April 2004 Gasification Archive

From phoenix98604 at EARTHLINK.NET Thu Apr 1 10:55:29 2004
From: phoenix98604 at EARTHLINK.NET (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: Plant Sizing
Message-ID: <THU.1.APR.2004.075529.0800.PHOENIX98604@EARTHLINK.NET>

Paul,

The definitive word on stainless steel vs carbon steel at higher
temperatures is:

The Design Manual for Structural Stainless Steel2 indicates that austenitic
stainless steels suffer from the same types of distortion during welding
(angular, blowing, shrinkage, etc.) as carbon steel, but the higher
coefficient of expansion (17 x 10-6/?C versus 12 x 10-6/?C for carbon steel)
and the lower thermal conductivity (approximately 30% of carbon steel)
increases distortion of austenitic stainless steel weldments.

There are also L grades of stainless steel which contain less carbon.
During welding of normal grades of stainless steels, the carbon in the
stainless steel forms a complex with the chromium to become chromium
carbide. This complexing reduces the oxidation corrosion resistance in the
weld areas and I have seen 1/8 inch thick welded tanks leak in the weld area
after only a few hours exposure to high chloride content water. The better
way is to use L grades of stainless and use the appropriate L grade of
filler rod or welding wire to perform the welding operation. The grade of
stainless chosen (304 vs 316 or others) should depend upon the overall
corrosion resistance desired in the application being considered.

Art Krenzel, P.E.
PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES

> At 03:09 PM 3/22/04 -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> >Steel is far stronger than stainless steel -- with much better heat
> >transmission properties -- less thermal expansion than stainless as well.
> Peter, Why have I heard the opposite so many times. In the small stoves
> such as mine and Crispin's, we talk about using 3Cr12 or stainless because
> the regular (mild) steel cannot take the heat as well. Please assist this
> "non-specialist" to understand.
>
> 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 arnt at C2I.NET Thu Apr 1 13:45:54 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: ..high temp metals, was: Plant Sizing
In-Reply-To: <014f01c41801$c268d2a0$68c3f204@7k6rv21>
Message-ID: <THU.1.APR.2004.204554.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 07:55:29 -0800, Art wrote in message
<014f01c41801$c268d2a0$68c3f204@7k6rv21>:

> Paul,
>
> The definitive word on stainless steel vs carbon steel at higher
> temperatures is:
>
> The Design Manual for Structural Stainless Steel2 indicates that
> austenitic stainless steels suffer from the same types of distortion
> during welding(angular, blowing, shrinkage, etc.) as carbon steel, but
> the higher coefficient of expansion (17 x 10-6/?C versus 12 x 10-6/?C
> for carbon steel) and the lower thermal conductivity (approximately
> 30% of carbon steel) increases distortion of austenitic stainless
> steel weldments.
>
> There are also L grades of stainless steel which contain less carbon.
> During welding of normal grades of stainless steels, the carbon in the
> stainless steel forms a complex with the chromium to become chromium
> carbide. This complexing reduces the oxidation corrosion resistance
> in the weld areas and I have seen 1/8 inch thick welded tanks leak in
> the weld area after only a few hours exposure to high chloride content
> water. The better way is to use L grades of stainless and use the
> appropriate L grade of filler rod or welding wire to perform the
> welding operation. The grade of stainless chosen (304 vs 316 or
> others) should depend upon the overall corrosion resistance desired in
> the application being considered.
>
> Art Krenzel, P.E.
> PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES

..unless I'm mistaken, Paul wants advice on what to use in the
_reducing_ process environment in his gasifier and hot piping.

..about 5 years ago, Vern posted this:
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 02:17:07 EDT, VHarris001@aol.com wrote in message
<b17eb690.249f32e3@aol.com>: Subject: "Re: GAS-L: High Temp Metals - was
To Tuyere or Not to Tuyere":

