November 2003 Gasification Archive

From babudeva at YAHOO.COM Wed Nov 5 07:57:07 2003
From: babudeva at YAHOO.COM (Babs)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:32 2004
Subject: Gas sealing problem
Message-ID: <WED.5.NOV.2003.045707.0800.BABUDEVA@YAHOO.COM>

Dear One,

I have constructed a 250 kW wood log gasifier for
thermal application. It is connected to a 3hp (2.2 kW
)blower which developes a pressure of 50 centimeter
water column.

There is a problem with my lid, its not leak proof.
I have used a 5 centimeter deep sand seal for the top
lid with dead weight loading but inspite of all these
the lid blows off frequently. Will you be able to help
me with some suggestions for sealing the gas.

Happily

Babu

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Wed Nov 5 09:09:48 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:32 2004
Subject: Gas sealing problem
Message-ID: <WED.5.NOV.2003.100948.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Babs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Babs" <babudeva@YAHOO.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 8:57 AM
Subject: [GASL] Gas sealing problem

> Dear One,
>
> I have constructed a 250 kW wood log gasifier for
> thermal application. It is connected to a 3hp (2.2 kW
> )blower which developes a pressure of 50 centimeter
> water column.

That works out to a "lifting force" of about 100 lounds per square foot of
cover area...
>
> There is a problem with my lid, its not leak proof.
> I have used a 5 centimeter deep sand seal for the top
> lid with dead weight loading but inspite of all these
> the lid blows off frequently. Will you be able to help
> me with some suggestions for sealing the gas.
>
1: Confirm that the actual weight is adequately greater than the "nominal"
100 pounds per square foot of cover area.

2: Take a look at the fan pressure characteristics. The curve is probably
relatively steep, so that with reduced flow, the pressure could increase to
significantly more than the nominal 50 cm water gage.

3: Confirm also that the problem is indeed due to a simple weighting or fan
surge problem, OR if it is perhaps due to "poofing" or the equivalent to an
"internal backfire" that lifts the cover.

Best wishes with your interesting application!! Can you tell us a bit more
about it? Where is it?

Kevin Chisholm

> Happily
>
> Babu
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Sun Nov 9 10:18:54 2003
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:32 2004
Subject: Throat, Washer, test results, Revisited
Message-ID: <SUN.9.NOV.2003.091854.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Greetings All,

After my preliminary tests a while back (enclosed), I finally got enough
time to do a somewhat more in-depth test set on the "washer reduced throat".

Sorry to say, what sounded good in theory, is not working well in practice
for me. I confirmed that going back to the original throat, I was able to
get back to previous levels of runtime with this gasifier, however, with the
"washered throat" (all other values near same spec. air, temp, feedstock,
etc.) the only thing I visually noted about using the "washered version" was
nighttime viewing of the plume was a deeper purple color, other than that,
runtime was drastically reduced (80+ hrs. down to under 15hrs.) and the
"gooey mess" at the final "plugging" of the unit. (I have saved some samples
of it) does anyone know a location that could do a breakdown analysis of
it's contents for me, inexpensively ??

I wish I had equipment for gas analysis, as I have never seen this "deep
purple" flame before, at any of the plume tests.

Greg :)

-----Original Message-----
From: a31ford [mailto:a31ford@inetlink.ca]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 5:56 AM
To: A Gasification List (E-mail)
Subject: Throat, Washer test results

Greetings Tom, Doug, & All:

The following are the preliminary results of my "washer restricted" Imbert
Throat, on test unit #4.

Throat size 4" O.D. thinwall pipe, (replaced the existing 4" thickwall
throat).
Reduction washer installed at bottom of throat, with an opening of 2 3/4".

Initially, in previous tests (before the washer) this unit would run
continuously for upwards of 96 hours without feedstock hang-ups or throat
bridging (But would eventually quit). After the modification, and a somewhat
cumbersome startup, I ran it for 3 hours, killed the burn, and did a
dissection of the throat contents, much to my surprise, the action of the
washer was NOT what I expected, instead of seeing a "taper" of ash
accumulated on the "lip" the washer creates at the end of the throat, what I
did find was a gooey mess. (about the same as fresh roofing cement). This
was totally NOT expected!

I will note that the ambient temperature was much colder than all other
tests (most done in the 17-21c area, where this one was with 8c air) (unit
is run outdoors) There is a very basic preheat on combustion air on this
unit.

I will re-attempt another test this weekend, hoping it is a bit warmer.

Another Note: The unit did NOT plug, I simply stopped it, (was running short
on time, that day).

Side note fears, are that if this happens again, would that "gooey mess"
actually ignite at sometime, If the burn was run for a longer period? OR was
the mess caused by the stopping of the burn?(sliding down the side of the
throat)?

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

From Enoojibail at AOL.COM Tue Nov 11 15:28:02 2003
From: Enoojibail at AOL.COM (Enoojibail@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:32 2004
Subject: Methanol
Message-ID: <TUE.11.NOV.2003.152802.EST.>

I am interested to find out the following info. Your help is appreciated.

1,000 Gallons of methanol

1. How much natural gas (MMBTU or CFT) is required to produce methanol?
2. How much electricity is required?
3. What is the steam requirement?
4. How do you heat the catalyst to 900-10 Deg C?
5. Can we convert the CO2 into methanol?

I was told that the methanol sells at wholesale at about $0.45-0.50 per
gallon and I was told the production cost is about $0.50 to $1.00. Which
information is incorrect?

From rbwilliams at UCDAVIS.EDU Wed Nov 12 21:48:55 2003
From: rbwilliams at UCDAVIS.EDU (Rob Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:32 2004
Subject: Biomass IGCC
Message-ID: <WED.12.NOV.2003.184855.0800.RBWILLIAMS@UCDAVIS.EDU>

Does any one know the status of the following biomass IGCC projects?

ARBRE (UK)-ever operated, and is the project still alive?

Cascina, Italy (Bioelettrica)- Operated? Under construction?

Brazilian Wood Biomass Integrated Gasification-Gas Turbine (BIG-GT) Project ?

Any information will be very appreciated.

Thanks,
Rob Williams

______________________________

Robert B. Williams, PE
Development Engineer
Biological and Agricultural Engineering
University of California
One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616
voice 530 752 6623
fax 530 752 2640
rbwilliams@ucdavis.edu

From aufempen at DYSON.BRISNET.ORG.AU Wed Nov 12 23:59:04 2003
From: aufempen at DYSON.BRISNET.ORG.AU (Guy North)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:32 2004
Subject: Newbie: Want to produce 6 liters of woodgaz per hour? how do I
start?
Message-ID: <WED.12.NOV.2003.235904.0500.AUFEMPEN@DYSON.BRISNET.ORG.AU>

1) I am looking at producing 6 liters of woodgaz per hour.
This woodgaz will replace the lpg gaz which burns as a pilot light in my
portable gaz fridge.

The protable gaz fridge is about 30 liters chest capacity.
The portable gaz fridge uses 9kg of LPG gaz in 21 days.

I want to use the local wood to produce gaz because were we go camping in
this remote
part of Australia there are no local supplier of LPG.
The closest supplier of gaz is 20 hours drive on very bad dirt roads.
We usually run out of gaz in 2 weeks because soemtimes we have to use our
LPG gaz also for cooking.
The resupply of that gaz is a 20 hours drive on very bad dirt roads.

2) Can I store that woodgaz and compressed it to use it in a small 4 HP
outboard motor.
This project with asmall 4 HP outboard motor really interest me.

3)I realize all of this sounds very ambitious but I know by some friends in
France
that their parents had a Panhard with a gazogene. during WWII.
The parents told me it was working very well. Nearly 40000 got produced in
France during WWII.

4) Do you think my project is feasible?
I am pretty good handyman with welding, brazing etc,

Please point me towards some serious technical information and drawing.

Guy
NORTH of AUSTRALIA

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Thu Nov 13 01:22:46 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:32 2004
Subject: Newbie: Want to produce 6 liters of woodgaz per hour? how do
I start?
Message-ID: <THU.13.NOV.2003.022246.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Guy

Wow!! Your concepts are real mind stretchers!!

What do you think about the following concepts:

1: Produce charcoal in a retort, in order to get a gas of the highest
possible calorific value.

2: Cool it and wash it with a water spray

3: Filter it through a bed of wetted sawdust for final cooling and cleaning.

4: Compress and store the cooled and cleaned pyrolysis gas.

5: Use the charcoal for process heat and for general cooking and heating.

Dr. Karve makes charcoal by the retort method and would probably be able to
tell you the approximate calorific value you could expect in the cleaned
pyrolysis gas.

Note that you will not be able to liquefy this gas, and as a consequence,
you will need much larger gas storage containers for the same time of
operation on LPG.

Please keep us posted on your progress.

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy North" <aufempen@DYSON.BRISNET.ORG.AU>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 12:59 AM
Subject: [GASL] Newbie: Want to produce 6 liters of woodgaz per hour? how do
I start?

> 1) I am looking at producing 6 liters of woodgaz per hour.
> This woodgaz will replace the lpg gaz which burns as a pilot light in my
> portable gaz fridge.
>
> The protable gaz fridge is about 30 liters chest capacity.
> The portable gaz fridge uses 9kg of LPG gaz in 21 days.
>
> I want to use the local wood to produce gaz because were we go camping in
> this remote
> part of Australia there are no local supplier of LPG.
> The closest supplier of gaz is 20 hours drive on very bad dirt roads.
> We usually run out of gaz in 2 weeks because soemtimes we have to use our
> LPG gaz also for cooking.
> The resupply of that gaz is a 20 hours drive on very bad dirt roads.
>
> 2) Can I store that woodgaz and compressed it to use it in a small 4 HP
> outboard motor.
> This project with asmall 4 HP outboard motor really interest me.
>
> 3)I realize all of this sounds very ambitious but I know by some friends
in
> France
> that their parents had a Panhard with a gazogene. during WWII.
> The parents told me it was working very well. Nearly 40000 got produced in
> France during WWII.
>
> 4) Do you think my project is feasible?
> I am pretty good handyman with welding, brazing etc,
>
> Please point me towards some serious technical information and drawing.
>
> Guy
> NORTH of AUSTRALIA

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Thu Nov 13 08:33:02 2003
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:32 2004
Subject: Biomass IGCC
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20031112184123.0159b508@mailbox.ucdavis.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.13.NOV.2003.133302.0000.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

Arbre died, the plant has been sold to the highest bidder, rumours are that
the turbines and alternators are being removed.

Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
3G Energi,

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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Rob Williams
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 2:49
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] Biomass IGCC

Does any one know the status of the following biomass IGCC projects?

ARBRE (UK)-ever operated, and is the project still alive?

Cascina, Italy (Bioelettrica)- Operated? Under construction?

Brazilian Wood Biomass Integrated Gasification-Gas Turbine (BIG-GT) Project
?

Any information will be very appreciated.

Thanks,
Rob Williams

______________________________

From MMBTUPR at AOL.COM Thu Nov 13 11:21:10 2003
From: MMBTUPR at AOL.COM (Lewis L. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:32 2004
Subject: Biomass IGCC
Message-ID: <THU.13.NOV.2003.112110.0500.>

to Gasifiers from Lewis L. Smith

Moseying around the Internet, I gather that ABRE went belly up last spring. Sponsors are still around, but engaged in other projects and don't mention ABRE, which incidentally had a tumultuous financial history, without ever producing a kwh.

In May 2003, I received a lot of DL's dated 1998-2002 from Lars Waldheim, Project Manager, Biomass Integrated Gasification Project [the Bahia Project], TPS Termiska Processor AB at < tps@tps.se > . However, a 16 July EM request for an update has not been answered, and a 25 August search of General Electric's sites turned up no references. [GE would supply the turbine.]

I suspect that Brazil's economic and political situation has put a lot of projects on hold, including this one.

Cordial greetings.

End.

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Fri Nov 14 01:56:42 2003
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:32 2004
Subject: [BIOENERGY] CWLP to continue program of burning seed corn at
generator
In-Reply-To: <3FB412C9.1060908@voyageronline.net>
Message-ID: <FRI.14.NOV.2003.065642.0000.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

Was that woodchip IMPORTS.. as is likely for one of the current batch of
wood fuelled powerstations proposed in the UK - Our Scottish timber has a
much higher extraction and delivery cost (due to high wages, inaccessible
planting and High safety costs) compared to eastern europe so the power
station is built in a port where import is a real alternative to utilising a
local sustainable resource... but they will still get the grants for bio
power generation!

Btw I have no interest in the American consumptive lifestyle- preferring the
Scottish variety! My main business is making money by selling gasifying
boilers however I have been a lurker and occasional contributor for over 7
years now (from when I was employed to research into Gasification for
electricity generation about which I now have a healthily sceptic view!) and
like to keep up with the reccurring trends.

Cynically yours
Gavin
ps I agree with the principle of your statement below

"I am not sure the input energy is relevant -- although it would make an
interesting graduate thesis."

Statements like these remain bothersome to those of us who thought this
was a SUSTAINABLE energy listserve. Corn is a very energy intensive,
chemically dependent and quite non-sustainable crop the way it has been
done industrially. It is hard on the soil, water quality and
biodiversity and frought with the demons of biotech drift. Will any of
you please admit that this group is more motivated by riding a "green"
wave to profit and obfuscation to keep american style consumption alive
and well and feeling good about it's wasteful life/deathstyles?
Inquiring minds, fighting deforestation via woodchip inputs, wish to
know. Denny

Pletka, Ryan J. wrote:

>Gavin,
>This is waste seed corn -- not grain. Just like chicken poop is not grain,
>even though it started out that way.
>
>I am not sure the input energy is relevant -- although it would make an
>interesting graduate thesis.
>Ryan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gavin Gulliver-Goodall [mailto:Gavin@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK]
>Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 5:30 AM
>To: BIOENERGY@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
>Subject: Re: [BIOENERGY] CWLP to continue program of burning seed corn at
>generator
>
>
>Joe,
>In theUk, straw, chicken shit, woodchips, are definitely green power. Even
>when used as a mix fuel in Coal plants.
>
>Grain in the UK would be a political nightmare and the question I raised is
>key:
>How much oil is used to farm 1 tonne of grain? Including fertiliser costs,
>ploughing and harvest costs etc plus haulage to the power plant. The urban
>myth here about is that there is more oil energy going into grain than
comes
>out as food value (kj/kg). Cheers Gavin
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joseph Cannon [mailto:menorca@adelphia.net]
>Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 0:02
>To: Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
>Subject: Re: [BIOENERGY] CWLP to continue program of burning seed corn at
>generator
>
>This depends on some more paramaters. The main one is that someplant is
>doing this and how you manage this system.I work at a coal / gas fired
>station. Can you sell this as Green Power? Info , Joe Cannon
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Gavin Gulliver-Goodall" <Gavin@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>
>To: <BIOENERGY@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 2:39 PM
>Subject: Re: [BIOENERGY] CWLP to continue program of burning seed corn at
>generator
>
>
>>So how much energy (oil, fertiliser etc.) goes into producing this
>>corn???
>>
>>Cheers
>>gavin
>>
>>Springfield City Water, Light and Power is cofiring obsolete seed corn
>>at $3.50/ton. They have two 80 MW cyclone units. We recently helped
>>them
>>
>look
>
>>at wood cofiring, but corn is a superior fuel in terms of handling and
>>
>cost,
>
>>so it is uncertain if they will do more.
>>
>>Read more in the story below from EnergyCentral.com
>>--
>>CWLP to continue program of burning seed corn at generator
>>
>>Nov 05 - State Journal Register
>>
>>
>>In addition to the 1 million tons of coal they eat annually, some of
>>City Water, Light and Power's electric generating units have been
>>quietly snacking on a side dish for the past year.
>>
>>As part of a somewhat unique experiment that started last fall, CWLP
>>has been burning seed corn along with coal to run some of its
>>power-making
>>
>units
>
>>at the utility's facility off East Lake Shore Drive.
>>
>>The Springfield City Council Tuesday voted to continue the project by
>>allowing CWLP to spend $70,000 to buy up to 20,000 more tons of corn
>>for
>>
>use
>
>>over the next three years.
>>
>>The seed corn represents only a fraction of the 3.3 million tons of
>>coal
>>
>the
>
>>utility will need to keep its generators churning out power for those
>>
>three
>
>>years. But officials say the project is a way to test the use of an
>>alternative fuel, which in this case is cleaner, cheaper and renewable
>>compared to coal.
>>
>>"The trend or emphasis to use alternative fuel is increasing all the
>>
>time,"
>
>>said John Davis, superintendent of production at the power plant.
>>"People are trying to find ways to burn wood chips, garbage, biomass.
>>The trend definitely has been increasing and will continue to increase
>>to find alternative fuels to burn so we don't continue to deplete
>>resources such
>>
>as
>
>>natural gas and coal so quickly."
>>
>>It is believed CWLP is one of the few utilities in the state, if not
>>the nation, burning seed corn in its coal-fired power plants. An
>>official from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency knew of
>>only one other
>>
>Illinois
>
>>plant, in Baldwin in southern Illinois, that is doing it.
>>
>>CWLP got involved in burning corn last year. A company called Eco-
>>Logic Services, headquartered in Randolph, Minn., approached the
>>utility about
>>
>the
>
>>project. Eco-Logic buys seed the agriculture industry considers
>>obsolete because it's past its germination date or a new hybrid has
>>been developed
>>
>to
>
>>replace it. The company has a storage operation in Streator, which is
>>
>where
>
>>most of CWLP's corn will be delivered from.
>>
>>Normally, obsolete seed likely would end up in a landfill. But it has
>>been discovered the corn has some value as a heat source when it is
>>burned.
>>
>>Davis said a pound of seed provides about 7,200 British thermal units,
>>a measure of heat output, compared to 10,500 Btu for a pound of coal.
>>
>>CWLP got the IEPA to revise the utility's air permit so it could burn
>>a
>>
>coal
>
>>mixture that includes up to 5 percent seed corn. The first test burn
>>was a year ago, and the use of seed has been occurring off and on ever
>>since at the two units at the Lakeside Power Station and two of the
>>three units at the Dallman Power Station. Corn is not being used in
>>the utility's largest generator, a 200-megawatt unit at Dallman.
>>
>>Davis said CWLP so far this year has used 4,400 tons of corn in the
>>four units. With Tuesday's approval, the annual amount used will
>>approach 7,000 tons per year.
>>
>>Davis said one of the advantages of seed corn is the price. CWLP
>>expects
>>
>to
>
>>save nearly $400,000 during the three years by paying $3.50 a ton for
>>
>seed,
>
>>compared to $22.50 a ton for coal.
>>
>>Plus, the corn has been found to burn cleaner than coal. In the
>>limited experience CWLP has had so far, the utility has noticed slight
>>decreases
>>
>in
>
>>the power plant's sulfur dioxide emissions. Such emissions were the
>>reason CWLP installed a $34 million "scrubber" a few years ago to meet
>>clean-air regulations.
>>
>>But because of the corn's lower Btu, CWLP does have to limit its use
>>to no more than 5 percent or face not having enough heat to vaporize
>>water and create steam, which is needed to turn the generators'
>>turbines to create electricity.
>>
>>"If you would try to go above that (5 percent), due to the lower Btu
>>
>value,
>
>>you could end up on the high end not being able to produce enough
>>energy
>>
>to
>
>>make your megawatts, so you don't want to do that," Davis said.
>>
>>Davis said it is possible to burn other items in a power plant, just
>>as
>>
>long
>
>>as it produces enough heat. The utility did examine the possibility of
>>burning wood chips that come from the city's Southwest Facility, where
>>the public works department drops off the tree limbs collected during
>>the
>>
>branch
>
>>pickup program.
>>
>>"But the way our system is set up right now, it's very, very costly to
>>get prepared to do that," he said. "You'd have to prep the wood chips
>>and then resize them. Because if they're burned in our unit, they need
>>to be no bigger than two inches."
>>
>>Davis said CWLP would probably have to add about $1.75 million worth
>>of equipment at the power plant to make wood chips work.
>>
>>"That's the thing about corn," he said. "There's nothing to do. Corn
>>comes in, and you can put it in as-is."
>>
>>Although CWLP is making an effort, albeit a small one, to use
>>something renewable in its power plants, estimates show there are
>>enough coal
>>
>reserves
>
>>in the state to last long into the future.
>>
>>"There are more coal reserves in Illinois than there is oil in Saudi
>>
>Arabia,
>
>>when you talk about Btus," Davis said, adding that, because of the
>>relatively low price compared to other fuels, he expects coal to be
>>power plants' fuel of choice for many years to come.
>>
>

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Fri Nov 14 09:49:50 2003
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:32 2004
Subject: [BIOENERGY] CWLP to continue program of burning seed corn at
generator
In-Reply-To: <3FB412C9.1060908@voyageronline.net>
Message-ID: <FRI.14.NOV.2003.084950.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Denny,

IN a "nutshell" (corn husk, wheatseed, etc.)

