003
> Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois
> State University
> Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX:
> 309-438-5310
> E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items:
www.ilstu.edu/~psanders

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

From renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ Wed Mar 5 19:29:14 2003
From: renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ (Ken Calvert)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
Message-ID: <THU.6.MAR.2003.132914.1300.RENERTECH@XTRA.CO.NZ>

> Gavin Goodall wrote to Paul Anderson,
>> See the tesla list - then realise that small steam just >>isn't feasible
and,
>> neither is ic engines on a small scale.
I couldn't agree more with those comments!!. Nevertheless, in my case it
proved to be very feasibile when I was stuck on a remote pacific island.
The thing about islands, apart from the nostalgia factor when you are
feeling overloaded in the big city, is that most motor
vehicles are not designed to cope with wet salt laden winds, and that
throws a lot of rusted out hulks on the market with a very much under used
ic engine inside, which can be had for a song. And, if your gas clean up
is not as good as it could be and the organics and acids corrode out the
bearings on that engine faster than they should, then you simply throw it
away and buy another one!. You can't do that with steam equipment!
As someone said further up this debate its "horses for courses". So,
if you live away out back, thats fine do it.
But if all you want to do is get out of paying for service running past your
gate then forget it! Its hard work!
As regards the size factor and all the talk about 2-5hp engines, my
advice is to go bigger, and once again tap into the used equipment market.
Nobody is going to leave a plant running all night, just so you can switch
on a light to go to the toilet. And you will soon find out that running a
5kw plant all evening just so that you can run 2 or 3 lights and a radio/tv
is not much chop either.
The state of the art in power invertors now is that you can do all that on
batteries. So, put in a bigger plant and run it for 4 hours a day, flat out.
Thats the only time when you even can start to even think of efficiency, let
along start calculating future power bills on it.. Run it during your peak
loading period, usually in the early evening or whenever, and use it to
charge your battery bank. In some parts of the world, and yours may be one,
you can
sell power back to the State. I know folks, legally or otherwise, who
connect their gas prime mover onto one side of an appliance which has a big
electric motor on the other side and then over drive it. That will wind
your power meter backwards in a very safe way and give you virtually free
power at any time of the day or night. Just don't get too greedy and
produce a negative power bill or your local electricity authority may be
very cross.
Ken C.

From piolenc at MOZCOM.COM Wed Mar 5 21:48:19 2003
From: piolenc at MOZCOM.COM (Marc de Piolenc)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
Message-ID: <THU.6.MAR.2003.104819.0800.>

LINVENT@AOL.COM wrote:

> Name a steam system which can produce a 34-43% thermal conversion as
> engines do

An IC engine with 43% NET efficiency? I'd like to find out where to buy
one of those. 36% is the best simple-cycle efficiency I've seen for a
diesel that you can buy off the shelf. Of course, with waste heat
recovery it's better, but a backpressure steam system is much better if
you have a use for the waste heat.

Best,
Marc

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Wed Mar 5 21:38:09 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
In-Reply-To: <3E66B6F3.50ACB8E9@mozcom.com>
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAR.2003.203809.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 10:48:19AM +0800, Marc de Piolenc wrote:
> LINVENT@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> > Name a steam system which can produce a 34-43% thermal conversion as
> > engines do
>
> An IC engine with 43% NET efficiency? I'd like to find out where to buy
> one of those. 36% is the best simple-cycle efficiency I've seen for a
> diesel that you can buy off the shelf. Of course, with waste heat
> recovery it's better, but a backpressure steam system is much better if
> you have a use for the waste heat.
>

Where are you going to get a steam system of any kind for the price of a used
IC engine? I can get all the good-running used engines I want for $200-300
each. Even if you can build the boiler cheaply, where do you get turbines for
that price?
And a cogen unit should do better than 43% efficiency. Even in the Summer -
use the heat to run refrigeraton units.

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

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Wed Mar 5 22:34:37 2003
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:21 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
In-Reply-To: <3E66B6F3.50ACB8E9@mozcom.com>
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAR.2003.213437.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

At 10:48 AM 3/6/03 +0800, Marc de Piolenc wrote:
> Of course, with waste heat
>recovery it's better, but a backpressure steam system is much better if
>you have a use for the waste heat.

What range of temperatures are we expecting in the "waste heat" from steam
and/or from IC?

Seems to me that WASTE HEAT is extremely abundant, and whoever can make use
of it will be a hero.

If heat is what we want, then we have got it in abundance from so many
processes/devices. The issue seems to be "electricity" (wonderfully
useful) and how to get it from biomass.

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

From piolenc at MOZCOM.COM Wed Mar 5 23:06:00 2003
From: piolenc at MOZCOM.COM (Marc de Piolenc)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
Message-ID: <THU.6.MAR.2003.120600.0800.>

Harmon Seaver wrote:

> Where are you going to get a steam system of any kind for the price of a used
> IC engine? I can get all the good-running used engines I want for $200-300
> each. Even if you can build the boiler cheaply, where do you get turbines for
> that price?

I was talking efficiency, not price. I have no idea what a steam turbine
costs in that size range, assuming such things exist.

> And a cogen unit should do better than 43% efficiency. Even in the Summer -
> use the heat to run refrigeraton units.

Right. I assumed you meant simple cycle efficiency. If you're doing CHP,
that's another matter, but then steam is usually involved and you have
the cost of a waste heat boiler. At that point it is worth comparing the
cost of prime movers, since you will have a steam system anyway.

Marc

From arnt at C2I.NET Wed Mar 5 22:47:29 2003
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
In-Reply-To: <20030306023809.GA26301@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <THU.6.MAR.2003.044729.0100.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:38:09 -0600,
Harmon Seaver <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM> wrote in message
<20030306023809.GA26301@cybershamanix.com>:

> On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 10:48:19AM +0800, Marc de Piolenc wrote:
> > LINVENT@AOL.COM wrote:
> >
> > > Name a steam system which can produce a 34-43% thermal
> > > conversion as
> > > engines do
> >
> > An IC engine with 43% NET efficiency? I'd like to find out where to
> > buy one of those. 36% is the best simple-cycle efficiency I've seen

..enjoy http://www.wartsila.com/english/index.jsp?cid=pp_w46 ;-)

..gas: http://www.wartsila.com/english/index.jsp?cid=pp_w34sg ;-)

..dual fuel: http://www.wartsila.com/english/index.jsp?cid=pp_w50df
and http://www.wartsila.com/english/index.jsp?cid=pp_w32df
(The w34 is a bored up w32 for gas burning.)

> > for a diesel that you can buy off the shelf. Of course, with waste
> > heat recovery it's better, but a backpressure steam system is much
> > better if you have a use for the waste heat.
> >
>
>
> Where are you going to get a steam system of any kind for the price
> of a used
> IC engine? I can get all the good-running used engines I want for
> $200-300 each. Even if you can build the boiler cheaply, where do you
> get turbines for that price?
> And a cogen unit should do better than 43% efficiency. Even in the
> Summer -
> use the heat to run refrigeraton units.
>
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com
>

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

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Wed Mar 5 22:50:20 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
In-Reply-To: <3E66C928.FE45C5C0@mozcom.com>
Message-ID: <WED.5.MAR.2003.215020.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 12:06:00PM +0800, Marc de Piolenc wrote:
> Harmon Seaver wrote:
>
> > Where are you going to get a steam system of any kind for the price of a used
> > IC engine? I can get all the good-running used engines I want for $200-300
> > each. Even if you can build the boiler cheaply, where do you get turbines for
> > that price?
>
> I was talking efficiency, not price. I have no idea what a steam turbine
> costs in that size range, assuming such things exist.
>
> > And a cogen unit should do better than 43% efficiency. Even in the Summer -
> > use the heat to run refrigeraton units.
>
> Right. I assumed you meant simple cycle efficiency. If you're doing CHP,
> that's another matter, but then steam is usually involved and you have
> the cost of a waste heat boiler. At that point it is worth comparing the
> cost of prime movers, since you will have a steam system anyway.

No steam at all, just hot water. Steam heat is much less common, and much
harder to implement/utilize, or at least certainly much more expensive to
install. No other boiler needed at all, unless a gas/oil/wood boiler for backup,
which most already have. Add a gas-absorbtion refridge unit to pump cold water
thru the same radiators in the Summer, utilizing the waste heat of the IC
engine.

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

From piolenc at MOZCOM.COM Wed Mar 5 23:51:30 2003
From: piolenc at MOZCOM.COM (Marc de Piolenc)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
Message-ID: <THU.6.MAR.2003.125130.0800.>

Thanks to whoever referred me to the monster diesel site. I had no idea
how far the low-speed monsters had progressed. I did, however, have the
impression we were talking about small systems...

Marc

From cicbcal at CAL2.VSNL.NET.IN Thu Mar 6 01:37:09 2003
From: cicbcal at CAL2.VSNL.NET.IN (Kollol Dey)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Monotube steam generator
Message-ID: <THU.6.MAR.2003.120709.0530.CICBCAL@CAL2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Luiz,

Monotube boilers are nothing new. These are commercially available from
manufacturers or quite sometime now. One can get coil type mono tube boilers
to generate saturated steam or superheated steam.
The only problem with this type of boilers is that the boiler feed water
quality has to be exceptionally good. Since there are no water hold up
within the boiler, on evaporation all the dissolved solid in the water comes
out and get deposited within the tube.
This deposition can be very nasty - depending on how bad / good the quality
of the feed water used in the boiler was, and can put the boiler out of
commission within a very short time.
Using DM water of very good quality is a must.

Regards

Kollol Dey.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Luiz Alberto Magri" <luizmagri@YAHOO.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 4:12 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Monotube steam generator

> Paul,
>
> I think this is one of the classic difficulties
> regarding understanding of boiler?s operation. Indeed,
> for a FIXED MECHANICAL DESIGN, the pressure will be
> controlled via heat load (in short, more heat -> more
> pressure + more flow -> more power). At design stage,
> by the other hand, the pressure is an engineering
> decision. With a tight closed outlet valve every
> boiler will increase pressure up to pressure relief
> valves setting point sooner or later - it doesn?t
> matter how small is the heat load.
>
> I would suggest the first approach for this "monotube"
> (for me well known as a single pass boiler) design
> would take a good piping manual in orther to check
> diameters and wall thickness. Then some
> thermodynamical calculation in order to fix piping
> lenght (Kern?s Process Heat Transfer will do all the
> required job).
>
> None of the above should be converted into hard stuff
> without carefull allowable pressure calculations. It
> doesn?t matter the boiler will be given a license or
> not. The ASME boiler code has to be used. Steam is
> VERY DANGEROUS.
>
> Regards,
>
> Luiz Magri
> S?o Paulo
>
>
> --- "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders@ILSTU.EDU> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I (and some others) are VERY interested in this.
> > Does anyone have any good
> > leads to quality information and / or descriptions
> > about this. How long,
> > what diameter, what "Pressure" comes out in relation
> > to what amount of heat
> > is applied?
> >
> > If this topic stays on the GASL list, that is fine
> > with me. But if the
> > conversation goes really far, we should identify who
> > wants to receive those
> > messages. Please be sure that I am included.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > At 06:31 PM 3/5/03 +0800, Marc de Piolenc wrote:
> > >A monotube steam generator is just that - a long
> > tube. Water comes in
> > >one end and steam comes out the other. There is no
> > circulation - all
> > >fluid moves one-way - and no storage of energy
> > except for the slight
> > >quantity of steam occupying the tube at any one
> > time. It is therefore
> > >NOT a vessel of any kind, as nothing is stored. Now
> > as to whether any
> > >particular entrenched bureaucracy will see it that
> > way or not...
> > >
> > >Another loophole, by the way, is to use a fluid
> > other than water, as
> > >many regulations still limit themselves to steam...
> > >
> > >Marc de Piolenc
> > >
> > >VHarris001@AOL.COM wrote:
> > >
> > > > Can you also explain about what is called a
> > "monotube steam
> > > generator." I've
> > > > heard considerable discussion (and disagreement)
> > about whether or not they
> > > > are regulated as a boiler. The argument is that
> > since they don't really
> > > > build up a "head of steam," they frequently do
> > not fall under boilermaker
> > > > regulations. The steam-car folks use this
> > technical loophole to avoid
> > > having
> > > > to register their vehicles and obtain a
> > boilermaker's license. Comments?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Vernon Harris
> >
> > Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Fulbright Prof. to
> > Mozambique 8/99 - 7/00
> > Rotary University Teacher Grantee to Mozambique >10
> > mo of 2001-2003
> > Dept of Geography - Geology (Box 4400), Illinois
> > State University
> > Normal, IL 61790-4400 Voice: 309-438-7360; FAX:
> > 309-438-5310
> > E-mail: psanders@ilstu.edu - Internet items:
> www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>

From renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ Thu Mar 6 04:52:18 2003
From: renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ (Ken Calvert)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Electrostatic precipitators for gas cleanup.
Message-ID: <THU.6.MAR.2003.225218.1300.RENERTECH@XTRA.CO.NZ>

Somebody sent me a query after my diatribe on how to clean up producer gas
quickly and cleanly, and asked how I didn't get explosions with sparking
etc. from high voltage electrodes. Sorry but I inadvertantly lost the
mail shot and have spent a couple of days trying to find it. Sorry about
that.
Anyway the answer is that if you have made good gas, then there is
no oxygen around, and hydrogen, carbon monoxide and nitrogen will not do
anything by themselves however many sparks there are.
The worst that can happen is that if there is an air leak somewhere, and you
are running the plant under vacuum, then you will get a lovely little purple
flame burning on the inside of the hole which is air burning in gas rather
than vice versa. The best way I have found for gas cleanup is to cool the
gas by direct contact with water. Then put it through a 200 litre drum
with a series of electrodes made from fine weld mesh and alternating +ve
and -ve.
I do have a reprint of an article with plans of the power supply as well
as the electrodes. Its much too big to float on this forum, but I can send
it in HTML to those who request it. Ken C. renertech@xtra.co.nz

The Indian Institute have a really beaut from the gas line in a 200
litre drum the gas

From luizmagri at YAHOO.COM Thu Mar 6 06:46:53 2003
From: luizmagri at YAHOO.COM (Luiz Alberto Magri)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Monotube steam generator
In-Reply-To: <00fe01c2e3aa$d1a397a0$b3c341db@kdey>
Message-ID: <THU.6.MAR.2003.034653.0800.LUIZMAGRI@YAHOO.COM>

Dear Kollol,

I have to agree deposits would be a problem for sure.
Then you go back to the point already raised by others
within this subject (of using a Rankine cycle for
small scale power generation): either the required
installation is not easy to design/install/maintain,
or it is not reliable.