> Dear Arnt, others
>
> About a year ago I contacted representatives for both Inconel and
> 253MA and was unable to get helpful responses from either of them
> regarding the servicability of their materials for use in my
> gasification application. Besides being a reducing atmosphere in hot,
> abrasive conditions, my gasifier will also have some sulpher present.
> The Inconel representative simply said they had no material of which
> they could guarantee the performance. The 253MA rep said better to
> just try stainless steel first and see what happens.
> Says he has seen very disappointing performance from 253MA in certain
> applications. It varys application to application. He recommends it
> without question in many applications but others he doesn't,
> gasification being one that requires caution. He wouldn't even
> recommend 353MA - which was designed for gasification applications.
>
> I was all sold on high temp metals until I read Arnt's post last year
> about the coating on metals not being able to be regenerated in a
> reducing atmosphere. Thanks again Arnt!
>
> Vern
>
>
> In a message dated 5/28/99 7:32:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> arnt@c2i.net writes:
>
> >
> > .note that stainless steels, titanium etc, _will corrode_ in our
> > dusty hot reducing environments, their corrosion protection rely on
> > _surface_ oxygen diffusing into the metal, I was quoted a 10 minute
> > service life on some top priced titanium piping, we use cheap heat
> > resistant mild steel...
> >
> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive

..practical tests are rather helpful in determining whether or not
these distorted metals has managed to remain as they were sold,
and not absorb carbon etc to become some kinda pig iron.

..wherever air or oxygen can get to the metals,
the expensive exotic alloys will be just fine. ;-)

--
..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 a31ford at INETLINK.CA Thu Apr 1 19:08:12 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: ..high temp metals, was: Plant Sizing
In-Reply-To: <20040401204554.603a6f94.arnt@c2i.net>
Message-ID: <THU.1.APR.2004.180812.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Good day, Arnt, Paul and all....

Your information follows with my observed findings!

I'm using 304SS for the Tuyeres in my 250KwT system, 10mm wall 13mm ID (33m
total cross section) the depth (length) of each tuyere when new was 25mm,
however after the "etching" problem I had earlier this year, I just went out
and inspected the old ones (never thought of checking total length, was just
checking the depth of the etch in the face).

Much to my surprise ! The entire unit is now only 22mm in length ! go figure
! the entire face, NOT just the etch is being removed, the etch is roughly
2mm deep across the face, I got around it for a month or so by simply
turning the Tuyeres slightly (had them pipe threaded on the back side).
Still all in all, I got good use from October 16/03 until March 12/04 with
the unit running 24/7 (except for inspections every 2nd weekend or so)

Will try a "mild steel" set this summer, the load won't be as high, but will
still run 24/7 for heating domestic hot water....

Greg Manning
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Arnt Karlsen
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 12:46 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: ..high temp metals, was: Plant Sizing

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 07:55:29 -0800, Art wrote in message
<014f01c41801$c268d2a0$68c3f204@7k6rv21>:

..unless I'm mistaken, Paul wants advice on what to use in the
_reducing_ process environment in his gasifier and hot piping.

..practical tests are rather helpful in determining whether or not
these distorted metals has managed to remain as they were sold,
and not absorb carbon etc to become some kinda pig iron.

..wherever air or oxygen can get to the metals,
the expensive exotic alloys will be just fine. ;-)

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

From arnt at C2I.NET Thu Apr 1 20:29:23 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: ..high temp metals, was: Plant Sizing
In-Reply-To: <000f01c41846$975e3f10$0200a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <FRI.2.APR.2004.032923.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 18:08:12 -0600, a31ford wrote in message
<000f01c41846$975e3f10$0200a8c0@a31server>:

> Good day, Arnt, Paul and all....
>
> Your information follows with my observed findings!
>
> I'm using 304SS for the Tuyeres in my 250KwT system, 10mm wall 13mm ID
> (33m total cross section) the depth (length) of each tuyere when new
> was 25mm, however after the "etching" problem I had earlier this year,
> I just went out and inspected the old ones (never thought of checking
> total length, was just checking the depth of the etch in the face).
>
> Much to my surprise ! The entire unit is now only 22mm in length ! go
> figure! the entire face, NOT just the etch is being removed, the etch
> is roughly 2mm deep across the face, I got around it for a month or so
> by simply turning the Tuyeres slightly (had them pipe threaded on the
> back side). Still all in all, I got good use from October 16/03 until
> March 12/04 with the unit running 24/7 (except for inspections every
> 2nd weekend or so)
>
> Will try a "mild steel" set this summer, the load won't be as high,
> but will still run 24/7 for heating domestic hot water....

..your tuyeres sees air, no? ;-) Try 316SS.
(After playing with the "mild steel".)