Quoting your words: "Inquiring minds, fighting deforestation via woodchip
inputs, wish to
know."

I can see that you "got at least one person on this board going". Woodchip
is NOT deforestation, in fact, I feel it is exactly the opposite, most
"woodchips" are made from waste trees ( ouch, waste trees ?? who said that),
What I mean is, there are situations where trees are removed (generally in
the city, or along a road), which have blown down, broken from ice or other
problems (being hit by a car, lol), etc. In my neck of the woods (pun
intended) no one would put a chipper to a whole older tree (it would go to a
mill first, THEN the tailings would be chipped) NO, I don't like the mill
aspect, BUT whatever (wood IS a decent building material) . Where there is a
need for "Chipping a whole tree" is in managing a "woodlot" NO we don't go
after the older 6" + trees, rather we selectively weed out the younger ones,
so the older ones DON'T die from suffocation, or water starvation.

I'll ask this of Denny, have you ever been to a "woodlot" or do you simply
sit behind a desk in an "ivory" tower made of concrete, steel & glass (WOW
talk about energy consumption), both in the making of and use of ??

One Angry, Greg Manning :(
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Bioenergy Discussion List
[mailto:BIOENERGY@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Denny Haldeman
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 5:25 PM
To: BIOENERGY@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [BIOENERGY] CWLP to continue program of burning seed corn
at generator

"I am not sure the input energy is relevant -- although it would make an
interesting graduate thesis."

Pletka, Ryan J. wrote:

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Fri Nov 14 11:47:03 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:32 2004
Subject: [BIOENERGY] CWLP to continue program of burning seed corn at
generator
In-Reply-To: <000c01c3aabe$8f3a32d0$0200a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <FRI.14.NOV.2003.104703.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 08:49:50AM -0600, a31ford wrote:
> Denny,
>
> IN a "nutshell" (corn husk, wheatseed, etc.)
>
> Quoting your words: "Inquiring minds, fighting deforestation via woodchip
> inputs, wish to
> know."
>
> I can see that you "got at least one person on this board going". Woodchip
> is NOT deforestation, in fact, I feel it is exactly the opposite, most
> "woodchips" are made from waste trees ( ouch, waste trees ?? who said that),
> What I mean is, there are situations where trees are removed (generally in
> the city, or along a road), which have blown down, broken from ice or other
> problems (being hit by a car, lol), etc. In my neck of the woods (pun
> intended) no one would put a chipper to a whole older tree (it would go to a
> mill first, THEN the tailings would be chipped)

While it's true that a lot of woodchips are from treetrimming and blowdown
trees, etc (and here in WI a lot of that goes to landfills), I know for a fact
that there was a very large logging industry in northern Minnesota where I lived
for a long time that chipped whole trees on an industrial scale for the paper
and chipboard industries. And these were fairly mature aspen and spruce for the
most part, i.e., trees 40-50 feet tall.

> NO, I don't like the mill
> aspect, BUT whatever (wood IS a decent building material) . Where there is a
> need for "Chipping a whole tree" is in managing a "woodlot" NO we don't go
> after the older 6" + trees, rather we selectively weed out the younger ones,
> so the older ones DON'T die from suffocation, or water starvation.

Well, that may be the small scale woodlot of a farmer, etc. but what I refer
to above is usually large scale clearcuts.
Also, someone said in this thread that corn that is used for burning was
spoiled seed corn, but that's not entirely true, some is, but a lot of perfectly
good feed corn is used for burning as well -- it's still cheaper than wood in
the US due to the absurd farm subsidies.

From patravis at ENERGYPRODUCTS.COM Fri Nov 14 14:20:29 2003
From: patravis at ENERGYPRODUCTS.COM (Pat Travis)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:32 2004
Subject: [BIOENERGY] CWLP to continue program of burning seed corn at
generator
Message-ID: <FRI.14.NOV.2003.112029.0800.PATRAVIS@ENERGYPRODUCTS.COM>

To All:

Energy Products of Idaho has been involved with the use of biomass fuels for energy production for over 30 years. During this time we have built over 80 energy systems operating on waste biomass fuels. These fuels include waste wood from mills and board plants, urban wood wastes diverted from landfills; agricultural wastes such as various straws, cotton stocks, almond shells, etc. which were previously disposed of by open field burning or landfilling; non recyclable paper; outdated agricultural seed, such as corn, which has been treated with fungicides and is therefore not fit to feed to animals; and the list goes on and on and on.

The use of these materials as fuel for energy production is the highest use they can be put to. The alternative is landfilling or open burning with no beneficial capture of energy, while adding directly or indirectly (through decomposition in a landfill) to our environmental problems.

These biomass fuels can be gasified and the low Btu gas used in process equipment or a boiler for power production (our commercial gasifiers have been in operation for over 20 years and our first 6 MWe biomass gasification power plant started operation in 1985).

The use of biomass gasification as a source of green energy as well as a pollution control device is described in EPI's paper "Green Power Initiative - Renewable Green Energy in Fossil Fuel Fired Power Plants using Low-Impact Biomass Gasifier Additions for Coal and Oil Fired Facilities". Also, see the final report from the Western Regional Biomass Energy Program study "Evaluate the Feasibility of Using Fluidized Bed Biogas Production in a Utility Boiler". Both papers are available in pdf format at energyproducts.com.

The issue of those opposed to the use of corn or other biomass fuels seems to be the idea that these biomass fuels are useable as food or other higher value uses. This is not the case. These biomass materials are WASTE MATERIALS being removed from landfills or preventing them from going in to landfills, being burned in open fields, or decomposing emitting methane into the atmosphere. I personally can't think of a better use for these wastes than to use them to replace fossil fuels in a responsible and environmentally sound manner.

Patrick Travis

>>> a31ford <a31ford@INETLINK.CA> 11/14/03 06:49AM >>>
Denny,

IN a "nutshell" (corn husk, wheatseed, etc.)

Quoting your words: "Inquiring minds, fighting deforestation via woodchip
inputs, wish to
know."

One Angry, Greg Manning :(
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

"I am not sure the input energy is relevant -- although it would make an
interesting graduate thesis."

Pletka, Ryan J. wrote:

From rbaileys at PRMENERGY.COM Fri Nov 14 14:54:34 2003
From: rbaileys at PRMENERGY.COM (Ron Bailey Sr)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:32 2004
Subject: PRM ENERGY NEWS POLLUTION CAN BE STOPPED.doc
Message-ID: <FRI.14.NOV.2003.135434.0600.RBAILEYS@PRMENERGY.COM>

PRM ENERGY NEWS
PRM Energy Systems, Inc. - Pioneer in Biomass Gasification
504 Windamere Terrace, Hot Springs, Arkansas 71913 USA
Phone:(501) 767-2100 - Fax:(501) 767-6968
Email: info@prmenergy.com <mailto:info@prmenergy.com> Web:
http://www.prmenergy.com <http://www.prmenergy.com/>

POLLUTION
CAN BE STOPPED
NATURALLY!

Children living around rice mills have suffered with skin and eye irritation
for many years. Doctors were baffled over the source of the ailment until
they managed to trace the cause to smoke and particulate created from the
open burning of rice husks.

Huge rice husk mountains were built by the mills and these mountains were
continuously being burned to make more room for husk disposal. ?What seems
like a harmless running nose or minor skin irritation in the beginning can
cause chronic lung diseases?, warned State Health and Medical Services
officers.

Rice husks, straw and other high silica materials contain tiny asbestos-like
silica fibers. Uncontrolled burning of these wastes releases billions of
these dangerous fibers into the atmosphere. These tiny fibers are
invisible, insoluble and build up in the lungs causing chronic lung disease
and possibly cancer. Recent research has led to the banning of open burning
of rice husk and straw in some countries of the world.

In order to stop this hazardous pollution around rice mills and to utilize
rice husks for energy, eighteen PRME NaturallyGas? rice husk energy
conversion systems have been installed in Asia, Australia, Latin America and
the US. These installations are located in remote rural agricultural areas
and supply clean heat for rice drying, steam for processing and electricity
for the local rice mills. In addition to gasifying husks directly from the
mills, PRME installed several husk reclaiming systems to bring the mountains
of husk to the PRME gasification system to be converted to clean energy.
Open burning at these rice mill complexes has stopped. The mountains of
husks are gone. PRME customers are using rice husks for clean energy instead
of fossil fuels. Area residents, farmers and their families and mill
workers are enjoying a cleaner healthier environment. PRME customers say,
?the effectiveness of the PRME system cannot be denied.?