Thanks,

Luiz Magri
São Paulo

--- Kollol Dey <cicbcal@CAL2.VSNL.NET.IN> wrote:
> Dear Luiz,
>
> Monotube boilers are nothing new. These are
> commercially available from
> manufacturers or quite sometime now. One can get
> coil type mono tube boilers
> to generate saturated steam or superheated steam.
> The only problem with this type of boilers is that
> the boiler feed water
> quality has to be exceptionally good. Since there
> are no water hold up
> within the boiler, on evaporation all the dissolved
> solid in the water comes
> out and get deposited within the tube.
> This deposition can be very nasty - depending on how
> bad / good the quality
> of the feed water used in the boiler was, and can
> put the boiler out of
> commission within a very short time.
> Using DM water of very good quality is a must.
>
> Regards
>
> Kollol Dey.
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Thu Mar 6 08:33:37 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
In-Reply-To: <001a01c2e377$6c718eb0$dd4036d2@renertecewp7x5>
Message-ID: <THU.6.MAR.2003.073337.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 01:29:14PM +1300, Ken Calvert wrote:
> > Gavin Goodall wrote to Paul Anderson,
> >> See the tesla list - then realise that small steam just >>isn't feasible
> and,
> >> neither is ic engines on a small scale.
> I couldn't agree more with those comments!!. Nevertheless, in my case it
> proved to be very feasibile when I was stuck on a remote pacific island.
> The thing about islands, apart from the nostalgia factor when you are
> feeling overloaded in the big city, is that most motor
> vehicles are not designed to cope with wet salt laden winds, and that
> throws a lot of rusted out hulks on the market with a very much under used
> ic engine inside, which can be had for a song. And, if your gas clean up
> is not as good as it could be and the organics and acids corrode out the
> bearings on that engine faster than they should, then you simply throw it
> away and buy another one!. You can't do that with steam equipment!

Probably a lot more cars are junked because of accidents (or rust) than
actually wear out. It doesn't take much of a collision to total out a car these
days. Plenty of good engines available. I just had an excellent little 2.2L
diesel given to me.

> As someone said further up this debate its "horses for courses". So,
> if you live away out back, thats fine do it.
> But if all you want to do is get out of paying for service running past your
> gate then forget it! Its hard work!

Except that you can sell the power to the electric utility at retail rates
some places, which makes it a lot more interesting. Here in WI it's up to 20KWE
at retail rates, in MN it's 40KWE. And if the feedstock is free or even better
you are paid to take it...
And then, of course, if you add in the free heat for your house, it becomes
even more interesting. Our monthly utility bill (heat,gas, & electric) is now
about $350 @ month, so "if all you want to do is get out of paying for service
running past your gate" would be a wonderful thing.

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

From tombreed at ATTBI.COM Thu Mar 6 05:16:32 2003
From: tombreed at ATTBI.COM (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Cause of Tar cleanup problem
Message-ID: <THU.6.MAR.2003.031632.0700.TOMBREED@ATTBI.COM>

Dear Ken Calvert and All; (I'm copying this to Jim Diebold for further
comments which I hope he'll send to GASIFICATION).

Tars are the Achilles heel of producer gas from biomass. I have been
thinking a lot about vapor pressure of tar components and the reason for the
great difficulty of removing tar mists from producer gas.

During the initial pyrolysis of each particle about 30% by weight of the
biomass is emitted from the surface as a gaseous vapor at temperatures below
500C.

1) If the vapors are immediately cooled without air access, they can be
collected. (With fast pyrolysis the condensate can approach 70% by weight).
These vapors have been analyzed to a fair thee well and can all be
identified as the monomers, oligomers and breakdown products of the
celluloses and lignin. I prefer to call these low temperature products
"wood oil"; Mike Antal calls them "wood sugars". Whatever. (See our
"Biomass Gasifier "Tars"; their Nature and Formation" by Tom Milne et al
(NREL, BEF PRESS))

2) If air is available these vapors will mostly burn up - as in a burning
match (flaming combustion), or a downdraft gasifier (flaming pyrolysis)
leaving a minimum of ~<1000 ppm volatiles.

3) If the temperature rises above about 700 C, most of these highly
oxygenated compounds become fuel gases, but some of them convert to more
refractory tars. If air is present (downdraft gasifiers) they mostly burn.
If not, (updraft gasifiers and to a lesser extent fluidized beds) they must
be removed later. Big problem.

4) As the remaining volatiles cool they form a mist as each compound drops
below its dew point. This mist is typically < 10 microns in diameter, so is
the devil to condense. Hence the electrostatic precipitator or impact
filtration comes into its own.

SO, burn as much of the volatiles as possible during the gasification
process.

Breakfast calls... Yours truly TOM REED

Dr. Thomas B. Reed
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone; 303 265 9184 Fax
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Calvert" <renertech@XTRA.CO.NZ>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 2:52 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Electrostatic precipitators for gas cleanup.

> Somebody sent me a query after my diatribe on how to clean up producer gas
> quickly and cleanly, and asked how I didn't get explosions with
sparking
> etc. from high voltage electrodes. Sorry but I inadvertantly lost the
> mail shot and have spent a couple of days trying to find it. Sorry about
> that.
> Anyway the answer is that if you have made good gas, then there is
> no oxygen around, and hydrogen, carbon monoxide and nitrogen will not do
> anything by themselves however many sparks there are.
> The worst that can happen is that if there is an air leak somewhere, and
you
> are running the plant under vacuum, then you will get a lovely little
purple
> flame burning on the inside of the hole which is air burning in gas
rather
> than vice versa. The best way I have found for gas cleanup is to cool
the
> gas by direct contact with water. Then put it through a 200 litre drum
> with a series of electrodes made from fine weld mesh and alternating
+ve
> and -ve.
> I do have a reprint of an article with plans of the power supply as well
> as the electrodes. Its much too big to float on this forum, but I can
send
> it in HTML to those who request it. Ken C. renertech@xtra.co.nz
>
>
> The Indian Institute have a really beaut from the gas line in a
200
> litre drum the gas
>

From arnt at C2I.NET Thu Mar 6 09:50:52 2003
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
In-Reply-To: <3E66D3D2.13C34BD@mozcom.com>
Message-ID: <THU.6.MAR.2003.155052.0100.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:51:30 +0800,
Marc de Piolenc <piolenc@MOZCOM.COM> wrote in message
<3E66D3D2.13C34BD@mozcom.com>:

> Thanks to whoever referred me to the monster diesel site. I had no
> idea how far the low-speed monsters had progressed. I did, however,
> have the impression we were talking about small systems...
>
> Marc
>

..we have to aim _somewhere_, to make a viable business. ;-)
I'm starting off with a few mower engines and a 35 kWe engine.

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

From luizmagri at YAHOO.COM Thu Mar 6 20:29:30 2003
From: luizmagri at YAHOO.COM (Luiz Alberto Magri)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
In-Reply-To: <3E66B6F3.50ACB8E9@mozcom.com>
Message-ID: <THU.6.MAR.2003.172930.0800.LUIZMAGRI@YAHOO.COM>

Dear Marc,

Which size of IC engine do you have in mind? A modern
1 to 5 MW diesel cycle engine will give at least 41%
net efficiency (say 95% generator efficiency plus 2%
internal consumption starting from around 44% shaft
efficiency).

I would expect some 30 - 33% net efficiency from old
railroad machines, such like EMD´s from the sixties, 1
to 3 MW size, that have been used for stand alone
generation. Actually I have seen some of them in very
noisy operation.

It is possible the different feelings are much likely
related to the LHV to HHV ratio. This is around 93%
for liquid hydrocarbons. Then if you have a 43%
efficiency based on LHV that means only 40% when based
on HHV. The difference will be even higher (around 90%
ratio) for gaseous hydrocarbons.

Efficiency should be always related to the heat value
of choice (lower or higher), otherwise it will be not
meaningful enough.

Best regards,

Luiz Magri
São Paulo

--- Marc de Piolenc <piolenc@MOZCOM.COM> wrote:
> LINVENT@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> > Name a steam system which can produce a 34-43%
> thermal conversion as
> > engines do
>
> An IC engine with 43% NET efficiency? I'd like to
> find out where to buy
> one of those. 36% is the best simple-cycle
> efficiency I've seen for a
> diesel that you can buy off the shelf. Of course,
> with waste heat
> recovery it's better, but a backpressure steam
> system is much better if
> you have a use for the waste heat.
>
> Best,
> Marc

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

From piolenc at MOZCOM.COM Thu Mar 6 23:09:55 2003
From: piolenc at MOZCOM.COM (Marc de Piolenc)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
Message-ID: <FRI.7.MAR.2003.120955.0800.>

Dear Luiz,

I was thinking in terms of much smaller units - in the 10s of kW -
because somehow I got the idea that the thread was about that size
range.

My mistake.

Marc

Luiz Alberto Magri wrote:
>
> Dear Marc,
>
> Which size of IC engine do you have in mind? A modern
> 1 to 5 MW diesel cycle engine will give at least 41%
> net efficiency (say 95% generator efficiency plus 2%
> internal consumption starting from around 44% shaft
> efficiency).

From vjh201 at STERN.NYU.EDU Fri Mar 7 00:57:53 2003
From: vjh201 at STERN.NYU.EDU (Victor Hsu)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
Message-ID: <FRI.7.MAR.2003.005753.0500.VJH201@STERN.NYU.EDU>

Please remove me from this list whoever the administrator is.

Thanks.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Luiz Alberto Magri" <luizmagri@YAHOO.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Internal combustion or steamturbine

Dear Marc,

I would expect some 30 - 33% net efficiency from old
railroad machines, such like EMD?s from the sixties, 1
to 3 MW size, that have been used for stand alone
generation. Actually I have seen some of them in very
noisy operation.

Efficiency should be always related to the heat value
of choice (lower or higher), otherwise it will be not
meaningful enough.

Best regards,

Luiz Magri
S?o Paulo

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

From laurence.calvez at OSER.NET Mon Mar 10 12:16:58 2003
From: laurence.calvez at OSER.NET (Laurence Calvez)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: remove
Message-ID: <MON.10.MAR.2003.181658.0100.LAURENCE.CALVEZ@OSER.NET>

Please remove me from this list

Laurence CALVEZ

From jimlucas1020 at HIGHSTREAM.NET Mon Mar 10 15:41:31 2003
From: jimlucas1020 at HIGHSTREAM.NET (Jim Lucas)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: remove
Message-ID: <MON.10.MAR.2003.124131.0800.JIMLUCAS1020@HIGHSTREAM.NET>

I am not the "listserv"

Jim Lucas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laurence Calvez" <laurence.calvez@OSER.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 9:16 AM
Subject: [GASL] remove

Please remove me from this list

Laurence CALVEZ

From tombreed at ATTBI.COM Tue Mar 11 02:35:19 2003
From: tombreed at ATTBI.COM (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Biomass Energy Content Diatribe
Message-ID: <TUE.11.MAR.2003.003519.0700.TOMBREED@ATTBI.COM>

Dear Dean, Ethos,Stoves and Gasification

Having used various figures for the energy content of wood, written books
about it and collected large quantities of data, I get impatient with the
occasional obsession for finding an exact reference to a particular species,
(as if all samples of a named species were the same.)