> >
> > ..wherever air or oxygen can get to the metals,
> > the expensive exotic alloys will be just fine. ;-)

--
..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 renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ Fri Apr 2 03:14:02 2004
From: renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ (Ken Calvert)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: ..high temp metals,
In-Reply-To: <20040402032923.2212d69d.arnt@c2i.net>
Message-ID: <FRI.2.APR.2004.201402.1200.RENERTECH@XTRA.CO.NZ>

A bit more hard-won experience folks, our cheapest tuyeres were made from
316 tubing. 25mm for the outside and 15mm or 20mm for the inside and not too
much 316 alloy electric welding rod to build up a solid tip. S.S. is not
very good at conducting heat so the thin wall tube seemed to last as good or
better than the heavier stuff. We checked them every
2 months or so, and patched them up with more electric welding. So the
original tuyeres were still going at 12 months plus, albeit much modified.
The hopper for the water cooling was about 24" deep. It used to thump
plenty until everything got hot. And then it boiled very strongly. Water
level was maintained with a ball cock. We had all sorts of ideas to use the
steam, but eventually found that it was easier to let it go to waste and
feed in wetter wood. We did have lots of discussions as to how to make some
use of that heat from the tuyeres. One idea was to try and blow the inlet
air in around the tuyeres, as the air preheat system, and then out through
the tuyeres. However, we couldn't get enough air through them without
having to compress it first, and then we had to weld smaller sized jets and
then it all got too hard so we went back to what we called the Stanley
steamer! When it stopped steaming and power dropped off, then we knew that
there was a hole somewhere and it was time for an overhaul.

All strength to the arms, and keep the batteries fresh in your calculators!
Ken C.

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On Behalf Of Arnt Karlsen
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 1:29 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] ..high temp metals, was: Plant Sizing

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 18:08:12 -0600, a31ford wrote in message
<000f01c41846$975e3f10$0200a8c0@a31server>:

..your tuyeres sees air, no? ;-) Try 316SS.
(After playing with the "mild steel".)

> >
> > ..wherever air or oxygen can get to the metals, the expensive exotic
> > alloys will be just fine. ;-)

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

From snkm at BTL.NET Fri Apr 2 09:43:06 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: ..high temp metals, was: Plant Sizing
Message-ID: <FRI.2.APR.2004.084306.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Hmm -- one can only wonder how economical -- thick -- cast iron would work??

easy to machine -- easy and economical to replace -- and possibly just as
long living??

Your problem is as you state -- poor heat conductivity. It is that problem
that plagues working stainless -- like machining it -- welding it. Zone
temps shoot sky high and material melts -- galls -- or sloughs off.

You might even find aluminum -- water cooled -- would work better -- or
copper -- brass -- bronze -- etc.

Like the acetylene/oxygen torch tips -- eh??

I made up a water jacketed "Rose bud" Acety/Oxy high (very high) BTU torch
years ago to run a small melting pot -- Never had any torch tip problems.
But the first one I made up -- no cooling -- melted.

Always think about cooling things down. But you need metals with high heat
transfer coefficients -- always.