PRM Energy Systems, Inc., a US renewable energy technology company,
recognized the serious health problems associated with open burning and
developed the technology for safely and cleanly converting these wastes to
clean, hot combustible gas in an environmentally sound manner. The PRME
NaturallyGas? is used like natural gas to direct fire boilers, dryers,
kilns, IC engines and gas turbines to produce clean heat, steam and
electricity. The PRME Rice Husk Gasification technology has proven to be
reliable, economical, efficient and environmentally sound during over 22
years of successful performance in demanding industrial applications. The
long-term benefits of the PRME system are rural development, job
opportunities for rural youth, reliable energy for rural industrialization,
additional income for farmers, urban to rural migration and a clean healthy
environment for all.

From Sensiblesteam at AOL.COM Fri Nov 14 16:44:50 2003
From: Sensiblesteam at AOL.COM (Skip Goebel)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:32 2004
Subject: mr travis
Message-ID: <FRI.14.NOV.2003.164450.0500.>

dear sir
i have at my disposal, a lot of methyl esters from fish and vegatble waste. in the grant world, it is known as 'biodiesel'
would you be intersted or do you think it is feasable to add this to other waste biomass?
it contains a lot of extra oxygen, and of course, in itself is a superior fuel.
i guess the main question would be: in this setting, what is it worth?

thank you
skip goebel
sensible steam
anchorage alaska
907 952 0795 fax: 907 276 0447
sensiblesteam@aol.com

From kssustain at PROVIDE.NET Sun Nov 16 16:27:11 2003
From: kssustain at PROVIDE.NET (kermit schlansker)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:32 2004
Subject: Biomass table
Message-ID: <SUN.16.NOV.2003.152711.0600.KSSUSTAIN@PROVIDE.NET>

Karl Davies died recently but he has created something that is worth remembering. This information is from an old Email that could have been posted on energyresources, gasification, or runningonempty. It is a little out of date but contains a lot of valuable information. Certainly it lends credence to my belief that we can probably get 10 quads (quadrillion BTUS) for a while, at least till the soils wear out. This is a good starting point for a new study on biomass. It makes a good reference.

Figure 3

Biomass Energy Potential Calculator: USA

At 4 million btus/dry ton

Maximum
No Meat*

Percent of
Percent of

Category
Percent
Sq Km
Hectares
DryT/Ha/Yr
DryT/Yr
QuadBtu/Yr
Current Use
Current Use

Arable
19%
1,740,202
174,020,240
8
1,392,161,920
19
20%
14%

Pasture
25%
2,289,740
228,974,000
4
915,896,000
13
13%
13%

Forest
30%
2,747,688
274,768,800
2
549,537,600
8
8%
0%

Other
26%
2,381,330
238,132,960
0
0
0
0%
0%

Total
100%
9,158,960
915,896,000

2,857,595,520
40
40%
27%

References:

United States of America - Energy

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html

Total Energy Consumption (2000E):

98.8
quadrillion Btu (25% of world total energy consumption)

Current Shares of U.S. Energy Consumption

http://starfire.ne.uiuc.edu/ne201/course/topics/resource_usage/current_shares.html

1994 U.S. Energy Use By Source

Source Consumption in Quads

Oil
31.00
35%

Natural Gas
24.00
27%

Coal
20.00
23%

Nuclear
7.00
8%

Hydroelectric
2.50
3%

Wood Waste
1.50
2%

Biofuels
1.30
1%

Geothermal
0.20
0%

Solar
0.07
0%

Wind
0.04
0%

Total
88.50
100%

United States - Geography

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

Area:

total: 9,629,091 sq km

land: 9,158,960 sq km

water: 470,131 sq km

Land use:

arable land: 19%

permanent crops: 0%

permanent pastures: 25%

forests and woodland: 30%

other: 26% (1993 est.)

[1 sq km = 100 hectares]

Popular Poplars: Trees for many purposes

http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/misc/poplars.html

Hybrid poplars, when grown under short-rotation silviculture, can produce between 4 and 10 dry tons of wood per acre per year

(8-22 metric tonnes per hectare per year)...This compares to yields of less than 1 ton/ac/yr for native forests and 2.5 ton/ac/yr

for managed pine plantations.

Bioenergy Conversion Factors

http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html

1.0 metric tonne (tonne) = 1000 kilograms = 2205 pounds

Energy content of wood fuel (air dry, 20% moisture) = about...6,400 Btu/lb

Realities For The 90s

Environmental and Nutritional Facts drawn from Diet for a New America by John Robbins and other sources

http://home.earthlink.net/~tilleyrw/realities_90s.html

Amount of soy grown in United States consumed by livestock: 90% (2)

Amount of corn grow in United States consumed by livestock: 80% (3)

Amount of total U.S. grain production consumed by livestock: 70% (5)

* "No Meat" scenario assumes 70% of crop land can be converted from production for livestock to biomass production,

all pasture land can be converted to biomass production, and all forest land stays in forestry (timber/wood/pulp)

production. This is probably a fantasy too. But it still might be a good idea to buy soy burger stock while it's cheap.

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Mon Nov 17 08:59:08 2003
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Biomass table
Message-ID: <MON.17.NOV.2003.065908.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Kermit:

Sorry to hear about Karl Davies's death. Thank you for the Biomass
Potential table.

Trying to predict the eventual world potential for biomass energy production
at a time when oil is still king is like trying to calculate the potential
of oil to replace coal in 1900 before we got into "oil focus". There are so
many potential sources not being thought about that I hope we will spend
more time developing the most obvious and less worrying about the ultimate
potential.

When densification (pelletizing, briquetting) becomes a more mature
technology and the market has developed we will see many biomass streams
pouring into prepared, fungible fuels.

One of my favorite "farout" biomass sources is the Sargaso Sea. There are a
million square miles of seaweed out there waiting to be harvested. Between
these near and far term sources lies billions of tons/yr of biomass
potential.

Onward... TOM REED GASIFICATION
----- Original Message -----
From: "kermit schlansker" <kssustain@PROVIDE.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 2:27 PM
Subject: [GASL] Biomass table

Karl Davies died recently but he has created something that is worth
remembering. This information is from an old Email that could have been
posted on energyresources, gasification, or runningonempty. It is a little
out of date but contains a lot of valuable information. Certainly it lends
credence to my belief that we can probably get 10 quads (quadrillion BTUS)
for a while, at least till the soils wear out. This is a good starting point
for a new study on biomass. It makes a good reference.

Figure 3

Biomass Energy Potential Calculator: USA

At 4 million btus/dry ton

Maximum
No Meat*

Percent of
Percent of

Category
Percent
Sq Km
Hectares
DryT/Ha/Yr
DryT/Yr
QuadBtu/Yr
Current Use
Current Use

Arable
19%
1,740,202
174,020,240
8
1,392,161,920
19
20%
14%

Pasture
25%
2,289,740
228,974,000
4
915,896,000
13
13%
13%

Forest
30%
2,747,688
274,768,800
2
549,537,600
8
8%
0%

Other
26%
2,381,330
238,132,960
0
0
0
0%
0%

Total
100%
9,158,960
915,896,000

2,857,595,520
40
40%
27%

References:

United States of America - Energy

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html

Total Energy Consumption (2000E):

98.8
quadrillion Btu (25% of world total energy consumption)

Current Shares of U.S. Energy Consumption

http://starfire.ne.uiuc.edu/ne201/course/topics/resource_usage/current_shares.html

1994 U.S. Energy Use By Source

Source Consumption in Quads

Oil
31.00
35%

Natural Gas
24.00
27%

Coal
20.00
23%

Nuclear
7.00
8%

Hydroelectric
2.50
3%

Wood Waste
1.50
2%

Biofuels
1.30
1%

Geothermal
0.20
0%

Solar
0.07
0%

Wind
0.04
0%

Total
88.50
100%

United States - Geography

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

Area:

total: 9,629,091 sq km

land: 9,158,960 sq km

water: 470,131 sq km

Land use:

arable land: 19%

permanent crops: 0%

permanent pastures: 25%

forests and woodland: 30%

other: 26% (1993 est.)

[1 sq km = 100 hectares]

Popular Poplars: Trees for many purposes

http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/misc/poplars.html

Hybrid poplars, when grown under short-rotation silviculture, can
produce between 4 and 10 dry tons of wood per acre per year

(8-22 metric tonnes per hectare per year)...This compares to yields of
less than 1 ton/ac/yr for native forests and 2.5 ton/ac/yr

for managed pine plantations.

Bioenergy Conversion Factors

http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html

1.0 metric tonne (tonne) = 1000 kilograms = 2205 pounds

Energy content of wood fuel (air dry, 20% moisture) = about...6,400
Btu/lb

Realities For The 90s

Environmental and Nutritional Facts drawn from Diet for a New America
by John Robbins and other sources

http://home.earthlink.net/~tilleyrw/realities_90s.html

Amount of soy grown in United States consumed by livestock: 90% (2)

Amount of corn grow in United States consumed by livestock: 80% (3)

Amount of total U.S. grain production consumed by livestock: 70% (5)

* "No Meat" scenario assumes 70% of crop land can be converted from
production for livestock to biomass production,

all pasture land can be converted to biomass production, and all
forest land stays in forestry (timber/wood/pulp)

production. This is probably a fantasy too. But it still might be a
good idea to buy soy burger stock while it's cheap.

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Mon Nov 17 10:46:35 2003
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Biomass table
Message-ID: <MON.17.NOV.2003.104635.EST.>

Dear Listers,
Biomass as a resource will not wear out the soil, look at the rain
forests. They have lasted many centuries and will regenerate even when clear cut and
all of the soil problems occur.
Plant production limitations are very familiar to me. I have spent 30
years studying soil and plant interactions as part of an associated company,
Agronics which has developed sophisticated programs to increase production and
plant quality based upon increasing the basic exchange capacity of the soil with
naturally occurring organic colloids. By increasing the cation exchange
capacity, the soil releases and retains more nutrients and the soil plant interface
is dramatically changed for the better. We can double plant production rates
and tree regrowth rates. The economics of production can be dramatically
improved using our program.
If there is interest in this program, our website is listed below.