Mother Nature has made understanding the energy content of most biomass
simple, once you understand the principles.

1) Most biomass consists of ~ 50% cellulose, 25% hemicellulose and 25%
lignin - plus WATER and ASH.

2) Go to my collection of both measured and calculated energy contents at

http://www.woodgas.com/proximat.htm

and run your eye down the HHV Measured and HHV Calculated column. For the
15 wood species the energy content only varies from 19-21 kJ/g (MJ/kg).
Then note that most of the other biomass species are also in this range.

3) So why do you hear lesser figures sometimes? Because heating value
figures are often not reported on a DRY ASH-FREE basis. The National Bureau
of Standards wrote a book , E. Domalski et al, "Thermodynamic Data for
Biomass Materials and Waste Components", ASME, 1987. A casual reading would
have convinced you that biomass energies were all over the map. In Appendix
A, I recalculated some of the data on a dry ash-free basis and verified that
most biomass is 18-20 kJ/g. Since then I can come within 10% of a good
heating value estimate provided I know water and ash.

It is not surprising that if you have 10,20, or 30% moisture that you will
have 10, 20 or 30% less energy! Also some biomass species have 2-20% ash.
Again, reduced energy.

Having stated the general rule, it is important to recognize the exceptions:

4) Bark, Charcoal, pyrolysis oil, oils and fats, nuts, ... Look the list
over and get a feel. Then measure water content and ash content on your
particular fuel, add them back in and you will have an accurate estimate.
(Or send it to a lab for analysis, typically <$150). Look down the column
and you'll find some other exceptions.

And let's not hear any more about Btus in this forum.

I hope this helps clarify the biomass energy issues.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF PRESS

Dr. Thomas B. Reed
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone; 303 265 9184 Fax
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Still" <dstill@epud.net>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] standardize testing

> Dear Crispin, Lanny, Ron, etc.,
>
> A while back I floated the idea that our group of stove researchers,
> builders and those interested in stoves adapt a common test so that
results
> are comparable. My general recollection was that the search for consensus
> was met with accurate comments that testing is very complicated. I
> wholeheartedly agree. But shall we start somewhere...
>
> Should the STOVES and ETHOS group agree to use 6883 as the number of BTU's
> in a pound of wood or 16 MJ/Kg (excluding pine), as Crispin suggests?
> Agreeing on a number would get us a step closer to accurate communication.
>
> All Best,
>
> Dean
>

From jean-henry.ferrasse at UNIV.U-3MRS.FR Tue Mar 11 11:24:41 2003
From: jean-henry.ferrasse at UNIV.U-3MRS.FR (Jean-Henry Ferrasse)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Biomass Energy Content Diatribe
Message-ID: <TUE.11.MAR.2003.172441.0100.JEANHENRY.FERRASSE@UNIV.U3MRS.FR>

Dear all,

you can also see :

http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis/info.asp

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Reed" <tombreed@attbi.com>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 8:35 AM
Subject: [GASL] Biomass Energy Content Diatribe

> Dear Dean, Ethos,Stoves and Gasification
>
> Having used various figures for the energy content of wood, written books
> about it and collected large quantities of data, I get impatient with the
> occasional obsession for finding an exact reference to a particular
species,
> (as if all samples of a named species were the same.)
>
> Mother Nature has made understanding the energy content of most biomass
> simple, once you understand the principles.
>
> 1) Most biomass consists of ~ 50% cellulose, 25% hemicellulose and 25%
> lignin - plus WATER and ASH.
>
> 2) Go to my collection of both measured and calculated energy contents at
>
> http://www.woodgas.com/proximat.htm
>
> and run your eye down the HHV Measured and HHV Calculated column. For the
> 15 wood species the energy content only varies from 19-21 kJ/g (MJ/kg).
> Then note that most of the other biomass species are also in this range.
>
> 3) So why do you hear lesser figures sometimes? Because heating value
> figures are often not reported on a DRY ASH-FREE basis. The National
Bureau
> of Standards wrote a book , E. Domalski et al, "Thermodynamic Data for
> Biomass Materials and Waste Components", ASME, 1987. A casual reading
would
> have convinced you that biomass energies were all over the map. In
Appendix
> A, I recalculated some of the data on a dry ash-free basis and verified
that
> most biomass is 18-20 kJ/g. Since then I can come within 10% of a good
> heating value estimate provided I know water and ash.
>
> It is not surprising that if you have 10,20, or 30% moisture that you will
> have 10, 20 or 30% less energy! Also some biomass species have 2-20% ash.
> Again, reduced energy.
>
> Having stated the general rule, it is important to recognize the
exceptions:
>
> 4) Bark, Charcoal, pyrolysis oil, oils and fats, nuts, ... Look the
list
> over and get a feel. Then measure water content and ash content on your
> particular fuel, add them back in and you will have an accurate estimate.
> (Or send it to a lab for analysis, typically <$150). Look down the column
> and you'll find some other exceptions.
>
> And let's not hear any more about Btus in this forum.
>
> I hope this helps clarify the biomass energy issues.
>
> Yours truly, TOM REED BEF PRESS
>
> Dr. Thomas B. Reed
> 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
> tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone; 303 265 9184 Fax
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dean Still" <dstill@epud.net>
> To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 12:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] standardize testing
>
>
> > Dear Crispin, Lanny, Ron, etc.,
> >
> > A while back I floated the idea that our group of stove researchers,
> > builders and those interested in stoves adapt a common test so that
> results
> > are comparable. My general recollection was that the search for
consensus
> > was met with accurate comments that testing is very complicated. I
> > wholeheartedly agree. But shall we start somewhere...
> >
> > Should the STOVES and ETHOS group agree to use 6883 as the number of
BTU's
> > in a pound of wood or 16 MJ/Kg (excluding pine), as Crispin suggests?
> > Agreeing on a number would get us a step closer to accurate
communication.
> >
> > All Best,
> >
> > Dean
> >
>

From tombreed at ATTBI.COM Wed Mar 12 01:56:31 2003
From: tombreed at ATTBI.COM (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: [STOVES] Stove testing
Message-ID: <TUE.11.MAR.2003.235631.0700.TOMBREED@ATTBI.COM>

Dear Dean and All:

I loved Dean's agreement to give up BTUs etc.

I remember at the beginning of the energy crises in 1974 that, as a
practicing chemist, I was 90% metric in all I wrote and thought, but used
English for ordinary units (miles, feet, ...). There was a proclamation by
the Department of Energy equivalent that we would all use metric, and I
looked forward to my final purification.

Instead there was zero compliance and I was forced back into English units I
had never used before. I even had to teach in them. So, now I'm reasonably
bi-lingual.

However, I recognize that

1) most of the world has converted and the US is being left farther and
farther behind in technology...
2) lots of engineering confusion is caused by bad translation (shuttle
accident)
3) metric is basically simpler

so I applaud Dean's decision and I hope we can all support it here in this
international community.

Onward and upward and metric, TOM REED 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: "Dean Still" <dstill@epud.net>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 11:56 PM
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Stove testing

> Dear Piet,
>
> Thanks so much for your insightful (as always) summary of stove testing. I
> would like to "test the waters" to see if we, STOVES, ETHOS members can
come
> to an agreement to use a standard test. People are using very different
> tests which makes comparison of results difficult. Please send me the
> procedure description and basic spreadsheet that you described. Is there
any
> way to post it to all STOVES, ETHOS members? Perhaps STOVES, ETHOS could
> consider this procedure and see if a consensus occurs?
>
> I'd like to use an accepted international method when we test stoves here
in
> June.
>
> AND LASTLY...OK!! I acquiesce and do hereby give up the BTU, inches,
pounds,
> etc. only asking for leniency when, confused, I muddle up something
> important. I agree to do this, leaving behind such a nice warm familiar
> world, only because my respect for you, my dear associates, overcomes the
> most basic component of my character: laziness.
>
> All Best,
>
> Dean
>

From renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ Wed Mar 12 17:00:56 2003
From: renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ (Ken Calvert)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Electrostatic precipitation.
Message-ID: <THU.13.MAR.2003.110056.1300.RENERTECH@XTRA.CO.NZ>

> Dear all, An Apology!
> Yes I did promise to send all those who asked, a copy of a
paper entitled "Electronic Alternatives for Low Cost Control Systems in
Wood Gasification". Given at an Energy from Biomass conference in
Auckland in 1982..
> However, it predates computers, and I have mislaid the Conference
proceedings!!??... However, intensive searching continues and I will
indeed pass the paper on just as soon as-!-! Ken Calvert.
>

From snkm at BTL.NET Wed Mar 12 17:00:37 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Time to steam reform biomass to methane???
Message-ID: <WED.12.MAR.2003.160037.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

This should be of interest to all on this list.

Comment -- if ever there was a time for encouraging steam reforming of
biomass to make methane (good replacement for natural gas) -- this is it!!

To bad the eminent destruction of "modern" world as we have known it -- and
grown to love it -- is so distracting!

Well -- maybe next turn of this wheel??

Peter Singfield / Belize

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

http://www.accnewsmedia.com/site/page.asp?TRACKID=&VID=1&CID=253&DID=974

The following is a text rendition of the above Url --

At this WWW site -- all headers below are linked to their respective full
articles.

**********************************
ACC Media Kit on Natural Gas

America has a new energy crisis. This time it is the runaway price of
natural gas. Congress must act now to ease the natural gas crisis or the
nation?s fragile economic recovery will return to recession.

Every recession since World War II has been preceded by a run-up in energy
prices. Today, we are witnessing an unprecedented increase in natural gas
prices.

If the price of milk topped $16 a gallon, Congress would not hesitate to
act. Today, natural gas prices are equivalent to $16 for a gallon of milk,
$12.70 for a pound of ground beef, and $9.21 for a gallon of gasoline.
Every American will feel the effect of skyrocketing natural gas prices in
the form of more expensive food, higher home heating prices, and higher
prices for most consumer products. Natural Gas is to the economy as water
is to an ecosystem. And today, America is facing the worst drought in
natural gas stocks in the nation's history. As a result, natural gas is
now trading at six times the price it did three years ago.

Allied Industries & other Comments

CHEMICAL MAKERS DECRY NATURAL GAS EMERGENCY 3/11/03 (DOC 232kb)
CONGRESS COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE ?OTHER? ENERGY CRISIS - ARLINGTON, Va.
(March 11, 2003) ? The American Chemistry Council (ACC), representing
America?s largest industrial users of natural gas, today were joined by
Members of Congress and key allied trade associations to call for action to
ease the gyrating cost of natural gas. At a press conference on Capitol
Hill, the group outlined steps to solve natural gas supply problems, all of
which were detailed in an ACC letter to President Bush. ACC and its fellow
trade groups have launched a campaign aimed at both the Administration and
Congress to quickly increase available natural gas.

ACC REPORT: NATURAL GAS CRISIS THREATENS ECONOMY 3/11/03 (DOC 230kb)
GDP, CONSUMER SPENDING, SAVINGS AND EMPLOYMENT TO SLOW - ARLINGTON, Va.
(March 11, 2003) ? The American Chemistry Council (ACC), representing
America?s largest industrial users of natural gas, released a report today
detailing the overall impact to the U.S. economy if natural gas prices
remain at high levels during the next few years. The report concludes that
Americans can expect lower GDP, consumer spending, savings and employment.

The -other- Energy Crisis, Natural Gas and the Next Recession 3/11/03 (PDF
108kb)
PDF File of American Chemistry Council ad on the -Other- Energy Crisis.

Background Paper on Natural Gas Price Shocks and the Economy 3/11/03 (DOC
282kb)
If natural gas prices settle in the current trading range for the next
several years, Americans can expect slower growth in GDP, consumer
spending, savings and employment. Those are the key findings in a report
prepared by economists at the American Chemistry Council (ACC). The report
assumes that natural gas prices will remain at or above $6.00 a million BTU
during the next few years, roughly triple the historical price of natural
gas. This price assumption is based on an analysis of natural gas
supply-demand trends and on an emerging consensus among energy analysts....

CHEMICAL MAKERS APPEAL TO PRESIDENT FOR ACTION ON ENERGY 3/11/03 (DOC 235kb)
CALLS ON AMERICANS TO CONSERVE ELECTRICITY TO REDUCE DEMAND ON GAS AND FOR
MORATORIUM ON RULEMAKINGS CAUSING UTILITIES TO SWITCH FROM COAL TO GAS:
ARLINGTON, Va. (March 10, 2003) ? Today, the American Chemistry Council
(ACC), representing one of America?s largest industrial users of natural
gas and oil, called on President Bush to avert a looming economic crisis by
making energy legislation a centerpiece of the domestic agenda. This appeal
followed letters sent to all members of Congress last week, in which the
ACC described the dramatic impact of the energy emergency.