Peter / Belize

At 06:08 PM 4/1/2004 -0600, a31ford wrote:
>Good day, Arnt, Paul and all....
>
>Your information follows with my observed findings!
>
>I'm using 304SS for the Tuyeres in my 250KwT system, 10mm wall 13mm ID (33m
>total cross section) the depth (length) of each tuyere when new was 25mm,
>however after the "etching" problem I had earlier this year, I just went out
>and inspected the old ones (never thought of checking total length, was just
>checking the depth of the etch in the face).
>
>Much to my surprise ! The entire unit is now only 22mm in length ! go figure
>! the entire face, NOT just the etch is being removed, the etch is roughly
>2mm deep across the face, I got around it for a month or so by simply
>turning the Tuyeres slightly (had them pipe threaded on the back side).
>Still all in all, I got good use from October 16/03 until March 12/04 with
>the unit running 24/7 (except for inspections every 2nd weekend or so)
>
>Will try a "mild steel" set this summer, the load won't be as high, but will
>still run 24/7 for heating domestic hot water....
>
>Greg Manning
>Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: The Gasification Discussion List
>[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Arnt Karlsen
>Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 12:46 PM
>To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
>Subject: ..high temp metals, was: Plant Sizing
>
>
>On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 07:55:29 -0800, Art wrote in message
><014f01c41801$c268d2a0$68c3f204@7k6rv21>:
>
>> Paul,
>>
>> The definitive word on stainless steel vs carbon steel at higher
>> temperatures is:
>>
>> The Design Manual for Structural Stainless Steel2 indicates that
>> austenitic stainless steels suffer from the same types of distortion
>> during welding(angular, blowing, shrinkage, etc.) as carbon steel, but
>> the higher coefficient of expansion (17 x 10-6/?C versus 12 x 10-6/?C
>> for carbon steel) and the lower thermal conductivity (approximately
>> 30% of carbon steel) increases distortion of austenitic stainless
>> steel weldments.
>>
>> There are also L grades of stainless steel which contain less carbon.
>> During welding of normal grades of stainless steels, the carbon in the
>> stainless steel forms a complex with the chromium to become chromium
>> carbide. This complexing reduces the oxidation corrosion resistance
>> in the weld areas and I have seen 1/8 inch thick welded tanks leak in
>> the weld area after only a few hours exposure to high chloride content
>> water. The better way is to use L grades of stainless and use the
>> appropriate L grade of filler rod or welding wire to perform the
>> welding operation. The grade of stainless chosen (304 vs 316 or
>> others) should depend upon the overall corrosion resistance desired in
>> the application being considered.
>>
>> Art Krenzel, P.E.
>> PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES
>
>..unless I'm mistaken, Paul wants advice on what to use in the
>_reducing_ process environment in his gasifier and hot piping.
>
>..about 5 years ago, Vern posted this:
>On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 02:17:07 EDT, VHarris001@aol.com wrote in message
><b17eb690.249f32e3@aol.com>: Subject: "Re: GAS-L: High Temp Metals - was
>To Tuyere or Not to Tuyere":
>
>> Dear Arnt, others
>>
>> About a year ago I contacted representatives for both Inconel and
>> 253MA and was unable to get helpful responses from either of them
>> regarding the servicability of their materials for use in my
>> gasification application. Besides being a reducing atmosphere in hot,
>> abrasive conditions, my gasifier will also have some sulpher present.
>> The Inconel representative simply said they had no material of which
>> they could guarantee the performance. The 253MA rep said better to
>> just try stainless steel first and see what happens.
>> Says he has seen very disappointing performance from 253MA in certain
>> applications. It varys application to application. He recommends it
>> without question in many applications but others he doesn't,
>> gasification being one that requires caution. He wouldn't even
>> recommend 353MA - which was designed for gasification applications.
>>
>> I was all sold on high temp metals until I read Arnt's post last year
>> about the coating on metals not being able to be regenerated in a
>> reducing atmosphere. Thanks again Arnt!
>>
>> Vern
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 5/28/99 7:32:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>> arnt@c2i.net writes:
>>
>> >
>> > .note that stainless steels, titanium etc, _will corrode_ in our
>> > dusty hot reducing environments, their corrosion protection rely on
>> > _surface_ oxygen diffusing into the metal, I was quoted a 10 minute
>> > service life on some top priced titanium piping, we use cheap heat
>> > resistant mild steel...
>> >
>> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
>..practical tests are rather helpful in determining whether or not
>these distorted metals has managed to remain as they were sold,
>and not absorb carbon etc to become some kinda pig iron.
>
>..wherever air or oxygen can get to the metals,
>the expensive exotic alloys will be just fine. ;-)
>
>--
>..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 Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Fri Apr 2 12:05:47 2004
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: Duplicates
In-Reply-To: <11197F61CBF36942AC3D9C998E99960B42AE10@ntserver.geprop.cu>
Message-ID: <FRI.2.APR.2004.180547.0100.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

I thought it was the same topics being discussed by the same people over and over again

But we wouldn't do that would we?? ;-)

Gavin

yes... it is happening to me too..... firstly I thought it was my server provider.. but it wasn't...

Oscar.

Here we go again -- I took my dogs for a walk in the woods looking for
mushrooms, and when I returned, there were 16 old messages just sent again from
the list. All of which I've seen before. Is anyone else getting this?

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

From mlefcort at TELUS.NET Fri Apr 2 13:01:53 2004
From: mlefcort at TELUS.NET (Malcolm Lefcort)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: ..high temp metals, was: Plant Sizing
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040402084155.009ee140@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <FRI.2.APR.2004.100153.0800.MLEFCORT@TELUS.NET>

If you have to use metal tuy?res try alloy 890.

The preferred method would be to cast the tuy?res in high alumina
castable refractory or, better yet, in a plastic refractory like RAM 85.