Sincerely,
Leland T. Taylor
President
Agronics Inc.
Address: 7100-E 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, NM 87107 phone: 505-761-1454, fax;
505-341-0424 website: agronicsinc.com
To download attachments, go to Aladdin.com and download unstuffit for
decompressing files

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Mon Nov 17 17:12:55 2003
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Biomass table
In-Reply-To: <000901c3ad12$f8b9f960$35d80818@cwcn7uspc42i87>
Message-ID: <MON.17.NOV.2003.221255.0000.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

Tom, I would think that harvesting the Sargasso sea without understanding
its relevance to the biosphere would be as bad as all the clear felling in
brazil. (but I'm sure you didn't mean it that way!!!;-)

Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
3G Energi,

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of TBReed
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 13:59
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Biomass table

Dear Kermit:

Sorry to hear about Karl Davies's death. Thank you for the Biomass
Potential table.

When densification (pelletizing, briquetting) becomes a more mature
technology and the market has developed we will see many biomass streams
pouring into prepared, fungible fuels.

Karl Davies died recently but he has created something that is worth
remembering. This information is from an old Email that could have been
posted on energyresources, gasification, or runningonempty. It is a little
out of date but contains a lot of valuable information. Certainly it lends
credence to my belief that we can probably get 10 quads (quadrillion BTUS)
for a while, at least till the soils wear out. This is a good starting point
for a new study on biomass. It makes a good reference.

Figure 3

Biomass Energy Potential Calculator: USA

At 4 million btus/dry ton

Maximum
No Meat*

Percent of
Percent of

Category
Percent
Sq Km
Hectares
DryT/Ha/Yr
DryT/Yr
QuadBtu/Yr
Current Use
Current Use

Arable
19%
1,740,202
174,020,240
8
1,392,161,920
19
20%
14%

Pasture
25%
2,289,740
228,974,000
4
915,896,000
13
13%
13%

Forest
30%
2,747,688
274,768,800
2
549,537,600
8
8%
0%

Other
26%
2,381,330
238,132,960
0
0
0
0%
0%

Total
100%
9,158,960
915,896,000

2,857,595,520
40
40%
27%

References:

United States of America - Energy

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html

Total Energy Consumption (2000E):

98.8
quadrillion Btu (25% of world total energy consumption)

Current Shares of U.S. Energy Consumption

http://starfire.ne.uiuc.edu/ne201/course/topics/resource_usage/current_share
s.html

1994 U.S. Energy Use By Source

Source Consumption in Quads

Oil
31.00
35%

Natural Gas
24.00
27%

Coal
20.00
23%

Nuclear
7.00
8%

Hydroelectric
2.50
3%

Wood Waste
1.50
2%

Biofuels
1.30
1%

Geothermal
0.20
0%

Solar
0.07
0%

Wind
0.04
0%

Total
88.50
100%

United States - Geography

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

Area:

total: 9,629,091 sq km

land: 9,158,960 sq km

water: 470,131 sq km

Land use:

arable land: 19%

permanent crops: 0%

permanent pastures: 25%

forests and woodland: 30%

other: 26% (1993 est.)

[1 sq km = 100 hectares]

Popular Poplars: Trees for many purposes

http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/misc/poplars.html

Hybrid poplars, when grown under short-rotation silviculture, can
produce between 4 and 10 dry tons of wood per acre per year

(8-22 metric tonnes per hectare per year)...This compares to yields of
less than 1 ton/ac/yr for native forests and 2.5 ton/ac/yr

for managed pine plantations.

Bioenergy Conversion Factors

http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html

1.0 metric tonne (tonne) = 1000 kilograms = 2205 pounds

Energy content of wood fuel (air dry, 20% moisture) = about...6,400
Btu/lb

Realities For The 90s

Environmental and Nutritional Facts drawn from Diet for a New America
by John Robbins and other sources

http://home.earthlink.net/~tilleyrw/realities_90s.html

Amount of soy grown in United States consumed by livestock: 90% (2)

Amount of corn grow in United States consumed by livestock: 80% (3)

Amount of total U.S. grain production consumed by livestock: 70% (5)

* "No Meat" scenario assumes 70% of crop land can be converted from
production for livestock to biomass production,

all pasture land can be converted to biomass production, and all
forest land stays in forestry (timber/wood/pulp)

production. This is probably a fantasy too. But it still might be a
good idea to buy soy burger stock while it's cheap.

From krishnakumar_07 at YAHOO.CO.UK Wed Nov 19 14:19:47 2003
From: krishnakumar_07 at YAHOO.CO.UK (=?iso-8859-1?q?krishna=20kumar?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: natural draft gasifier
In-Reply-To: <de.40d1d247.2cea475b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <WED.19.NOV.2003.191947.0000.KRISHNAKUMAR07@YAHOO.CO.UK>

I have designed a natural draft gasifier of 5kWth
capacity of total height of 566mm and ID of 270mm.

I would like to know the material of construction
for this type.

I have preffered concrete for construction with
rereactory inside.

comments on this.

=====
krish

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk

From ventfory at IAFRICA.COM Fri Nov 21 04:35:02 2003
From: ventfory at IAFRICA.COM (Kobus)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: natural draft gasifier
Message-ID: <FRI.21.NOV.2003.113502.0200.VENTFORY@IAFRICA.COM>

Krish,

As your prior question at the beginning of the month was directed at me, I feel obliged to respond to your email. I have two questions for you first:

1) Please tell us where you are in the world as this will have a bearing on what types of materials would be available to you.

2) I can see that you have taken a keen interest in updraft gasifiers - any particular reason for this? I am afraid that I might not be able to assist you much as I am more into biomass and charcoal gasifying stoves only.

These questions might seem intrusive, but they are important so other list members can get to know you and your project, to be able to assist you better.

Sincerely

Kobus

----- Original Message -----
From: krishna kumar <krishnakumar_07@YAHOO.CO.UK>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 9:19 PM
Subject: [GASL] natural draft gasifier

> I have designed a natural draft gasifier of 5kWth
> capacity of total height of 566mm and ID of 270mm.
>
> I would like to know the material of construction
> for this type.
>
> I have preffered concrete for construction with
> rereactory inside.
>
> comments on this.
>
> =====
> krish
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
> Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk

From 150128db at PANDORA.BE Sun Nov 23 13:52:17 2003
From: 150128db at PANDORA.BE (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Dani=EBl__Bullaert?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Old tyres
Message-ID: <SUN.23.NOV.2003.195217.0100.150128DB@PANDORA.BE>

Hello
Jezus , I can't understand. The people from the West managed to go to the
moon and back and ..... it seems to something impossible to gasifie old
tyres ?!?! . I know there is that bloody sulphur but there must be somewhere
a clever chemist that could give us THE formulae to eliminate that stinking element
There are MILLIONS of old tyres waiting that somebody does something good with them
Lets not forget that 1 kilo of old tyre contains about the same energy as 1 litre gasoline
Dani?l / Belgium

From tmh at COUNTYCOURT.VIC.GOV.AU Mon Nov 24 00:33:49 2003
From: tmh at COUNTYCOURT.VIC.GOV.AU (tmh@COUNTYCOURT.VIC.GOV.AU)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Unsubscribing from list
Message-ID: <MON.24.NOV.2003.163349.1100.>

Dear gasification list person,

I'm trying to unsubscribe from the gasification list. I sent an e-mail to
<gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org> but unfortunately without success.
Can you offer any assistance please?

Tim Holt

"CONFIDENTIAL
The information in this message and in any attachments may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not read, forward, print, copy, disclose, or use in any way the information this message or any attachment contains.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.
Our organisation complies with Victorian privacy laws, for a copy of our privacy policy please go to our website or contact us."

From ventfory at IAFRICA.COM Mon Nov 24 04:37:09 2003
From: ventfory at IAFRICA.COM (Kobus)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: natural draft gasifier
Message-ID: <MON.24.NOV.2003.113709.0200.VENTFORY@IAFRICA.COM>

********gasification list members and tinkerers of small gasifiers, please help me out here*********

Krish asked,

> I have designed a natural draft gasifier of
> > 5kWth
> > > capacity of total height of 566mm and ID of
> > 270mm.
> > >
> > > I would like to know the material of
> > construction
> > > for this type.
> > >
> > > I have preffered concrete for construction with
> > > rereactory inside.
> > >
> > > comments on this.

I can give you a summary of materials I use.

Combustion chamber: Ceramic Refractory liner
Insulation: Vermiculite
Body: New or used steel drums of the 0.38 mm wall thickness variety or cutom rolled drums (1.2 mm) made from 3CR12.

I have tried refractory cement, nice product, but very heavy and not a good isulator (unless mixed with lightweight material), which I have not tried yet. Channelling of secondary air through the insulation and chamber requires an engineering solution.

You also asked me:

----- Original Message -----
From: krishna kumar <krishnakumar_07@yahoo.co.uk>
To: Kobus <ventfory@IAFRICA.COM>
Sent: 23 November 2003 01:14
Subject: Re: [GASL] natural draft gasifier

> Sir,
> I am a Post graduate student in my final year
> of
> M.E.(Energy Engineering).
> Institute for Energy Studies
> Anna University.
> Chennai,Tamil Nadu,
> India.
>
> I am doing my final year project on natural draft
> gasifier, generally i had intrest in gasifier hence i
> choosed this project.
>
> Sir may i know about you.

I have a forestry background with an interest in community energy needs. Started to involve myself in low-cost updraft gasifiers (stoves) for burning fuels efficiently and with the emphasis on reducing indoor air pollution, in 2000. I am a stove tinkerer (metal), but use refractory ceramic sleeves in my prototypes to create ideal conditions for successful gasification, encased in low cost durable stove bodies. Most of what I know I obtained from other list members, so I would encourage you to keep asking questions.