Biography, Gregori Lebedev, President and Chief Executive Officer, ACC
3/11/03 (DOC 30kb)
Greg Lebedev was appointed President and Chief Executive Officer of the
American Chemistry Council (ACC) on October 1, 2002. The ACC represents the
interests of the $1.7 trillion dollar global chemical and plastics industry
in the media, before the courts, and to governmental bodies in the United
States and throughout the world. The business of chemistry is America?s
second largest manufacturing industry and the largest exporting sector in
the United States.

Congressional Members Join ACC to Call for Urgent Remedy of Natural Gas
Crisis 3/10/03 (DOC 227kb)
Members of Congress will join American Chemistry Council President and CEO
Greg Lebedev and a coalition of trade associations to call for immediate
steps to address the devastating increase in natural gas prices. The group
will outline specific proposals, outline an aggressive grassroots lobbying
effort and discuss the widespread impact of natural gas prices on
industries and ultimately consumers.

Members to Join ACC In Call for Urgent Remedy of Natural Gas Crisis
3/10/03 (DOC 228kb)
What: News conference to bring attention to ?the other? energy crisis and
to call for specific remedies to soaring natural gas prices. Where: U.S.
Senate Energy Committee Room, 366 Dirksen Senate Office Building When: 2:00
p.m. on Tuesday, March 11

Letter to President Bush from Greg Lebedev, President and CEO, ACC on the
Natural Gas Crisis 3/7/03 (PDF 80kb)
Dear Mr. President: I am writing to call your attention to ?the other
energy crisis? ? the impact runaway energy prices is having on one of the
nation?s critical infrastructures, the US chemical industry. Chemical
companies are being devastated by a sudden quadrupling in spot prices for
natural gas. This price spike and ongoing volatility has rendered much of
the chemical industry non-competitive in the global marketplace. As a
result, companies are making hard choices and are shutting down capacity
and laying-off workers ? especially in the petrochemical strongholds of
Texas and Louisiana.

Letter to Capitol Hill from Greg Lebedev, President & CEO, ACC on Natural
Gas Crisis 2/28/03 (PDF 42kb)
America is facing a sudden, unprecedented and crippling energy crisis . . .
in natural gas supply. I am writing to ask your help in remedying the
situation that will have devastating consequences for the chemical
industry, for the U.S. economy and for all Americans. The spot price of
natural gas went through the roof this week, rising to more than $19.00 mm
BTU. This price is the highest it has ever been, and supplies in storage
are at an all-time low.

News Quotes on Natural Gas 3/11/03 (PDF 312kb)
PDF of a sampling of media quotes about the new energy crisis.

Market Volatility in Natural Gas Prices 3/11/03 (PDF 278kb)
Chart depicting the volatility of the Natural Gas markets - Source: the
Wall Street Journal.

NATURAL GAS CRISIS: Today?s Senate Energy and Natural Resources Comm.
Hearing to Focus on U.S. Gas 2/25/03 (DOC 226kb)
Natural gas prices reached their highest level ever yesterday: more than
$12.00 mm BTU. In addition to hitting consumers hard, $9+ natural gas
prices in January 2001 forced chemical companies to shut down plants and
lay off workers. Today the situation is even worse. In fact, prior to
yesterday?s price hikes, one company already has moved production overseas.
Today, natural gas prices are equivalent to $16 for a gallon of milk and
$13 for a pound of ground beef. Every American will feel the effect of
skyrocketing natural gas prices in the form of more expensive food, higher
home heating prices, and higher prices for most consumer products.

Natural Gas in the News - A Sampling of Media Coverage from Across the
Country 3/11/03 (DOC 38kb)
Attached is a sampling of media coverage on the Natural Gas issue. Where
possible, links to the full articles have been included.

ACC Statement: Release of Chairman Barton's Energy Bill 3/5/03 (DOC 229kb)
On February 27, 2003, Greg Lebedev, President and CEO of the American
Chemistry Council, sent a letter to all Members of Congress urging prompt
action in response to an unprecedented run-up in natural gas prices. The
next day, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), Chairman of the Energy and Air Quality
Subcommittee released a comprehensive energy bill. Energy and Commerce
Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin (R-LA) outlined an aggressive timetable for
House action on the bill. Today, Chairman Barton held a hearing on his
draft bill, and in response, ACC issued the following statement.

Natural Gas Crisis Threatens Nation's Economy; American Chemistry Council
Issues Call to Action 2/27/03 (DOC 230kb)
ARLINGTON, Va. (February 27, 2003) ? Today, the American Chemistry Council
(ACC), representing America?s largest industrial users of natural gas,
called on the Administration and Congress to take immediate steps to avert
a looming natural-gas crisis. In letters released to the public today, the
ACC dramatically described the impact of the energy emergency.

STATEMENT BY THE AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL ON NATURAL GAS PRICES 2/25/03
(DOC 232kb)
Today, the Senate Energy Committee is holding a hearing on natural gas
supplies. The hearing could not come at a more important time. Yesterday,
the spot price for natural gas reached its highest in history and supplies
are at an all-time low. The American Chemistry Council, the nation?s
largest user of natural gas, released the following statement: America has
a new energy crisis. This time it is the runaway price of natural gas.
Congress must act now to ease the natural gas crisis or the nation?s
fragile economic recovery will return to recession.

Comparison of Consumer Product Prices to Natural Gas 2/25/03 (DOC 24kb)
If the prices of everyday consumer products spiked like they did for
natural gas, we would be paying these prices...

Energy Feedstocks and the Business of Chemistry 2/25/03 (DOC 229kb)
The Business of Chemistry is a tale of two distinct uses of energy
resources. Like other industries, the business of chemistry uses oil,
natural gas and natural gas liquids to power our plants and processes. But
just as important, the business of chemistry uses those same energy sources
to make products, products we all use, every day.

ACC Statement for the Record: Committee On Energy and Natural Resources:
Hearing On Natural Gas... 2/25/03 (DOC 59kb)
United States Senate Hearing On Natural Gas Supply and Prices; February
25th, 2003; The U.S. chemistry business is highly dependent on natural gas,
both as a source of fuel and as a raw material for many of its products.
Our industry is a significant component of the U.S. economy. However,
despite our advances in energy efficiency, this contribution requires
enormous quantities of reasonably priced natural gas. Current high natural
gas prices, caused primarily by constrained supplies and increased demand,
are having a devastating impact on our industry. Federal government
policies that contribute to constrained domestic natural gas production and
caused utilities and other industries to switch from other fuels to natural
gas contribute to our industry?s situation. If the U.S. chemistry business
is to remain competitive in today?s global market and continue to
contribute revenue, jobs, research and other benefits to the U.S. economy,
natural gas prices must come down. Appropriate federal policies are needed
to ensure a better balance between the supply of and demand for natural
gas, and to keep prices at a reasonable level.

Energy Issue Brief 8/28/02 (DOC 230kb)
The business of chemistry is an energy-intensive industry, but it?s unique
because it uses energy both for power and as a raw material. While using
oil and natural gas to power its plants and processes, it also uses those
same energy sources to make the products we all use every day. No industry
adds value to its energy inputs, such as natural gas, like the business of
chemistry. Sales of chemical products made from energy-based raw materials
exceeded $200 billion last year. Drawing on energy products for a raw
material is an essential use of these natural resources. In fact, the
chemical industry?s use of these resources to make products ? instead of
fuel ? has actually helped make other industries and the nation more energy
efficient.

Natural Gas Consumption is Expected to Rise 48% in 25 Years 3/11/03 (PDF
45kb)
Chart depicting the expected rise of Natural Gas Consumption over the next
25 years.

Dow Chemical Company Comments On Natural Gas Prices 3/11/03 (DOC 30kb)
Carol Dudley, Business Vice President for Chlor-Alkali Assets The Dow
Chemical Company speaks at the ACC Energy Crisis News Conference.

Degussa Comments on Natural Gas Prices 3/11/03 (DOC 19kb)
Statement by John Logan, Vice President, Federal Government Relations,
Degussa on Natural Gas Prices.

Associated Industries of Massachusetts Natural Gas Press Conference
Statement 3/11/03 (DOC 20kb)
...the region?s reliance on natural gas to fuel all new plants has raised
concerns that the new plants may cause existing natural gas pipeline
capacity to be reached or exceeded within a few years...

Greg Lebedev Remarks from ACC Press Conference on 'The Other Energy
Crisis' 3/11/03 (DOC 235kb)
We are here today to call attention to the ?other energy crisis? ? the
impact that dangerously volatile natural gas prices are having on the US
economy.

Search in... ------------ News Releases Media Kits Issue Briefs Economic
News Chemical Industry Se... Speeches/Presentatio... Chemistry Business
M... American Plastics Co... Get the Facts Media Contacts About ACC Get a
Story Idea Chlorine Chemistry C... Contact Us Links Site Map Help ACC Home
News & Media Home
Advanced search...

The American Chemistry Council Moves Quickly on Security

Safety and security have always been primary concerns of the American
chemical industry. In fact, we are an entire industry of risk managers ?
hundreds of thousands of highly trained chemists, engineers and operators
working in a professional culture that puts safety first. In the index,
you'll find a section on 'Chemical Industry Security'. We invite you to use
that section to learn more about security and the business of chemistry.

Voice Your Opinion

Send us your comments and questions:

From snkm at BTL.NET Wed Mar 12 18:40:17 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Time to steam reform biomass to methane???
Message-ID: <WED.12.MAR.2003.174017.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Steve --

I have checked the chemistry on this many years ago -- and have even posted
it to this list -- numerous times in the past -- please check the archives.

In steam reformation -- you get methane below at a certain temperature
range -- which is lower than for production of synthesis gas. You also get
other gasses -- especially if using biomass -- but the entire mixture is
methane rich -- along the lines of natural gas.

Normally -- we are not interested in methane -- but syngas. But times they
be a changing -- again --

I was thinking of the home heating market -- not the natural gas to syngas
market.

I'll let some of the excellent chemists we have on this list detail steam
reformation of biomass to methane -- should they so be inclined.

But it is simpler to steam reform to methane than syngas.

and no need of catalysts for fuel grade either.

Peter

At 11:46 AM 3/13/2003 +1300, you wrote:
>Peter,
>
>I suggest that you check out your chemistry.
>
>Steam reforming is a process for the destruction of methane and the
>formation of syngas (CO and hydrogen). The application of steam to biomass
>in high temperature reactors (with some air or oxygen to burn combustible
>gases to keep it hot) will result in a gas mixture comprising mostly CO and
>hydrogen with only a trace of methane.
>
>Steam reforming of methane is usually done over a catalyst. However, the
>only role of the catalyst is to make the reaction that would occur anyway
>happen quickly. You just can't turn the chemistry round by choosing a
>different catalyst.
>
>Despite wishful thinking, the basic thermodynamics of gas phase equilibrium
>dictate the outcomes.
>
>If you really want to convert biomass to methane put it in an anaerobic
>digester (or landfill) to make a gas comprising 50% CH4 and 50% CO2 at low
>temperature (where the formation of methane if thermodynamically favoured).
>To get a natural gas substitute, the CO2 would need to be stripped out of
>the digester gas. In order to avoid that CO2 contributing to global
>warming, the stripped CO2 should be injected into a deep aquifer.
>
>Of course, the biomass derived natural gas would cost a lot so it should be
>highly valued as a convenience fuel and not used to make electricity. That
>high value energy product can be much more appropriately made from wind and
>water.
>
>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 tmiles at TRMILES.COM Wed Mar 12 20:41:33 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
Message-ID: <WED.12.MAR.2003.174133.0800.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Forwarded to the List
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Goldthorpe
To: GASIFICATION-request@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 7:35 PM

I tried to send a posting which bounced back. Here it is again. It you think that it is helpful then please post it in the system,
***************
Re: [GASL] Internal combustion or steamturbine

Further to Ken's comment that the scale of gas turbines is mainly a matter of economics,. it is also a matter of thermodynamics which works against small steam turbines. The pump/heat/expand/condense steam cycle imposes thermodynamic limits on the energy that can be taken of a boiler and delivered as shaft power. The thermodynamic envelope can be expanded by high inlet temperature and pressure and near-vacuum exhaust pressure, but with consequent engineering challenges. Beyond that, steam cycle efficiency can be improved by reheating, bleed steam heating etc. also the isentropic efficiency of turbines increase with size.

All of these factors enable large steam power station designs to achieve fairly respectable energy conversion efficiencies, but at small scale that level of engineering sophistication is either impossible or horrendously costly.