Malcolm Lefcort

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On Behalf Of Peter Singfield
Sent: April 2, 2004 6:43 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] ..high temp metals, was: Plant Sizing

Hmm -- one can only wonder how economical -- thick -- cast iron would
work??

easy to machine -- easy and economical to replace -- and possibly just
as
long living??

Your problem is as you state -- poor heat conductivity. It is that
problem
that plagues working stainless -- like machining it -- welding it. Zone
temps shoot sky high and material melts -- galls -- or sloughs off.

You might even find aluminum -- water cooled -- would work better -- or
copper -- brass -- bronze -- etc.

Like the acetylene/oxygen torch tips -- eh??

I made up a water jacketed "Rose bud" Acety/Oxy high (very high) BTU
torch
years ago to run a small melting pot -- Never had any torch tip
problems.
But the first one I made up -- no cooling -- melted.

Always think about cooling things down. But you need metals with high
heat
transfer coefficients -- always.

Peter / Belize

At 06:08 PM 4/1/2004 -0600, a31ford wrote:
>Good day, Arnt, Paul and all....
>
>Your information follows with my observed findings!
>
>I'm using 304SS for the Tuyeres in my 250KwT system, 10mm wall 13mm ID
(33m
>total cross section) the depth (length) of each tuyere when new was
25mm,
>however after the "etching" problem I had earlier this year, I just
went out
>and inspected the old ones (never thought of checking total length, was
just
>checking the depth of the etch in the face).
>
>Much to my surprise ! The entire unit is now only 22mm in length ! go
figure
>! the entire face, NOT just the etch is being removed, the etch is
roughly
>2mm deep across the face, I got around it for a month or so by simply
>turning the Tuyeres slightly (had them pipe threaded on the back side).
>Still all in all, I got good use from October 16/03 until March 12/04
with
>the unit running 24/7 (except for inspections every 2nd weekend or so)
>
>Will try a "mild steel" set this summer, the load won't be as high, but
will
>still run 24/7 for heating domestic hot water....
>
>Greg Manning
>Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: The Gasification Discussion List
>[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Arnt Karlsen
>Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 12:46 PM
>To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
>Subject: ..high temp metals, was: Plant Sizing
>
>
>On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 07:55:29 -0800, Art wrote in message
><014f01c41801$c268d2a0$68c3f204@7k6rv21>:
>
>> Paul,
>>
>> The definitive word on stainless steel vs carbon steel at higher
>> temperatures is:
>>
>> The Design Manual for Structural Stainless Steel2 indicates that
>> austenitic stainless steels suffer from the same types of distortion
>> during welding(angular, blowing, shrinkage, etc.) as carbon steel,
but
>> the higher coefficient of expansion (17 x 10-6/?C versus 12 x 10-6/?C
>> for carbon steel) and the lower thermal conductivity (approximately
>> 30% of carbon steel) increases distortion of austenitic stainless
>> steel weldments.
>>
>> There are also L grades of stainless steel which contain less carbon.
>> During welding of normal grades of stainless steels, the carbon in
the
>> stainless steel forms a complex with the chromium to become chromium
>> carbide. This complexing reduces the oxidation corrosion resistance
>> in the weld areas and I have seen 1/8 inch thick welded tanks leak in
>> the weld area after only a few hours exposure to high chloride
content
>> water. The better way is to use L grades of stainless and use the
>> appropriate L grade of filler rod or welding wire to perform the
>> welding operation. The grade of stainless chosen (304 vs 316 or
>> others) should depend upon the overall corrosion resistance desired
in
>> the application being considered.
>>
>> Art Krenzel, P.E.
>> PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES
>
>..unless I'm mistaken, Paul wants advice on what to use in the
>_reducing_ process environment in his gasifier and hot piping.
>
>..about 5 years ago, Vern posted this:
>On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 02:17:07 EDT, VHarris001@aol.com wrote in message
><b17eb690.249f32e3@aol.com>: Subject: "Re: GAS-L: High Temp Metals -
was
>To Tuyere or Not to Tuyere":
>
>> Dear Arnt, others
>>
>> About a year ago I contacted representatives for both Inconel and
>> 253MA and was unable to get helpful responses from either of them
>> regarding the servicability of their materials for use in my
>> gasification application. Besides being a reducing atmosphere in
hot,
>> abrasive conditions, my gasifier will also have some sulpher present.
>> The Inconel representative simply said they had no material of which
>> they could guarantee the performance. The 253MA rep said better to
>> just try stainless steel first and see what happens.
>> Says he has seen very disappointing performance from 253MA in certain
>> applications. It varys application to application. He recommends
it
>> without question in many applications but others he doesn't,
>> gasification being one that requires caution. He wouldn't even
>> recommend 353MA - which was designed for gasification applications.
>>
>> I was all sold on high temp metals until I read Arnt's post last year
>> about the coating on metals not being able to be regenerated in a
>> reducing atmosphere. Thanks again Arnt!
>>
>> Vern
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 5/28/99 7:32:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>> arnt@c2i.net writes:
>>
>> >
>> > .note that stainless steels, titanium etc, _will corrode_ in our
>> > dusty hot reducing environments, their corrosion protection rely
on
>> > _surface_ oxygen diffusing into the metal, I was quoted a 10
minute
>> > service life on some top priced titanium piping, we use cheap heat
>> > resistant mild steel...
>> >
>> Gasification List SPONSORS and ARCHIVES
>> http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
>
>..practical tests are rather helpful in determining whether or not
>these distorted metals has managed to remain as they were sold,
>and not absorb carbon etc to become some kinda pig iron.
>
>..wherever air or oxygen can get to the metals,
>the expensive exotic alloys will be just fine. ;-)
>
>--
>..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
>...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
> Scenarios always come in sets of three:
> best case, worst case, and just in case.
>