Regards

Kobus

From CAVM at AOL.COM Mon Nov 24 07:28:28 2003
From: CAVM at AOL.COM (C. Van Milligen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Tires
Message-ID: <MON.24.NOV.2003.072828.EST.>

It is a false assumption that the West has no use for old tires as fuel.
Tire Derived Fuel is commonly used in many places. Pyrolosis consumes many tires
each year. Much of the industry involved in using tires as fuel is limited
by the local supply of tires. Shipping tires is expensive.

The Black Jack combustion unit, made by Les Blevins of Kansas, is even
designed to hold 4 automobile tires as fuel, although its usual mode is a sequential
grate biomass combustion system.

Neal Van Milligen
Kentucky Enrichment Inc
www.kentuckyenrichment.com
cavm@aol.com

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Mon Nov 24 09:43:10 2003
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Old tyres
In-Reply-To: <001001c3b1f2$eb06cfc0$7f7177d5@pandora.be>
Message-ID: <MON.24.NOV.2003.084310.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

I'd think that a better use for them is grinding them up and mixing them with
the asphalt and/or concrete for highways. Roads built that way last much, much
longer and are quieter. From what I understand, that's mandated standard
practice in some Euro countries, not in the US tho.

On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 07:52:17PM +0100, Dani?l Bullaert wrote:
> Hello
> Jezus , I can't understand. The people from the West managed to go to the
> moon and back and ..... it seems to something impossible to gasifie old
> tyres ?!?! . I know there is that bloody sulphur but there must be somewhere
> a clever chemist that could give us THE formulae to eliminate that stinking element
> There are MILLIONS of old tyres waiting that somebody does something good with them
> Lets not forget that 1 kilo of old tyre contains about the same energy as 1 litre gasoline
> Dani?l / Belgium

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

From 001481 at STUDENT.HIT.NO Mon Nov 24 10:04:24 2003
From: 001481 at STUDENT.HIT.NO (Herleil V=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E5gslid?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Old tyres
Message-ID: <MON.24.NOV.2003.100424.0500.001481@STUDENT.HIT.NO>

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 19:52:17 +0100, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Dani=EBl__Bullaert?=
<150128db@PANDORA.BE> wrote:

>Hello
>Jezus , I can't understand. The people from the West managed to go to the
>moon and back and ..... it seems to something impossible to gasifie old
>tyres ?!?! . I know there is that bloody sulphur but there must be
somewhere
>a clever chemist that could give us THE formulae to eliminate that
stinking element
>There are MILLIONS of old tyres waiting that somebody does something
good with them
>Lets not forget that 1 kilo of old tyre contains about the same energy as
1 litre gasoline
>Dani?l / Belgium

I'm no expert but we have a rig here at school that is used for cleaning
sulfur out of exaust gas. Burned sulfur comes out as SO2 i beleve, this
dissolves in water to produse sulfuric acid. So a scrubber that washes the
gas in water reduses the amunt of sulfur to the athmosphere. I heard that
seawater was very good due to its good buffer capasity, that is the pH in
the waste water from the scrubber did not change much.

Best regards
Herleik V?gslid
Master student of energy and environment
Telemark University College, Norway

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Mon Nov 24 11:52:57 2003
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Tires
Message-ID: <MON.24.NOV.2003.115257.EST.>

There are at this time, no commercial tire pyrolyzers operating in the US.
There are some under construction, or in planned applications for commercial
operation. The only short term successful one was built 4-6 years ago in Taiwan
and operated for some time then the end seals failed and had to be rebuilt,
then operated commercially until the tire supply dried up and then there was a
fire presumably set by vandals which destroyed the plant.
TDF is used in cement kilns but has limited usage due to contamination,
emission issues and refractory damage. It is the single largest usage for waste
tires.

From CAVM at AOL.COM Mon Nov 24 18:59:01 2003
From: CAVM at AOL.COM (C. Van Milligen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Tires
Message-ID: <MON.24.NOV.2003.185901.EST.>

L INVENT writes:
TDF is used in cement kilns but has limited usage due to contamination,
emission issues and refractory damage. It is the single largest usage for waste
tires.
Hello Leland. I hope things are going well for you.

The small (pop 65,000) town in which my office is located burns tire derived
fuel in its coal burning electric generating plant. They have almost
exhausted the ready supply of tires locally. They began using TDF because it burns so
hot and clean.

Neal Van Milligen

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Mon Nov 24 19:25:47 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Tires
Message-ID: <MON.24.NOV.2003.202547.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Neal
----- Original Message -----
Subject: Re: [GASL] Tires

...del...>
> The small (pop 65,000) town in which my office is located burns tire
derived
> fuel in its coal burning electric generating plant. They have almost
> exhausted the ready supply of tires locally. They began using TDF because
it burns so
> hot and clean.
>
Do they have flue gas desulphurization?

Kindest regards,

Kevin

> Neal Van Milligen

From CAVM at AOL.COM Mon Nov 24 21:56:41 2003
From: CAVM at AOL.COM (C. Van Milligen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Tires
Message-ID: <MON.24.NOV.2003.215641.EST.>

In a message dated 11/24/2003 6:26:08 PM Central Standard Time,
kchisholm@ca.inter.net writes:
Do they have flue gas desulphurization?
Kevin, I don't know if they do. I know that they have scrubbers but I am
not familiar with the balance of their pollution equipment. The plant is the
Owensboro Municipal Utilities generating plant in Owensboro, KY

BTW, Detroit Stoker has a very large TDF plant in Michigan, I can't recall
the city just now but I would think that an email to their web address would get
it. I am told by people who have visited the site that you cannot tell if
the plant is operating or not by looking at the stack.

Neal

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Mon Nov 24 22:36:20 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Tires
Message-ID: <MON.24.NOV.2003.233620.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Neal
----- Original Message -----
From: "C. Van Milligen" <CAVM@AOL.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Tires

> In a message dated 11/24/2003 6:26:08 PM Central Standard Time,
> kchisholm@ca.inter.net writes:
> Do they have flue gas desulphurization?
> Kevin, I don't know if they do. I know that they have scrubbers but I am
> not familiar with the balance of their pollution equipment. The plant is
the
> Owensboro Municipal Utilities generating plant in Owensboro, KY
>
It is not a problem to burn wood or tires in a smopkeless manner in a good
sized facility. The possible problem with tires is that there is significant
sulphur, used for vulcanizing the rubber. However, if they are a synthetic
rubber, teh amount of sulphur may be considerably reduced.

Another factor is the sulphur content of the "base fuel." If they were
burning coal with 6% sulphur and the tires only had 3%, then the tires are a
"sulphur remediating fuel", and the reverse is also true.

I don't know how the various systems handle the steel belting in tires... do
they take it out from shredded rubber before burning, or do they just let it
report to the ash?

> BTW, Detroit Stoker has a very large TDF plant in Michigan, I can't recall
> the city just now but I would think that an email to their web address
would get
> it. I am told by people who have visited the site that you cannot tell if
> the plant is operating or not by looking at the stack.
>
The plume from a stack is usually water vapor condensing. A "perfect
combustion system" would still appear to have "smoke" on a cold day. OTOH, a
sloppy system with loads of CO, but no particulate matter could appear
clear.

Kindest regards,

Kevin

From CAVM at AOL.COM Mon Nov 24 23:05:04 2003
From: CAVM at AOL.COM (C. Van Milligen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Tires
Message-ID: <MON.24.NOV.2003.230504.EST.>

Kevin, You know a lot more about this then I do. My field is accounting. I
am on lists such as this to monitor scientific advances and usually do not
contribute. I find the other members are so well informed that I am ashamed.
When it comes to knowing enough to suggest solutions I can usually keep up, but
not an in-depth discussion.

Neal Van Milligen
www.kentuckyenrichment.com
cavm@aol.com

From 150128db at PANDORA.BE Thu Nov 27 08:56:05 2003
From: 150128db at PANDORA.BE (Dani=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=EBl?= Bullaert)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: fluidised bed
Message-ID: <THU.27.NOV.2003.085605.0500.150128DB@PANDORA.BE>

Many years ago somebody published an article in the Mother Earth News about
a very very small fluidised bed generator
Is there someone that can mail me a copy of that article ?
Thanks !
Dani?l

From ken at BASTERFIELD.COM Thu Nov 27 14:01:41 2003
From: ken at BASTERFIELD.COM (Ken Basterfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Tires
Message-ID: <THU.27.NOV.2003.190141.0000.KEN@BASTERFIELD.COM>

Slightly of topic but the discussion on sulphur prompts me to ask - Is the a
process for reducing the sulphur content of petroleum fuels?

sincerely
Ken b
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 3:36 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Tires

> Dear Neal
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "C. Van Milligen" <CAVM@AOL.COM>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 10:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Tires
>
>
> > In a message dated 11/24/2003 6:26:08 PM Central Standard Time,
> > kchisholm@ca.inter.net writes:
> > Do they have flue gas desulphurization?
> > Kevin, I don't know if they do. I know that they have scrubbers but I
am
> > not familiar with the balance of their pollution equipment. The plant
is
> the
> > Owensboro Municipal Utilities generating plant in Owensboro, KY
> >
> It is not a problem to burn wood or tires in a smopkeless manner in a good
> sized facility. The possible problem with tires is that there is
significant
> sulphur, used for vulcanizing the rubber. However, if they are a synthetic
> rubber, teh amount of sulphur may be considerably reduced.
>
> Another factor is the sulphur content of the "base fuel." If they were
> burning coal with 6% sulphur and the tires only had 3%, then the tires are
a
> "sulphur remediating fuel", and the reverse is also true.
>
> I don't know how the various systems handle the steel belting in tires...
do
> they take it out from shredded rubber before burning, or do they just let
it
> report to the ash?
>
> > BTW, Detroit Stoker has a very large TDF plant in Michigan, I can't
recall
> > the city just now but I would think that an email to their web address
> would get
> > it. I am told by people who have visited the site that you cannot tell
if
> > the plant is operating or not by looking at the stack.
> >
> The plume from a stack is usually water vapor condensing. A "perfect
> combustion system" would still appear to have "smoke" on a cold day. OTOH,
a
> sloppy system with loads of CO, but no particulate matter could appear
> clear.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Kevin

From praufast at FREE.FR Thu Nov 27 14:16:49 2003
From: praufast at FREE.FR (Philippe Raufast)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Round strawbale gasification
Message-ID: <THU.27.NOV.2003.201649.0100.>

Hello !
I'm new to this list, i'm just an average French citizen interested in green and low-cost sustainable technologies.