The exception is where you have a use for low pressure steam. Making higher pressure steam and taking some high grade energy out with a steam turbine to
yield the low pressure steam you need makes sense at modest scale as a combined heat and power scheme.

Regards

Steve

From snkm at BTL.NET Thu Mar 13 07:33:26 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Clarifying the gas energy problems
Message-ID: <THU.13.MAR.2003.063326.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Highlighting:

"Clean Coal technology can produce huge reductions in power-plant emissions
and keep the fuel supply sufficiently diversified."

That folks is "gasifiaction" -- read the article below to see how this all
is woven together.

Peter Singfield / Belize

Greg Lebedev

President and Chief Executive Officer
American Chemistry Council

ACC Natural Gas Press Conference

The "Other" Energy Crisis

Washington, DC
March 11, 2003

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I will begin today's program with a
statement. Several Members of Congress are here today and will speak next,
followed by a range of other trade associations and companies affected by
this "other" energy crisis. Please hold your questions until the end.

We are here today to call attention to the "other energy crisis" - the
impact that dangerously volatile natural gas prices are having on the US
economy.
My name is Greg Lebedev. I am President and CEO of the American Chemistry
Council, the leading trade association of the U.S. chemical industry.

The chemical industry is the nation's largest industrial user of natural
gas. But this isn't just about us. You'll also be hearing from farmers and
other major industrial users of natural gas. So we're really talking about
our economy.

Most Americans are pre-occupied with surging gasoline prices. But those
price spikes are largely due to external factors, notably the uncertainties
of war in Iraq.

By contrast, the natural gas crisis was Made in the USA - its roots can be
traced to right here in Washington.

We are in a crisis because Washington has failed to enact a sensible
national energy policy.

We are in a crisis because we are verging upon creating an energy
dependence where none now exists.

We are in a crisis because lawmakers are sending the markets two completely
contradictory messages.

On the one hand, Congress has in recent years adopted a series of
environmental policies that are driving natural gas consumption to generate
electricity and heat homes - because at one time gas was abundant and clean.

Consequently, consumption of natural gas to generate electricity has
increased by 35 percent in just five years. Nearly every new
electricity-generating unit in the nation is fueled by natural gas, and
America now uses more natural gas than it does petroleum.

On the other hand, lawmakers are putting up off-limit signs up around all
of the nation's most promising deposits of natural gas. Production is
declining because current fields are petering out.

So is you encourage demand and cap supply - guess what? Economic havoc!

Natural gas prices spiked above $19.00 last month and are still hovering
over $6.00. Even at $6.00, that's three times the historic price.

Price volatility is making it impossible for companies to plan new
investments and to implement business strategies.

No company, no industry, no consumer can absorb a three-fold increase in
major raw material prices and continue to compete in the global marketplace.

And no economy teetering on the edge of recession can hang on to its recovery.

Overseas suppliers will displace our exports and then they will take market
share away in our own backyard.

For energy-intensive industries like chemistry, $6.00 gas means that plants
are closing. Jobs are being lost. The US Gulf Coast is at risk of becoming
the next Rust Belt. It's that serious.

What's happening to us will spread throughout the economy. And your
information packet shows what economists believe will happen to the economy
if natural gas prices stay above $6.00.

It's a grim picture. Six-dollar gas will act like a $75 billion tax on the
economy. It will shrink GDP, reduce disposable income and consumer
spending, and destroy jobs.
We've seen it happen before. Every recession since World War II has been
preceded by a steep increase in energy prices. In the past it's been the
price of oil. This time, it may be natural gas, the "other" fuel source.

This week we will publish an ad which will highlight the devastating impact
the "other" energy crisis is having on the economy. We hope it will serve
as a wake-up call to lawmakers who think this crisis will cool down as soon
as the weather warms up.

Thankfully, some members of Congress are finally getting the message. We
are encouraged to see the aggressive timetable the House has set to pass
energy legislation that addresses the supply-demand imbalance in natural
gas. We have every reason to believe the Senate will be just as determined
to act.

So, what is it we want Congress and the Administration to do?

? For starters, Congress must pass legislation to open up federal lands to
responsible drilling. We desperately need to tap the reserves in the
Rockies, the Gulf of Mexico and off the Coasts of the Atlantic and Pacific
Oceans.

? Next, we have to slow the stampede from Coal to Natural Gas. We agree
with and support the nation's air quality goals. But we think switching to
natural gas to generate electricity is not the only answer.

Clean Coal technology can produce huge reductions in power-plant emissions
and keep the fuel supply sufficiently diversified.

? We also want to see our government encourage Mexico to develop its huge
natural gas reserves. Today, Mexico is a net importer of natural gas from
the United States. That is not tenable.

? Mexico could, and should, be a regional exporter of natural gas. The US
should offer loan guarantees and other incentives to enable Mexico to begin
developing its own fields.

? Finally, until we get more supply back into the system, we must become
more efficient users of energy. Conservation works. When the energy crisis
struck in the 1970s, the chemical industry went on a crash diet to conserve
energy. Today we use half the energy per unit of output we did then. We've
told the President that a mere 5 percent reduction in electricity
consumption by American businesses and consumers can reduce demand for
natural gas by as much as 33 percent.

A little bit of sacrifice will go a long way. We believe that by saving
energy, Americans will be saving jobs.

The natural gas crisis was created by Washington and can only be ended by
Washington. For the sake of our economic security, Congress cannot miss
this opportunity to right a wrong.

Thank you.

From apaul at MANPA.COM.VE Thu Mar 13 10:46:30 2003
From: apaul at MANPA.COM.VE (Alfredo Paul)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
Message-ID: <THU.13.MAR.2003.114630.0400.APAUL@MANPA.COM.VE>

Please don?t send me more messages.

Thanks.

A. L Paul

From Carefreeland at AOL.COM Thu Mar 13 12:38:06 2003
From: Carefreeland at AOL.COM (Carefreeland@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Fwd: [GASL] Time to steam reform biomass to methane???
Message-ID: <THU.13.MAR.2003.123806.EST.>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: multipart/alternative
Size: 3131 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/gasification/attachments/20030313/d938581f/attachment.bin
From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Fri Mar 14 01:37:46 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Internal combustion or steamturbine
Message-ID: <THU.13.MAR.2003.223746.0800.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Alfredo,

Have a little patience. This is a volunteer acticity. You've been removed
from the list and you should have received a message to confirm it. After
you've been unsubscribed there is always a lag because there are bound to be
messages in the pipeline.

Regards,

Tom Miles
Bioeneryg Lists Administrator
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alfredo Paul" <apaul@manpa.com.ve>
To: "Tom Miles" <tmiles@TRMILES.COM>
Cc: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 7:46 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Internal combustion or steamturbine

>
> Please don?t send me more messages.
>
> Thanks.
>
> A. L Paul
>
>
>

From tombreed at ATTBI.COM Fri Mar 14 11:20:08 2003
From: tombreed at ATTBI.COM (Tom Reed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: new gasifier
Message-ID: <FRI.14.MAR.2003.092008.0700.TOMBREED@ATTBI.COM>

Dear Lloyd and All:

I remember our visit well. Most of us here are interested in biomass gasification, but we need to know about coal: The similarities; the Differences.

Good luck in finding a partner...

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF GASWORKS

Dr. Thomas B. Reed
1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
tombreed@attbi.com; 303 278 0558 Phone; 303 265 9184 Fax
----- Original Message -----
From: Lloyd
To: tombreed@attbi.com
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 3:45 PM
Subject: new gasifier

Dear Tom,

We met at Holbrook's take-out seafood in Cundy's Harbor (Harpswell) Maine quite a few years ago, we talked about my gasifier work. Now we live here, just around they corner form Holbrook's. We can now walk to our boat slip and quickly go for a sail!

Since then, I've gone through many gasifier designs, including rotary gasifiers, and several chunk fed designs. But I've settled on a pulverized coal gasifier with a porosity controlled ash bed to capture char and finish gasification in a second stage as the one worth promoting. I like this approach best for several reasons. First, because the combustion phase is instant, I can control it accurately and precisely with a few cascade control lops. Second, I can impose an ash bed second phase gasification design that its easily adjustable (both bed depth and porosity material, if added) for thorough carbon conversion. Third, I believe I can make it work at lower temperatures and air or O2-blown which should greatly increase the life of the gasifier. And forth, I believe such a unit can be used for biomass because there is a porosity controlled second stage ash bed to capture and react wood char. This bed in this instance has an inert material feed with the fuel which in most cases would be recycled. Also for coal, this inert feed is likely still needed since pressurized coal gasification has a much finer ash according to some researchers. Any coal that can be pulverized and burned in a boiler should work.

In any event, glad to see to you are still at it. Feel free to include my simple web site as a link on your page if you like. I'm seeking partners to do design and development. See www.pcpg.us.

Best regards,
Lloyd Weaver
22 Oakhurst Isl Rd
Harpswell, ME 04079
Tel 207.721.9949
Email lloyd@suscom-maine.net

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Mon Mar 17 20:29:40 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Update on Stirling Engines and Biomass
Message-ID: <MON.17.MAR.2003.172940.0800.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Every couple of years on this list we've had some discussion about stirling engines.

Is there an affordable stirling engine fired by biomass yet?

What's the latest on companies like STM Power, Whisper Gen, Stirling Technology, Inc.., External Power/Sunpower, dk Teknik or Babcock Volund, Kockums, Solo Stirling, or other research in Germany?

Are there any commercial demonstrations of biomass-stirlings in CHP applications such as the Benburn Heritage Centre, Boughton Pumping Station?

Are we still at $40,000/kW?

Tom Miles

From joflo at YIFAN.NET Mon Mar 17 21:15:25 2003
From: joflo at YIFAN.NET (Joel Florian)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Update on Stirling Engines and Biomass
In-Reply-To: <004401c2eced$dd481c10$6601a8c0@tommain>
Message-ID: <MON.17.MAR.2003.171525.0900.JOFLO@YIFAN.NET>

I don't think so -- yet...... Seems like everyone has been poised on the
edge of commercialization for as long as I have been researching the
subject -- maybe ten years. Of the American Companies, STM Power seems to
be the closest -- I didn't talk to the head man, but the lady who answered
the phone told me they are shooting for having a 55kw stirling commercially
available this september. Ballpark cost -- $1000 per kw. I don't know
much about the German companies but most of the links to them didn't work
last week when I did my latest search. Unless some really big money gets
involved or someone very smart and influential really sticks his neck out,
I don't expect stirling engines to be a contender in the marketplace for at
least another 10 years. I hope that it happens sooner -- I suppose if oil
prices go up much more and other circumstances get some of our sharp
engineers thinking about sustainable energy instead of their cushy jobs...
we might see some real innovation.

I'm sure most of you are aware of the fellow who claimed to be able to
convert coal directly to electricity without burning? Rather interesting
reading -- I wonder if it would work with
charcoal? http://www.rexresearch.com/jacques/jacques.htm

Joel Florian
Alaska

At 05:29 PM 3/17/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>Every couple of years on this list we've had some discussion about
>stirling engines.
>
>Is there an affordable stirling engine fired by biomass yet?
>
>What's the latest on companies like STM Power, Whisper Gen, Stirling
>Technology, Inc.., External Power/Sunpower, dk Teknik or Babcock Volund,
>Kockums, Solo Stirling, or other research in Germany?
>
>Are there any commercial demonstrations of biomass-stirlings in CHP
>applications such as the Benburn Heritage Centre, Boughton Pumping Station?
>
>Are we still at $40,000/kW?
>
>Tom Miles

From Carefreeland at AOL.COM Wed Mar 19 08:44:46 2003
From: Carefreeland at AOL.COM (Carefreeland@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Update on Stirling Engines and Biomass
Message-ID: <WED.19.MAR.2003.084446.EST.>

In a message dated 3/17/03 9:27:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, joflo@YIFAN.NET
writes:

>
> I'm sure most of you are aware of the fellow who claimed to be able to
> convert coal directly to electricity without burning? Rather interesting
> reading -- I wonder if it would work with
> charcoal? http://www.rexresearch.com/jacques/jacques.htm
>
> Joel Florian
> Alaska
>
>
> Sounds like a sound foundation for the development of carbon based fuel
cells. Anyone have any experiance with this?

Daniel Dimiduk

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Wed Mar 19 11:13:53 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Update on Stirling Engines and Biomass
Message-ID: <WED.19.MAR.2003.121353.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear List

...del...> >
> >
> > Sounds like a sound foundation for the development of carbon based fuel
> cells. Anyone have any experiance with this?
>
> Daniel Dimiduk

Could someone please describe the difference between "a battery" and a
"fuel cell"?