From arnt at C2I.NET Fri Apr 2 14:50:22 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: ..high temp metals, was: Plant Sizing
In-Reply-To: <000201c418dc$984d96f0$671ec2cf@Malcolm>
Message-ID: <FRI.2.APR.2004.215022.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:01:53 -0800, Malcolm wrote in message
<000201c418dc$984d96f0$671ec2cf@Malcolm>:

> If you have to use metal tuy?res try alloy 890.
>
> The preferred method would be to cast the tuy?res in high alumina
> castable refractory or, better yet, in a plastic refractory like RAM
> 85.

..best material fortuyeres would be ceramics?

--
..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 a31ford at INETLINK.CA Fri Apr 2 17:10:51 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: ..high temp metals, was: Plant Sizing
In-Reply-To: <20040402215022.5c38a185.arnt@c2i.net>
Message-ID: <FRI.2.APR.2004.161051.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Hi Arnt & All,

Actually I have heard that also (About Ceramic Tuyeres)

Next question, any one know of a shop that will do mine, without being
outrageous in price? I would like to test a set of those also.

Regards,
Greg Manning

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Arnt Karlsen
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 1:50 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: ..high temp metals, was: Plant Sizing

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:01:53 -0800, Malcolm wrote in message
<000201c418dc$984d96f0$671ec2cf@Malcolm>:

> If you have to use metal tuy?res try alloy 890.
>
> The preferred method would be to cast the tuy?res in high alumina
> castable refractory or, better yet, in a plastic refractory like RAM
> 85.

..best material fortuyeres would be ceramics?

--
..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 mlefcort at TELUS.NET Fri Apr 2 20:27:02 2004
From: mlefcort at TELUS.NET (Malcolm Lefcort)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: ..high temp metals, was: Plant Sizing
In-Reply-To: <000201c418ff$5cc68e20$0200a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <FRI.2.APR.2004.172702.0800.MLEFCORT@TELUS.NET>

Do it yourselfers can do it themselves.

Malcolm Lefcort

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On Behalf Of a31ford
Sent: April 2, 2004 2:11 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] ..high temp metals, was: Plant Sizing

Hi Arnt & All,

Actually I have heard that also (About Ceramic Tuyeres)

Next question, any one know of a shop that will do mine, without being
outrageous in price? I would like to test a set of those also.

Regards,
Greg Manning

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:01:53 -0800, Malcolm wrote in message
<000201c418dc$984d96f0$671ec2cf@Malcolm>:

> If you have to use metal tuy?res try alloy 890.
>
> The preferred method would be to cast the tuy?res in high alumina
> castable refractory or, better yet, in a plastic refractory like RAM
> 85.

..best material fortuyeres would be ceramics?

--
..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 tmiles at TRMILES.COM Sat Apr 3 12:24:19 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: Duplicates
Message-ID: <SAT.3.APR.2004.122419.0500.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

There are 8 lists each with 140 to 940 subscribers running on a budget
priced program and a budget priced server with no budget for maintenance
or improvement. We tried the volunteer technical administrator approach
but the volunteer got a day job.