I was wondering if it's possible to gasify a whole round strawbale ? 120 cm width * 160 cm diameter, soft core (constant volume roundbaler type).
Depending on the density, they wheigt about 250 kg.
I know feeding bulk grass-type material is a problem, but a whole bale will slide easily in a gasifier ?
What about the slagging problems ? Maybe by controlling the superficial velocity the temp can be kept under the ash fusion point...
Any idea about the tar content and calorific value ?

Phil.

From praufast at FREE.FR Thu Nov 27 14:16:52 2003
From: praufast at FREE.FR (Philippe Raufast)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: DIY refractory
Message-ID: <THU.27.NOV.2003.201652.0100.>

Hello !

Here is a link to a book by Vince Gingery , about making metal melting crucibles with clay.
I think it can be useful for gasifier lining.

http://www.lindsaybks.com/dgjp/djgbk/cruc/index.html

Philippe.

From praufast at FREE.FR Thu Nov 27 14:16:54 2003
From: praufast at FREE.FR (Philippe Raufast)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Gasifying slurries or pyrolysis oil ?
Message-ID: <THU.27.NOV.2003.201654.0100.>

Hello !

What kind of small-scale gasifier is suitable for liquids ?
What is the water content of charcoal-water slurries and is the energy density better than charcoal alone ?
Does the water ends up as steam or is it invoved in the gasification reaction ?

Phil.

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Thu Nov 27 15:37:19 2003
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Tires
Message-ID: <THU.27.NOV.2003.163719.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Basterfield" <ken@basterfield.com>
To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>;
<GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Tires

> Slightly of topic but the discussion on sulphur prompts me to ask - Is the
a
> process for reducing the sulphur content of petroleum fuels?
>
Those Petroleum Chemists can do just about anything that thermodynamics
permits. I hope there is one on the List that can se me straight if I am
wrong, but heres my feeling or impression:

When they refine crude oil, they boil off all the easy valuables, and then
hit the remainder with supplemental hydrogen to make more valuables to boil
off. They do this in a way that most of the sulphur reports to the Bunker C
which will eventually remain. The valuable fractions that they take off
still have "some" sulphur in them. They can lower this further, but at a
cost, and they don't do this unless the market requires it.

Its all about dollars...

Kindest regards,

Kevin

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Thu Nov 27 21:36:49 2003
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Virtual Throat Revisited
Message-ID: <THU.27.NOV.2003.203649.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Hello, all!

Just a follow-up on the "Virtual Throat" remarks from T.Reed, in a previous
list discussion.

After attempting a slight change in my test unit #4 downdraft unit, (with
negative results) I went back to the original throat assy, to prove to
myself that it was my design of Tom's comments, Yes, it was my
implementation, that was incorrect!

After re-reading my notes & e-mails, (and many thoughts of what happened) I
am attempting a yet, again revised version of the "virtual throat" with a
"twist" (or should I say a taper). I had spoken with Tom in e-mail about a
design change that I thought might be of benefit in this design, alas, I
have not had a response from Mr. Reed as to his thoughts on this.

For the List, I ask, Think! And let me know what your thoughts are !! .....

Imbert Downdraft Unit, 6" (15cm) ID throat, total throat length 15"
(38cm)(top 7" (18cm) are a straight tube, bottom 8" (20cm) are a taper
(cone) that reduces to 3.5"(9cm)). NOW, here's the trick, at the bottom of
this taper is an inverted taper nosecone (somewhat like the nose of an
airplane or the tip of a bullet) standing in the bottom of the throat assy.
(No grate) OK, you say, so what happens to the ash, well, the nosecone, is
standing on a vertical shaft that is vibrated up & down with an "air motor"
(air driven motor, like in an air ratchet) the speed of up/dn. vibration is
not set as yet, simply because this is only a thought.

Now tell me what your Thoughts are, on the above.

All thoughts welcome

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

From CAVM at AOL.COM Fri Nov 28 00:43:44 2003
From: CAVM at AOL.COM (C. Van Milligen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Sulfur
Message-ID: <FRI.28.NOV.2003.004344.EST.>

Ken,

We are about to begin some tests to determine if cavitation of liquid
petroleum products will cause sulfur to settle out. The device we have ionizes the
liquid via cavitation and a catalyst. So far we have been able to reduce the
mineral content of water which is a big deal sometimes. We have had some
interesting effects on petroleum and we hope that reducing sulfur will be another
one.

It has even had some interesting effects on gases but they were in tests we
did not perform ourselves so they need to be redone.

It is an interesting world in which we live.

Neal Van Milligen
Kentucky Enrichment Inc.
<A HREF="www.kentuckyenrichment.com">www.kentuckyenrichment.com</A>
cavm@aol.com

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Fri Nov 28 09:33:56 2003
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Virtual Throat Revisited
In-Reply-To: <20031128093037.99055.qmail@web40804.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.28.NOV.2003.083356.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Joel,

Thanks for the info.

Actually it's up and down motion that I had envisioned (vibration) using a
counter weight on the shaft of the air motor.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Florian [mailto:emsjoflo@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 3:31 AM
To: a31ford
Subject: Re: [GASL] Virtual Throat Revisited

Greg,

If I'm envisioning your "bullet" grate properly, it
sounds very similar to a rotary grate I've seen -- I
believe it was on a pellet stove. The grate was like
a cone with slightly raised fins and was agitated via
a linkage such that it turned back and forth 15
degrees or so -- somewhat like a washing machine
agitator.

Joel

--- a31ford <a31ford@INETLINK.CA> wrote:
> Hello, all!
>
> Just a follow-up on the "Virtual Throat" remarks
> from T.Reed, in a previous
> list discussion.
>
> After attempting a slight change in my test unit #4
> downdraft unit, (with
> negative results) I went back to the original throat
> assy, to prove to
> myself that it was my design of Tom's comments, Yes,
> it was my
> implementation, that was incorrect!
>
> After re-reading my notes & e-mails, (and many
> thoughts of what happened) I
> am attempting a yet, again revised version of the
> "virtual throat" with a
> "twist" (or should I say a taper). I had spoken with
> Tom in e-mail about a
> design change that I thought might be of benefit in
> this design, alas, I
> have not had a response from Mr. Reed as to his
> thoughts on this.
>
> For the List, I ask, Think! And let me know what
> your thoughts are !! .....
>
> Imbert Downdraft Unit, 6" (15cm) ID throat, total
> throat length 15"
> (38cm)(top 7" (18cm) are a straight tube, bottom 8"
> (20cm) are a taper
> (cone) that reduces to 3.5"(9cm)). NOW, here's the
> trick, at the bottom of
> this taper is an inverted taper nosecone (somewhat
> like the nose of an
> airplane or the tip of a bullet) standing in the
> bottom of the throat assy.
> (No grate) OK, you say, so what happens to the ash,
> well, the nosecone, is
> standing on a vertical shaft that is vibrated up &
> down with an "air motor"
> (air driven motor, like in an air ratchet) the speed
> of up/dn. vibration is
> not set as yet, simply because this is only a
> thought.
>
> Now tell me what your Thoughts are, on the above.
>
> All thoughts welcome
>
> Greg Manning,
> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>
>
>

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

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Fri Nov 28 11:52:38 2003
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Round strawbale gasification
Message-ID: <FRI.28.NOV.2003.115238.0500.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Philippe,

Round bale gasifiers were developed in the 1970s in Germany and Canada.
Gasification principles were then applied to direct combustion of round
bales. There may be one or two round bale gasifiers still used (in Prince
Edward Island, Canada, for example) but as far as I know they did not gain
any real popularity or demonstrate any particular value.

Tom Miles

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 20:16:49 +0100, Philippe Raufast <praufast@FREE.FR>
wrote:

>I was wondering if it's possible to gasify a whole round strawbale ?
120 cm width * 160 cm diameter, soft core (constant volume roundbaler type).
>Depending on the density, they wheigt about 250 kg.
>I know feeding bulk grass-type material is a problem, but a whole bale
will slide easily in a gasifier ?
>What about the slagging problems ? Maybe by controlling the superficial
velocity the temp can be kept under the ash fusion point...
>Any idea about the tar content and calorific value ?
>
>Phil.

From bpjackso at YAHOO.COM Fri Nov 28 12:16:55 2003
From: bpjackso at YAHOO.COM (Bruce Jackson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Tar
Message-ID: <FRI.28.NOV.2003.091655.0800.BPJACKSO@YAHOO.COM>

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

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

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Fri Nov 28 18:19:05 2003
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Tar
In-Reply-To: <20031128171655.73800.qmail@web40610.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.28.NOV.2003.171905.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Bruce, What level of tar ?