Kevin

From Steve.Goldthorpe at XTRA.CO.NZ Wed Mar 19 12:35:46 2003
From: Steve.Goldthorpe at XTRA.CO.NZ (Steve Goldthorpe)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:22 2004
Subject: Battery vs Fuel cell
Message-ID: <THU.20.MAR.2003.053546.1200.STEVE.GOLDTHORPE@XTRA.CO.NZ>

Kevin,

You asked:-
Could someone please describe the difference between "a battery" and a
"fuel cell"?

Both are energy supply devices capable of delivering small quantities of
direct current electricity.

The energy input to a battery is electricity.
So a battery is an electricity STORAGE device, where chemical energy is
stored in the battery

The energy input to a fuel cell is fuel (typically hydrogen).
So a fuel cell is an electricity PRODUCTION device.

One way to make hydrogen is from water and electricity in an electrolysis
cell.
An electrolysis cell can be linked via a hydrogen storage system to a fuel
cell
Such an integrated system then becomes an electricity STORAGE device, where
energy is stored in the form of hydrogen.

Both the conventional battery and the
electrolysis/hydrogen_storage/fuel_cell system are electricity storage
systems in which you get less electricity out than you put in. (The second
law of thermodynamics rules OK). As a rough rule of thumb you might expect
to get back half of the electricity that you put in to either storage
system. Any comments.

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
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 4:13 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Update on Stirling Engines and Biomass

> Dear List
>
> ...del...> >
> > >
> > > Sounds like a sound foundation for the development of carbon based
fuel
> > cells. Anyone have any experiance with this?
> >
> > Daniel Dimiduk
>
> Could someone please describe the difference between "a battery" and a
> "fuel cell"?
>
> Kevin
>

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Wed Mar 19 13:40:29 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:23 2004
Subject: Battery vs Fuel cell
Message-ID: <WED.19.MAR.2003.144029.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Steve

I think "battery = fuel cells"

Now, some batteries of "cells" are not rechargeable... egg, carbon-zinc,
while other "storage batteries" are rechargeable, egg Pb-Acid

So: "storage battery = rechargeable battery"
and in the singular,
"storage cell = rechargeable cell"

Also: "hydrogen-oxygen fuel cell = hydrogen oxygen cell"

All these cells do is convert chemical energy to electrical energy. In this
regard, a "fuel cell" is no different from a flashlight battery cell.

Am I missing something here? Is it really as simple as I think it is?

Kevin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Goldthorpe" <Steve.Goldthorpe@XTRA.CO.NZ>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:35 PM
Subject: [GASL] Battery vs Fuel cell

> Kevin,
>
> You asked:-
> Could someone please describe the difference between "a battery" and a
> "fuel cell"?
>
> Both are energy supply devices capable of delivering small quantities of
> direct current electricity.
>
> The energy input to a battery is electricity.
> So a battery is an electricity STORAGE device, where chemical energy is
> stored in the battery
>
> The energy input to a fuel cell is fuel (typically hydrogen).
> So a fuel cell is an electricity PRODUCTION device.
>
> One way to make hydrogen is from water and electricity in an electrolysis
> cell.
> An electrolysis cell can be linked via a hydrogen storage system to a fuel
> cell
> Such an integrated system then becomes an electricity STORAGE device,
where
> energy is stored in the form of hydrogen.
>
> Both the conventional battery and the
> electrolysis/hydrogen_storage/fuel_cell system are electricity storage
> systems in which you get less electricity out than you put in. (The second
> law of thermodynamics rules OK). As a rough rule of thumb you might expect
> to get back half of the electricity that you put in to either storage
> system. Any comments.
>
> 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
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 4:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Update on Stirling Engines and Biomass
>
>
> > Dear List
> >
> > ...del...> >
> > > >
> > > > Sounds like a sound foundation for the development of carbon based
> fuel
> > > cells. Anyone have any experiance with this?
> > >
> > > Daniel Dimiduk
> >
> > Could someone please describe the difference between "a battery" and a
> > "fuel cell"?
> >
> > Kevin
> >

From luizmagri at YAHOO.COM Wed Mar 19 21:05:31 2003
From: luizmagri at YAHOO.COM (Luiz Alberto Magri)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:23 2004
Subject: Battery vs Fuel cell
In-Reply-To: <009901c2ee5e$29635f30$4c9a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <WED.19.MAR.2003.180531.0800.LUIZMAGRI@YAHOO.COM>

There is a major difference. Batteries work as batch
devices. Fuel cells work as continuous feeding
reactors.

Luiz Magri
São Paulo

--- Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm@ca.inter.net> wrote:
(...)
>
> All these cells do is convert chemical energy to
> electrical energy. In this
> regard, a "fuel cell" is no different from a
> flashlight battery cell.
>
> Am I missing something here? Is it really as simple
> as I think it is?
>
> Kevin
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Wed Mar 19 23:33:40 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:23 2004
Subject: Battery vs Fuel cell
Message-ID: <THU.20.MAR.2003.003340.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Luiz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Luiz Alberto Magri" <luizmagri@yahoo.com>
To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>;
<GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Battery vs Fuel cell

L: There is a major difference. Batteries work as batch
devices. Fuel cells work as continuous feeding
reactors.

K: Thanks very much for your insight.

The terms are confusing... a "battery" is a collection of cells, whether
they are "fuel cells", or "battery cells.

I'll take another whack at a description of the similarities and differences
as follows:

"Energy cells are devices where chemical energy is converted to electrical
energy. Some such energy cells have chemical components which are consumed
in the process, and which are not able to be regenerated, or recharged.
Other such energy cells have a chemical reaction which is readily
reversible, and they can be recharged. They are basically "storage cells"
where electrical energy is put back into the cell, to recharge it, and it is
consumed at a later time. A "fuel cell" is an energy cell which is recharged
by replacement of the energy consumed through replacement of the chemical
which was consumed.

So, as it applies to Dan D's original posting, a cell which was intended to
generate
electricity through a Carbon/Oxygen cell reaction, it could be either an
"energy cell" or a "fuel cell, as follows:
1: It would be an energy cell, like a flashlight cell, if the carbon was
used once and if it was not refilled on a continuous and ongoing basis.
2: It would be a fuel cell if there was provision for basically continuous
replacement of he carbon

In both cases, there would have to be a continuous flow of oxygen or air, in
proportion to the power drawn from the cell. The reality then would suggest
that the carbon be replaced as it was consumed. This then would suggest that
if a Carbon/Oxygen cell was made, it would be made as a fuel cell.

Does all this hang together?

Kevin

Luiz Magri
S?o Paulo

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your
desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

From Carefreeland at AOL.COM Thu Mar 20 05:38:32 2003
From: Carefreeland at AOL.COM (Carefreeland@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:23 2004
Subject: Battery vs Fuel cell
Message-ID: <THU.20.MAR.2003.053832.EST.>

In a message dated 3/19/03 11:35:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,
kchisholm@ca.inter.net writes:

DD Dan Dimiduk
>
> So, as it applies to Dan D's original posting, a cell which was intended
> to
> generate
> electricity through a Carbon/Oxygen cell reaction, it could be either an
> "energy cell" or a "fuel cell, as follows:
> 1: It would be an energy cell, like a flashlight cell, if the carbon was
> used once and if it was not refilled on a continuous and ongoing basis.
> 2: It would be a fuel cell if there was provision for basically continuous
> replacement of he carbon
>
> In both cases, there would have to be a continuous flow of oxygen or air,
> in
> proportion to the power drawn from the cell. The reality then would suggest
> that the carbon be replaced as it was consumed. This then would suggest
> that
> if a Carbon/Oxygen cell was made, it would be made as a fuel cell.
>
> Does all this hang together?
>
> Kevin
>
>
DD Hangs together quite well to me Kevin. The original question was, can
this process be adapted to utilize charcoal? If so, we could have a carbon
based biomass energy fueled, fuel cell. I belive that was the direction of
the original posting.

DD Anybody out there up to the challenge? Sounds like a lifetime of
research and development work for the right person. I already have several
lifetimes of work in front of me. Anyone?
Dan Dimiduk

From Arotstein at ORMAT.COM Tue Mar 25 07:28:47 2003
From: Arotstein at ORMAT.COM (Ariel Rotstein)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:23 2004
Subject: Emission regulations
Message-ID: <TUE.25.MAR.2003.142847.0200.AROTSTEIN@ORMAT.COM>

I need help with emission regulations.
I am looking for emission regulation standards for direct combustion of biomass. This is for a small scale system that uses the heat produced from the direct combustion of biomass to generate electricity.

Best regards
Ariel Rotstein

From sigma at IX.NETCOM.COM Tue Mar 25 08:23:54 2003
From: sigma at IX.NETCOM.COM (Len Walde)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:23 2004
Subject: Emission regulations
Message-ID: <TUE.25.MAR.2003.052354.0800.SIGMA@IX.NETCOM.COM>

Hello:

It all depends upon when you are located. In California, for example, the
regulations are administered by the Air Resources Control Board, which is
set regionally throughout the State. I suggest you use www.google.com,
search for
"combustion emission regulations" and various combinations of words related
to air regulations. Eventually, you will get to the info. you want.

Good luck

Len

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

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

----- Original Message -----

From: "Ariel Rotstein" <Arotstein@ORMAT.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 4:28 AM
Subject: [GASL] Emission regulations

> I need help with emission regulations.
> I am looking for emission regulation standards for direct combustion of
biomass. This is for a small scale system that uses the heat produced from
the direct combustion of biomass to generate electricity.
>
> Best regards
> Ariel Rotstein

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Mar 31 09:10:00 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:23 2004
Subject: "thermal depolymerization"
Message-ID: <MON.31.MAR.2003.081000.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Dear Listers;

Anyone have any idea what this is about???

Subject: Discover Magazine: turn any organic material into oil

The latest Discover magazine just arrived, has an article about a
(relatively) new process that converts most any organic material to a
mix of gas like methane and a light crude oil. Recommended reading.
See page 50 of the May issue.

It's not on their web site yet so I can't post the contents yet, will
try do it when available. It's called "thermal depolymerization",
runs at 900 degrees F, recycles heat from the cooker to the beginning
of the heating process.

They make the point that it kills two birds with one stone: uses up
organic material, including sewage, which must normally be
expensively treated and disposed of as waste - then converts it to
gas and oil which can be used like their fossil counterparts. They
calculate that the available organic material in the US would yield
the energy equivalent of some 4B bbl/yr, about what the US imports in
oil now. They take some of the energy output and feed it back in to
run the process, estimating it takes about 15% of incoming energy
content to operate it.

Sounds too good to be true? The science behind it is not exotic,
it's a process that has been tweaked and fine-tuned and now there's a
big plant going to work in Missouri that will process 200 tons per
day of turkey offal. Almost any carbon-based feedstock can be fed
in, and the output is gas, oil, water, and minerals. The minerals
are good fertilizer. It works on sewage.

Howard Buffet, son of billionaire investor Warren Buffet, is one of
the main investors behind it. Stay tuned.

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Mar 31 11:12:51 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:23 2004
Subject: "thermal depolymerization"
Message-ID: <MON.31.MAR.2003.101251.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Hi Mark;

My gut feeling as well -- and this can be very interesting to know about.

Well -- let's see what the search engines can find --

Peter / Belize

At 12:17 AM 4/1/2003 +0800, Marc de Piolenc wrote:
>Sounds like very carefully controlled pyrolysis, the low temperature
>suggesting that there is a catalyst involved.
>
>Marc
>
>Peter Singfield wrote:
>>
>> Dear Listers;
>>
>> Anyone have any idea what this is about???
>>
>> Subject: Discover Magazine: turn any organic material into oil
>>
>> The latest Discover magazine just arrived, has an article about a
>> (relatively) new process that converts most any organic material to a
>> mix of gas like methane and a light crude oil. Recommended reading.
>> See page 50 of the May issue.
>

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Mar 31 11:12:53 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:23 2004
Subject: "thermal depolymerization"
Message-ID: <MON.31.MAR.2003.101253.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

"pyrolysis" ????????

Peter / Belize

At 07:18 AM 3/31/2003 -0800, Jim Lucas wrote:
>This is a process that has been around for quite a few years. I'm not
>surprised to see it finally being commercialized. I'll read the article.
>Thank you.
>
>Jim Lucas
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@BTL.NET>
>To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 6:10 AM
>Subject: [GASL] "thermal depolymerization"
>
>
>> Dear Listers;
>>
>> Anyone have any idea what this is about???
>>
>>
>> Subject: Discover Magazine: turn any organic material into oil
>>

From jean-henry.ferrasse at UNIV.U-3MRS.FR Mon Mar 31 11:30:14 2003
From: jean-henry.ferrasse at UNIV.U-3MRS.FR (Jean-Henry Ferrasse)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:23 2004
Subject: "thermal depolymerization"
Message-ID: <MON.31.MAR.2003.183014.0200.JEANHENRY.FERRASSE@UNIV.U3MRS.FR>

Seems like a classical unit of pyrolysis.
I guess there is something quite equivalent wich is the enersludge concept
with a working plant in Perth, Australia.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@BTL.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 4:10 PM
Subject: [GASL] "thermal depolymerization"

> Dear Listers;
>
> Anyone have any idea what this is about???
>
>
> Subject: Discover Magazine: turn any organic material into oil
>
> The latest Discover magazine just arrived, has an article about a
> (relatively) new process that converts most any organic material to a
> mix of gas like methane and a light crude oil. Recommended reading.
> See page 50 of the May issue.
>
> It's not on their web site yet so I can't post the contents yet, will
> try do it when available. It's called "thermal depolymerization",
> runs at 900 degrees F, recycles heat from the cooker to the beginning
> of the heating process.
>
> They make the point that it kills two birds with one stone: uses up
> organic material, including sewage, which must normally be
> expensively treated and disposed of as waste - then converts it to
> gas and oil which can be used like their fossil counterparts. They
> calculate that the available organic material in the US would yield
> the energy equivalent of some 4B bbl/yr, about what the US imports in
> oil now. They take some of the energy output and feed it back in to
> run the process, estimating it takes about 15% of incoming energy
> content to operate it.
>
> Sounds too good to be true? The science behind it is not exotic,
> it's a process that has been tweaked and fine-tuned and now there's a
> big plant going to work in Missouri that will process 200 tons per
> day of turkey offal. Almost any carbon-based feedstock can be fed
> in, and the output is gas, oil, water, and minerals. The minerals
> are good fertilizer. It works on sewage.
>
> Howard Buffet, son of billionaire investor Warren Buffet, is one of
> the main investors behind it. Stay tuned.
>

From skelly at WOODLANDCHEMICALS.COM Mon Mar 31 11:50:51 2003
From: skelly at WOODLANDCHEMICALS.COM (Dr. Sue Kelly)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:23 2004
Subject: "thermal depolymerization"
Message-ID: <MON.31.MAR.2003.115051.0500.SKELLY@WOODLANDCHEMICALS.COM>

For anyone who is interested, this article explains the process and the
participants.

http://www.springfieldnews-leader.com/projects/stewardship/turkey120402.html

Dr. Sue Kelly

Peter Singfield wrote:

> Dear Listers;
>
> Anyone have any idea what this is about???
>
> Subject: Discover Magazine: turn any organic material into oil
>
> The latest Discover magazine just arrived, has an article about a
> (relatively) new process that converts most any organic material to a
> mix of gas like methane and a light crude oil. Recommended reading.
> See page 50 of the May issue.
>
> It's not on their web site yet so I can't post the contents yet, will
> try do it when available. It's called "thermal depolymerization",
> runs at 900 degrees F, recycles heat from the cooker to the beginning
> of the heating process.
>
> They make the point that it kills two birds with one stone: uses up
> organic material, including sewage, which must normally be
> expensively treated and disposed of as waste - then converts it to
> gas and oil which can be used like their fossil counterparts. They
> calculate that the available organic material in the US would yield
> the energy equivalent of some 4B bbl/yr, about what the US imports in
> oil now. They take some of the energy output and feed it back in to
> run the process, estimating it takes about 15% of incoming energy
> content to operate it.
>
> Sounds too good to be true? The science behind it is not exotic,
> it's a process that has been tweaked and fine-tuned and now there's a
> big plant going to work in Missouri that will process 200 tons per
> day of turkey offal. Almost any carbon-based feedstock can be fed
> in, and the output is gas, oil, water, and minerals. The minerals
> are good fertilizer. It works on sewage.
>
> Howard Buffet, son of billionaire investor Warren Buffet, is one of
> the main investors behind it. Stay tuned.

From marshbros at MCBRIDEBC.COM Mon Mar 31 11:59:08 2003
From: marshbros at MCBRIDEBC.COM (Phil Marsh)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:23 2004
Subject: Heat exchanger
Message-ID: <MON.31.MAR.2003.085908.0800.>

Hello all:

A quick question for the engineering types on this list. We generate
3-phase power using a diesel generator set, we already recuperate the
exhaust gas energy for our kiln requirements, now we would like to claim
as much of the water jacket heat rejection as possible.

The machine is a 560hp JD diesel which needs to reject 9820 btu/min
(173kw) at max power. It pumps coolant at 73gpm (276L/min) and the
thermostat starts to open at 180F (82C) and is fully open at 202F (94C).
I would like to use a water to water heat exchanger off the return line
from my kilns to recuperate this energy. The return line from the kiln
is flowing at 250gpm (945L/min) but the temperature varies and at times
could be approaching 180F (82C) mark.

The question is: what is the highest temperature I could safely run on
the cool side of my exchanger (the kiln return line) and still allow the
motor to reject the maximum heat required with the engine parameters
mentioned above? I realize this depends to a large degree on the surface
area of the exchanger, space is not a concern of ours, we will build it
really big if someone can tell me a surface area required when the cool
side temperature is at least 150F.

Phil Marsh
Marsh Bros.
Ph: (250) 569-2795
Fax: (250) 569-2247

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Mar 31 12:20:50 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:23 2004
Subject: thermal depolymerization
Message-ID: <MON.31.MAR.2003.112050.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Found this in my first search -- incredible. If only "certain" people would
listen up!

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3237

Mr. Woolsey was director of Central Intelligence, 1993-1995. A longer
version of this article appears as a chapter in "The Next American Century"
(Rowman & Littlefield, 2002) and in the September issue of Commentary.

Spiking the Oil Weapon
By R. James Woolsey
The Wall Street Journal | September 19, 2002

Over the last quarter century much of the world has come to believe that
our dependence on the Middle East for oil has cast a spell over our conduct
there. The point is well taken. From the 1979 seizure of our hostages in
Tehran until last autumn, we generally responded to attacks by Middle
Eastern terrorists, states, or both by temporizing, retreating, or, at
most, prosecuting a few individuals or launching a few cruise missiles or
air strikes from a safe distance.

One exception was our laudable conduct of the 1991 Gulf War. But even that
was marred by the terms of the cease-fire, which -- once our access to
Kuwaiti and Saudi oil was secure -- permitted Saddam Hussein's forces to
massacre the Kurdish and Shi'ite rebels we had encouraged.

Three Totalitarian Movements

The wealth produced by oil underlies the power of the three totalitarian
movements in the Middle East that have chosen to make war on us: the ruling
Iraqi Baathists and Iranian mullahs, and al Qaeda, the latter spawned by
Saudi money.

In light of these circumstances it is time to set aside our endless
wrangling about energy policy. To this point the discussion has been
characterized by advocacy, on the one hand, of futuristic ideal visions of
the hydrogen economy and, on the other hand, of marginal steps producing
more political hyperbole than fuel. Drilling in the Alaska National
Wildlife Refuge, for example, will increase our share of the world's
reserves, in a decade or so, from 3% to all of 3.3%, while we consume 25%
of the world's oil.

We are at war. We should start by asking what we can do, as soon as
possible, to undercut our enemies' power. Other considerations should now
follow, not lead. There are four strategic steps we can take starting now.

The Middle East, including the Caspian basin, is the home not only of
nearly three-quarters of the world's proven oil reserves, but about the
same share of the world's "swing" production capacity. The former
establishes our long-term dependence, but the latter is what creates
tactical leverage over us. That leverage is largely in the hands of Saudi
Arabia: almost three million barrels a day. When a crisis creates a spike
in the oil spot market, the only way to increase supply quickly and keep
prices (and many nations' economies) stable is for the Saudis to activate
this spare capacity. As Edward L. Morse and James Richard put it in Foreign
Affairs, this Saudi leverage is "the energy equivalent of nuclear weapons."

We could substantially free ourselves from this threat if, in a crisis, we
had the ability to sell steadily from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We
should add substantially to our reserve -- at a level of one billion
barrels we would have about a year's worth of Saudi swing capacity -- and
try to persuade other oil-consuming countries to do the same.

Second, within the oil market we should do our best to lead the world away
from depending on production from Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq. We could
help Russia substantially improve its share of the world's market. Jeffrey
E. Garten of the Yale School of Management has estimated that its current
output of 6.9 million barrels could be expanded by at least 50%. Western
investment could help surmount the main obstacle to this increase -- the
deplorable state of the country's pipelines and ports.

Third, we must make major improvements in vehicle efficiency. In the six
years after the 1979 oil shock, Americans improved gas mileage in new
vehicles by seven miles per gallon, cut oil use by 15% and Persian Gulf
imports by 87%. Our economy grew by 16%. In recent years we have instead
used technological progress to add size and power. But we needn't all be
forced into tiny cars -- the point is fuel efficiency, not smaller vehicles
per se. We should be able readily to devise Detroit-friendly incentives
such as tax credits and rebates to encourage the scrapping of older, less
efficient vehicles and promote a rapid increase of those with hybrid
gas-electric engines.

Finally, we should take advantage of the fact that
waste-to-transportation-fuel technologies are now entering commercial
application. These hold early promise for large-volume, inexpensive
production of fuels that can be used in existing vehicles and require no
new oil production. Genetically modified biocatalysts can now produce
ethanol from cellulosic biomass (a.k.a., plant material). A process called
thermal depolymerization is also highly efficient and fully consumes such
wastes as animal carcasses, manure or used tires in producing high-grade
diesel.

Most of today's cars can only use ethanol, whatever its source, in mixtures
up to 10% with gasoline. But there are at least two million flexible-fuel
vehicles on the road that can burn gasoline or any gasoline-ethanol mixture
up to 85% ethanol. It would be a simple and cheap matter to require this
feature in all new cars -- essentially just a differently programmed
computer chip and a different kind of plastic in the fuel line. But
corn-derived ethanol requires substantial energy to produce and will never
cover more than a tiny share of our needs.

Break Their Swords

Whatever our strategy's exact components, if we do not act now, we will
leave major levers over our fate in the hands of regimes that have attacked
us or have fallen under the sway of fanatics who spread hatred of the U.S.,
and indeed of freedom itself. Some of these enemies try to kill Americans
directly or pay others to do so; others sponsor the hatred that fires and
sustains those who make war on us. For all of them, their power derives
from their oil. It is time to break their sword.

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Mon Mar 31 12:53:06 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:23 2004
Subject: Heat exchanger
Message-ID: <MON.31.MAR.2003.135306.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Phil

You don't have a problem. Simply divert the present coolant flow to the
existing radiator through the new heat exchanger, and then back to the
existing radiator. The existing radiator will look after excess heat if HE
return is excessive. The existing engine thermostat will regulate flow to
the block, so that the engine sees the same block temperatures.

Additionally, you can save further energy. As long as you take the heat away
with your recovery system, you will not need the fan on your radiator. These
fans can draw perhaps 3 to 10 HP. Install a electric motor driven fan with a
temperature sensor on the engine coolant return line, and only operate the
fan when the return temperature is "high."

Now, all that good stuff has to be worth a 12 pack of Smugglers Cove Rum, 40
oz, eh? :-)

Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Marsh" <marshbros@mcbridebc.com>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 12:59 PM
Subject: [GASL] Heat exchanger

> Hello all:
>
> A quick question for the engineering types on this list. We generate
> 3-phase power using a diesel generator set, we already recuperate the
> exhaust gas energy for our kiln requirements, now we would like to claim
> as much of the water jacket heat rejection as possible.
>
> The machine is a 560hp JD diesel which needs to reject 9820 btu/min
> (173kw) at max power. It pumps coolant at 73gpm (276L/min) and the
> thermostat starts to open at 180F (82C) and is fully open at 202F (94C).
> I would like to use a water to water heat exchanger off the return line
> from my kilns to recuperate this energy. The return line from the kiln
> is flowing at 250gpm (945L/min) but the temperature varies and at times
> could be approaching 180F (82C) mark.
>
> The question is: what is the highest temperature I could safely run on
> the cool side of my exchanger (the kiln return line) and still allow the
> motor to reject the maximum heat required with the engine parameters
> mentioned above? I realize this depends to a large degree on the surface
> area of the exchanger, space is not a concern of ours, we will build it
> really big if someone can tell me a surface area required when the cool
> side temperature is at least 150F.
>
>
>
> Phil Marsh
> Marsh Bros.
> Ph: (250) 569-2795
> Fax: (250) 569-2247

From joflo at YIFAN.NET Mon Mar 31 14:01:16 2003
From: joflo at YIFAN.NET (Joel Florian)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:23 2004
Subject: Heat exchanger
In-Reply-To: <000001c2f7a6$d9d5e260$7072b5d0@OFFICE>
Message-ID: <MON.31.MAR.2003.100116.0900.JOFLO@YIFAN.NET>

Phil,

First let me justify posting something about heat exchangers this to this
gasification list -- I live in Alaska. Heat is more essential to life in
Alaska than electricity or shaft power. Any project I undertake using
gasification or biomass recovery is going to involve heat recovery. Every
btu of "waste heat" recovered is money saved from my heating bills -- I'm
responsible for heating 8 greenhouses in Alaska so if any of you have
"waste heat" you'd like to throw my way.... :)

A couple of thoughts on the heat exchanger -- you will have some heat
transfer across a heat exchanger if there is a difference in temperature
from one side to the other. The greater the temperature differential, the
faster heat will flow. Increase the surface area and you will increase the
heat transfer. Elementary stuff, I know, but we need to establish a
foundation.