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

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

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

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

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

From praufast at FREE.FR Fri Nov 28 22:14:16 2003
From: praufast at FREE.FR (Philippe)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Round strawbale gasification
Message-ID: <SAT.29.NOV.2003.041416.0100.>

Hello !
I was not thinking about taking all the organic matter out of the cycle, but just the
share needed to power farm equipments and heating .
In the horse era, 20 of a farm was grown with oats as a "fuel" for the horses...
The straw has a very low feeding value and is only used as a cow food during drough time
(like this year in Europe !).
So why not "burn" a small part of the straw for power ?
In the French "weat belt" some farmers were disposing of the straw by burning it
in the fields after the grain harvest (now forbidden by the law) instead of having to chop it
with big equipements. (using a lot of fossil fuel)
Maybe you refer to the US extensive type of wheat farming with low straw yeld.
Maybe 1500 kg /ha in the US and around 4000 kg/ha here.
Now with the no-till techniques theses larges quantities of straw remains in the firsts
centimeters of soil, and become a problem for tillage, weeds, pest and slug control
(requiring increased amounts of chemicals ).
So using a small part wont be a problem for the soil organic matter content.

I agree with you, wood from trees is a better choice. It will be clever to plant some
hedges around the fields, for energy and wind/water/erosion/nitrates control !
And also for the beauty of the landscapes...

BTW, im still interested if someone has tried straw bale gasification...

Phil.

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Sat Nov 29 11:45:07 2003
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: natural draft gasifier
In-Reply-To: <20031119191947.47481.qmail@web25109.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <SAT.29.NOV.2003.104507.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Krishna,

I just got back from Africa and saw your message.

For that size of gasifier, why not just use 0.6mm mild steel and see how it
works. Even if it burns itself out in a few trials, you will lean a lot in
the process.

Your height seems similar to that of my and other small stoves. But your
Inside diameter of 270 mm seems quite large. (mine is commonly 150 mm
maximum). But certainly worth a try at 270 mm.

Please keep us informed.

Dr. Anderson

At 07:19 PM 11/19/03 +0000, krishna kumar wrote:
> I have designed a natural draft gasifier of 5kWth
> capacity of total height of 566mm and ID of 270mm.
>
> I would like to know the material of construction
> for this type.
>
> I have preffered concrete for construction with
>rereactory inside.
>
> comments on this.
>
>=====
>krish
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
>Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk

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 bpjackso at YAHOO.COM Sat Nov 29 20:52:35 2003
From: bpjackso at YAHOO.COM (Bruce Jackson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: tar condensors
Message-ID: <SAT.29.NOV.2003.175235.0800.BPJACKSO@YAHOO.COM>

Right,
I am in the midst of plumbing in a system I built. I
am using the down draft idea in the FEMA phamplet.
Instead of using galvanized garbage pails, I welded a
hundred pound propane cylinder into an International
tractor fuel tank. From the gassifier into a colossal
old steam condensor, then from there the gas will rise
through a sawdust filter into a large "Humvee"
airfilter. After all that, the gas will be burnt in a
small Briggs & Stratton powered generator.
This whole thing is just a "pilot plant" to get the
feel for how this works.
The reason for asking about tar was a question that
arose after I read a phamplet written by a man who
powered a similiar engine with producer gas from a
charcoal retort. He had tar problems that were so bad
he had to remove the head from the engine and clean
the intake valve after each use. I'd rather not have
to do that because it limits the engines available to
those which have reusable head gaskets.
My readings indicate that the tar isn't nearly as bad
in a gassifier as it is in a retort.
The thing to do, of course, is to quit talking about
it and put it running.
Trouble is, I do want to talk about it. If
Thanksgiving was any indication, judging by the
glazed looks I got at the dinner table, then I better
discuss it here.
Is anybody fueling generators with their gasifiers?
What things do I compare to calculate the gasifier
capacity relative to the engine displacement? How
large for a 230 CID (3.8l) engine?
Anyhow,
Thanks BPJ

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

From phoenix98604 at EARTHLINK.NET Sat Nov 29 21:22:44 2003
From: phoenix98604 at EARTHLINK.NET (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Fw: [GASL] Round strawbale gasification
Message-ID: <SAT.29.NOV.2003.182244.0800.PHOENIX98604@EARTHLINK.NET>

Phil and others,

I have addressed Phil's concerns off the listserve but thought those of you
who were interested, the amount of US farmers who have converted from
standard farming practices like plowing, open-field burning and clear soil
surface farming has changed very dramatically recently. In the years 1989
to 1995, no-till residue management acreage rose from 14 million acres to 41
million acres. This is the biggest revolution in farming since the
invention of the moldboard plow. Burning of crop residues is seen as a
short sighted farming practice at any level today. There are other grades
of soil and locals which can produce stored solar energy in the form of
trees.

Please check this out at: http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/files/agronomy3.pdf
and http://www.farmlandinfo.org/fic/sof/berg/sp/berg34.html

Thank you.

Art Krenzel, P.E.
PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES
10505 NE 285TH Street
Battle Ground, WA 98604
360-666-1883 voice
phoenix98604@earthlink.net

> Hello !
> I was not thinking about taking all the organic matter out of the cycle,
but just the
> share needed to power farm equipments and heating .
> In the horse era, 20 of a farm was grown with oats as a "fuel" for the
horses...
> The straw has a very low feeding value and is only used as a cow food
during drough time
> (like this year in Europe !).
> So why not "burn" a small part of the straw for power ?
> In the French "weat belt" some farmers were disposing of the straw by
burning it
> in the fields after the grain harvest (now forbidden by the law) instead
of having to chop it
> with big equipements. (using a lot of fossil fuel)
> Maybe you refer to the US extensive type of wheat farming with low straw
yeld.
> Maybe 1500 kg /ha in the US and around 4000 kg/ha here.
> Now with the no-till techniques theses larges quantities of straw remains
in the firsts
> centimeters of soil, and become a problem for tillage, weeds, pest and
slug control
> (requiring increased amounts of chemicals ).
> So using a small part wont be a problem for the soil organic matter
content.
>
> I agree with you, wood from trees is a better choice. It will be clever
to plant some
> hedges around the fields, for energy and wind/water/erosion/nitrates
control !
> And also for the beauty of the landscapes...
>
> BTW, im still interested if someone has tried straw bale gasification...
>
> Phil.

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Sat Nov 29 22:30:10 2003
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: tar condensers
In-Reply-To: <20031130015235.39506.qmail@web40613.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <SAT.29.NOV.2003.213010.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Ah, I see,

What type of throat is in your system ?

Is there a "start up flare" system, to get the biogas going ?

As far as I can see, other than the throat thing, your filter should work
fine.

I would run the system for a few hours, let everything cool down, and then
do an inspection of the entire thing (mainly the filter) and be sure that
it's not burnt through (even after a condenser), any buildup in the piping
would also be an indicator of "how long" it will run before problems with
the head/valves thing.

While you are at it, check these sites, as Doug Williams & Tom Reed, I would
say, are the 2 people that "have been down this road" many times in the
past...

Also there is a website for "Gengas" one of my fav's
http://www.gengas.nu/byggbes/contents.shtml

Doug's Site, http://www.fluidynenz.250x.com

Tom's Site, http://www.woodgas.com/

Regards,

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Bruce Jackson
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 7:53 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] tar condensors

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

From praufast at FREE.FR Sun Nov 30 09:05:59 2003
From: praufast at FREE.FR (Philippe)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Manure gas upgrading thru gasifiers
Message-ID: <SUN.30.NOV.2003.150559.0100.>

Hi !

As manure gas contains up to 50 % of c02, is it possible to reduce this co2 into co thru a gasifier ?
Maybe it's too much endothermic and the gasifier will need to be operated with oxygen ?

Phil.

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Sun Nov 30 10:35:58 2003
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Manure gas upgrading thru gasifiers
Message-ID: <SUN.30.NOV.2003.103558.EST.>

In a message dated 11/30/03 7:09:03 AM, praufast@free.fr writes:

<< Hi !

As manure gas contains up to 50 % of c02, is it possible to reduce this co2
into co thru a gasifier ?
Maybe it's too much endothermic and the gasifier will need to be operated
with oxygen ?

Phi >>

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

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

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Sun Nov 30 10:56:15 2003
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Fw: [GASL] Round strawbale gasification
Message-ID: <SUN.30.NOV.2003.105615.EST.>

Dear Phil, Art and others,
No till farming has a several limitations. If the leach rate is greater
than the vertical capillary/evaporation rate, the soluble nutrients will leach
down below the root zone and become unavailable to the plants. If these
nutrients precipitate out of solution at some depth, a hardpan will form which
prevents root propagation below it and creates other problems. Plowing has the
benefit of returning these nutrients to the surface and introducing oxygen to the
soil microbes at depth which prevents them from becoming anerobic and creating
a denitrified condition. Anerobic conditions are also very toxic to plants,
releasing large amounts of iron, manganese, copper, aluminum to the root zone
with drastic pH drops.
Some of the no-till practices have been promoted to advance herbicide
usage and also GM crops which are herbicide tolerant as no-till increases weed
populations due to the imbalanced soil conditions. Weeds are simply out of
balance soil. It is easy to kill weeds with nutrients alone. They look just like
they got hit with a herbicide.
I am not sure no-till is an "advance" or revolution. I recommend plowing
every couple of years to return the leached nutrients to the root zone and to
aerate the soil and if the soil has ever become water logged, plowing
afterward to return the aerobic condition to it.
Burning is a symptom of dead soil. If the soil microbial activity is
unable to digest the straw or other plant mass, it is because the microbes are not
well fed and can't consume the carbon in the plant mass properly. Disced in
plant matter should be consumed in 60-90 days after incorporation in a health
soil, moisture and soil temperature having some bearing on this rate. Soils
will actually stay warmer with properly fed microbial activity. We have had soils
not freeze in Wisconsin, Minnesota and other typically hard freeze areas.
This also allows for earlier planting.
Too bad politics and large economic interests have replaced good science
and management practices in agriculture like almost everywhere else.

From praufast at FREE.FR Sun Nov 30 13:18:47 2003
From: praufast at FREE.FR (Philippe)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:33 2004
Subject: Manure gas upgrading thru gasifiers
Message-ID: <SUN.30.NOV.2003.191847.0100.>

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

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

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

Philippe.

>
>Leland T. Taylor

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

November 2003 Gasification Archive