If you are going to build a heat exchanger, try building a small version
with the materials you intend to use for the larger one and run some
experiments. Then scale up to the size you need. If you are going to buy
a heat exchanger (there are several companies that specialize in heat
exchanger technology) , simply talk to their engineers there about your
needs. (Might want to call even if you still intend to build it yourself)

Or you could just guess at the surface area you need (you can get an
educated guess by looking up u or c values for the walls of the heat
exchanger and doing some simple multiplication) and build the heat
exchanger and if it's too small, build another "module" if it's too big,
you just wasted a bit of time and materials.

Another thought -- this adds complexity but might add some stability and
efficiency. Use a large thermal buffer between the two fluids: ie: a big
thermos (insulated tank) of water. Your heat exchanger could be as simple
as a two long loops of pipe inside the tank. The advantage to this that
both of your heat transfer fluids fluctuate in temperature. From your
description, one fluctuates between say180F and 220F and the other
fluctuates between say 150F and 180F. Another way of saying that is that
the load on your generator may not be synchronized exactly with the thermal
requirment of your kiln. Now obviously you're not going to have much heat
transfer when both fluids are close to 180F. But with a large tank of
water part of your heat transfer system, you're going to effectively
average out the supply and demand of heat. So your averages would be 200F
and 165F. Unfortunately with the tank of water, you're going to need two
heat exchangers (one generator antifreeze to water and the other kiln fluid
to water) that will need to be double the size (because each only has 1/2
the delta T across it)
Depending on your heat demand, etc, you might want to use thermostats and
control the flows through the tank.

And I would keep your original radiator in series with a thermostatically
controlled fan as Kevin suggested. We do something similar with
refrigeration units up here in Alaska.

I would be interested in the results of your research.

At 08:59 AM 3/31/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>Hello all:
>
>A quick question for the engineering types on this list. We generate
>3-phase power using a diesel generator set, we already recuperate the
>exhaust gas energy for our kiln requirements, now we would like to claim
>as much of the water jacket heat rejection as possible.
>
>The machine is a 560hp JD diesel which needs to reject 9820 btu/min
>(173kw) at max power. It pumps coolant at 73gpm (276L/min) and the
>thermostat starts to open at 180F (82C) and is fully open at 202F (94C).
>I would like to use a water to water heat exchanger off the return line
>from my kilns to recuperate this energy. The return line from the kiln
>is flowing at 250gpm (945L/min) but the temperature varies and at times
>could be approaching 180F (82C) mark.
>
>The question is: what is the highest temperature I could safely run on
>the cool side of my exchanger (the kiln return line) and still allow the
>motor to reject the maximum heat required with the engine parameters
>mentioned above? I realize this depends to a large degree on the surface
>area of the exchanger, space is not a concern of ours, we will build it
>really big if someone can tell me a surface area required when the cool
>side temperature is at least 150F.
>
>
>
>Phil Marsh
>Marsh Bros.
>Ph: (250) 569-2795
>Fax: (250) 569-2247

From Sarita19th at AOL.COM Mon Mar 31 14:23:46 2003
From: Sarita19th at AOL.COM (Lewis L. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:23 2004
Subject: Change of EM address
Message-ID: <MON.31.MAR.2003.142346.0500.>

Forgot to add my name to previous EM ! Sorry.

< mmbtupr@aol.com > Lewis L. Smith. End.

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Mar 31 14:36:07 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:23 2004
Subject: "thermal depolymerization"
Message-ID: <MON.31.MAR.2003.133607.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 11:50 AM 3/31/2003 -0500, Dr. Sue Kelly wrote:
>For anyone who is interested, this article explains the process and the
>participants.
>
> http://www.springfieldnews-leader.com/projects/stewardship/turkey120402.html
>
>Dr. Sue Kelly
>

Thanks Dr. Sue

For the archives I have sent along the ASCII TEXT dump of this Url.

Peter / Belize

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

Dec. 4, 2002
Turkey plant finds high-tech pollution solution
Carthage company will turn poultry waste into products instead of effluent.

By Mike Penprase
News-Leader

Carthage ? There appears to be a new solution to leftover turkey: Turn it
into 40-weight motor oil.

Until now, the only thing processors could do with the byproducts of
butchering turkeys ? the guts, feathers, grease and other waste ? was to
turn it into poultry feed. That, in turn, left its own byproduct ? effluent
that could pollute southwest Missouri waterways.

Partners have high hopes for the tangle of tanks, hoppers and pipes being
built on the Spring River near the ConAgra Butterball turkey plant in
industrial downtown Carthage.

After it turns the turkey waste into oil ? as well as diesel fuel, fatty
acids for use in cosmetics, fertilizer and carbon black ? the only thing
left over will be clean water.

The Thermal Depolymerization Plant, or TDP, is scheduled to start up in
January, said Paul Halberstadt of Renewable Environmental Resources, a
joint venture of ConAgra and thermal depolymerization developer Changing
World Technology. Halberstadt, vice president of technical services, makes
regular runs from Michigan to Missouri to oversee plant construction.

A pilot plant has been operating at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard
Business Center for three years, testing what kinds of agricultural wastes,
known as foodstocks, can be processed, Halberstadt said. The Carthage plant
will be the first to operate commercially.

?The predominant thing we?re trying to get out of this process is the oil,?
RES president P.J. Samson said.

Estimates are the plant will produce 115,000 tons of the oil and diesel
each year.

?The idea for thermal depolymerization has been around for a long time, but
we believe our process has perfected it,? Samson said.

?It?s no longer laboratory benchtop,? he said.

At full operation, the Carthage plant will process 200 tons of material
from the Con-Agra plant and several other businesses that produce waste
cooking grease on a round-the-clock, 365-day schedule, Halberstadt said.

And, even better, it?s feasible the plants could be used to process
phosphorus-laden poultry litter as well, Halberstadt said. He said that
while the Carthage plant would have to be tuned to take large amounts of
the litter, RES has had inquiries from other poultry plants about using the
process.

How it works

The plant will mimic how oil is produced naturally by heat and pressure
over eons, Halberstadt said.

The difference is the Carthage plant will do the same thing in hours by
moving a slurry of wastes and water through a series of tanks that use a
variety of heat and pressure combinations to break the organics down, he said.

In the first stage, material is subjected to 750 pounds per square inch of
pressure at 500 degrees Fahrenheit, while the second stage uses pressure of
25 to 50 psi at 1,000 degrees.

Unlike other methods that create air emissions or other byproducts, the TDP
is a closed system, he said.

Another advantage is the plant doesn?t depend on catalysts to break down
the wastes, eliminating the need to use chemicals that can be expensive,
hazardous or that have to be recovered, Halberstadt said.

While methane and other gases that are produced are used to power the
plant, all the end products except the purified water can be sold, he said.

?I think what we?re doing is to provide an option that doesn?t exist,? he
said.

Issue of economics

Sen. Christopher Bond helped obtain $5 million from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency for the $15 million project. James Stoffer, interim
chemistry department head at the University of Missouri-Rolla, studied the
technology and said the test for the plant will be whether it produces as
much material as billed. But he added that while the plant may be a ?tough
go? economically, it?s worth the investment because of what it promises for
the environment.

?If it breaks even or even makes money, it saves the environment. It does
have the potential. The science is there.?

Missouri Department of Natural Resources director Steve Mahfood agrees.

?The issue has always been the economics,? he said. ?It?s never been the
technology, it?s never been because it?s a good idea. The point is, we now
have reached that crossover point.?

Bruce Martin, regional director of the state Department of Natural
Resources, is hopeful economics will work for the plant.

?I?m excited about the possibility we have a plant that?s able to take
poultry waste and turn it into useful products, he said. ?If this plant in
Carthage is success, and I hope it is, there will be other plants. If the
market is there for these products, the businessmen are going to find a way
to get it done.?

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Mar 31 18:58:11 2003
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:23 2004
Subject: Thermal Depolymerization -- Just the Facts Mam --
Message-ID: <MON.31.MAR.2003.175811.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Dear Listers --

The process is technically described -- in relation to processing swine
manure at:

http://www.age.uiuc.edu/bee/research/tcc/tccpaper1.htm

Tom T -- this is what we were chatting about last time around.

Again -- I believe their is potential in gasifying any biomass in super
critical water under high pressures.

High pressure -- high temperature -- reactors was my specialty 25 years ago.

But not for thermal depolymerization -- or any form of gasifying.

Tom -- does this sound "familiar"

TCC PROCESSOR PERFORMANCE
Based on the power supplied to the TCC processor, the temperature increase
rate was controlled at 4?C/min. While temperature was approaching the
pre-set point, the automatic control was in effect. Power was supplied to
keep temperature between the pre-set points. From the operation profile, as
shown in Figure 3, a large temperature overshoot at the early stage of the
operation was evident. While approaching the pre-set temperature (200?C),
the temperature overshot by 45?C. The temperature overshoot caused a
pressure overshoot as well. Furthermore, the pressure is much larger than
the water vapor pressure at the corresponding temperature. This phenomenon
was observed starting at 160?C and most of the depolymerization reactions
occurred in the next 30~40 minutes. However, if the retention time was less
than 60 minutes, there was a significant amount of organic matter left
unreacted. The minimum retention time for complete conversion of the manure
was 120 minutes for the temperature of 250?C.

To examine the cause of this temperature/pressure overshoot, a set of tests
was conducted with water in the system. The results are summarized in
Figures 4 and 5.

As shown in Figures 4 and 5, low temperature increases over the pre-set
point were observed with water alone, which was solely from the heat
inertia of the processor system. It was concluded that the large
temperature/pressure overshoots from the TCC processing of swine manure
were not caused solely by the heat inertia, but instead from the reaction
heat produced by depolymerization of the swine manure. This was confirmed
by comparing this phenomenon with that of water (Figure 5). At the same
temperature increase rate, the pressures were much lower in the water
system than in the manure system. This exothermic reaction heat from
depolymerization caused the temperature overshoot of the TCC process.

Because of the rapid reaction heat release, the temperature as well as the
pressure were uncontrollable.

Well -- here is how they say they fixed that!!

To operate the TCC processor safely and smoothly, a two-stage temperature
control strategy was adopted. Based on the temperature overshoot at
different pre-set temperatures (Figure 4), at first the pre-set temperature
was set lower than the desired operating temperature. When the reaction
occurred, the temperature increased to its corresponding overshoot point.
The final desired temperature was then re-set when the temperature reached
its highest point. This way we achieved a much smoother operation
temperature and pressure profile, as shown in Figure 6.

This is of interest:

SUMMARY

A preliminary study on the TCC process of swine manure has been carried out
with aims of reducing swine waste and odor emission, and producing oil. A
TCC bench processor has been developed and tested. COD levels of the swine
manure sludge were reduced by 94%. Approximately 8.5% of the volatile solid
were converted into oil product. The preliminary results show that the TCC
technology has the potential to be applied to swine manure treatment.
Further studies are in process to explore the optimum operating conditions
for maximum oil production and waste/odor reduction.

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

Peter / Belize

From arnt at C2I.NET Mon Mar 31 19:43:03 2003
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:23 2004
Subject: ..OT:Re: [GASL] thermal depolymerization
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20030331111835.00aadd00@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.APR.2003.024303.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:20:50 -0600,
Peter Singfield <snkm@BTL.NET> wrote in message
<3.0.32.20030331111835.00aadd00@btlmail.btl.net>:

> Found this in my first search -- incredible. If only "certain" people
> would listen up!
>
>
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3237
>
> Mr. Woolsey was director of Central Intelligence, 1993-1995. A longer
> version of this article appears as a chapter in "The Next American
> Century"(Rowman & Littlefield, 2002) and in the September issue of
> Commentary.
>
>
> Spiking the Oil Weapon
> By R. James Woolsey
> The Wall Street Journal | September 19, 2002
>

..Mahatma Gandhi reportedly felt about the same way about
Western civilization, as I feel about American intelligence:
"That would be a very good idea.".

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

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Mon Mar 31 20:00:40 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:23 2004
Subject: ..OT:Re: [GASL] thermal depolymerization
Message-ID: <MON.31.MAR.2003.210040.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Arnt

> ..Mahatma Gandhi reportedly felt about the same way about
> Western civilization, as I feel about American intelligence:
> "That would be a very good idea.".
>
BEAUTIFUL!!

Kevin

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

March 2003 Gasification Archive