The answer is:

A) we need to find funding for the lists for REPP, or
B) we need to find a host that's able to support the lists for several
years with their own funding.

CREST/REPP has hosted and supported us for ten years but they have no
funding for either technical administration or list improvement.

Tom

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 18:05:47 +0100, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
<Gavin@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK> wrote:

>I thought it was the same topics being discussed by the same people over
and over again
>Gavin

>yes... it is happening to me too..... firstly I thought it was my server
provider.. but it wasn't...
>
>Oscar.
> Here we go again -- I took my dogs for a walk in the woods
looking for
> mushrooms, and when I returned, there were 16 old messages just
sent again from
> the list. All of which I've seen before. Is anyone else getting
this?
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com

From greg.elder at STELCO.CA Mon Apr 5 11:50:05 2004
From: greg.elder at STELCO.CA (Greg Elder)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: tesla turbines
Message-ID: <MON.5.APR.2004.115005.0400.GREG.ELDER@STELCO.CA>

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 15:18:21 -0600, Peter Singfield <snkm@BTL.NET> wrote:

>The problem is you can't expand gasses in the Tesla design -- it is just
>straight through.
>
>When pumping liquids -- that is not a problem.
>
>Thus -- a single Tesla can only achieve very low efficiency -- maybe if one
>dod like they do with turbines-- multiple units.
>
>By the way -- multiple blades in the Tesla does not translate to multiple
>units.
>
>Your only "topping" -- not getting any where near the expansion you would
>with a piston engine.
>
>Peter / Belize
>

Could the turbine be designed such that the gases pass through stages with
fewer and fewer discs as the gases pass from inlet to outlet?

That would mimic multistage steam turbines with larger and larger blade
diameter as the steam expands.

From luizmagri at YAHOO.COM Mon Apr 5 14:05:26 2004
From: luizmagri at YAHOO.COM (Luiz Alberto Magri)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: tesla turbines
In-Reply-To: <LISTSERV%2004040511500538@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Message-ID: <MON.5.APR.2004.110526.0700.LUIZMAGRI@YAHOO.COM>

In a conventional steam turbine, multiple stages are
aimed to reduce irreversibilities. Using of fewer
stages will make the pressure drop across each stage
(and each blade as a consequence) to be higher as
well. It seems that the Tesla design has a different
behaviour, so that irreversibilities will drop down
when flow is reduced (following the corresponding
increasing in steam path inside the machine). As a
result, multiple stages will not provide for better
efficiency in Tesla turbines, but multiple blades will
do, in the sense that they will allow for less flow in
each disc clearance.

Luiz Magri
São Paulo

--- Greg Elder <greg.elder@STELCO.CA> wrote:
(...)
> Could the turbine be designed such that the gases
> pass through stages with
> fewer and fewer discs as the gases pass from inlet
> to outlet?
>
> That would mimic multistage steam turbines with
> larger and larger blade
> diameter as the steam expands.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Apr 5 15:12:55 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: tesla turbines
Message-ID: <MON.5.APR.2004.131255.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 11:50 AM 4/5/2004 -0400, Greg Elder wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 15:18:21 -0600, Peter Singfield <snkm@BTL.NET> wrote:
>>By the way -- multiple blades in the Tesla does not translate to multiple
>>units.
>>
>>Your only "topping" -- not getting any where near the expansion you would
>>with a piston engine.
>>
>>Peter / Belize
>>
>
>Could the turbine be designed such that the gases pass through stages with
>fewer and fewer discs as the gases pass from inlet to outlet?
>
>That would mimic multistage steam turbines with larger and larger blade
>diameter as the steam expands.
>

Probably -- but I believe the Tesla design gets inefficient at high volume
-- low velocity "passes"

One could combine a Tesla with conventional turbine.

The advantage would be valid. The Tesla is the cheaper design -- probably
easier to handle high temperature super heats.

This topping effect would extract energy from the most difficult spectrum.
Thus lowering temperatures of operation for the second stage -- or stages.

Combinations might include two topping Tesla stages -- then switching to a
turbo expander (turbo-charger technology) then going to an appropriate
turbine for final energy extraction -- but it might not be worth the cost
and effort by that point.

Teslas with turbo extractors is probably a very convenient "marriage".

But now -- can a Tesla operate for indefinite time periods at 1200 F steam!!

Much simpler to make up titanium blades rather than titanium vanes -- however.

Then again -- I believe they already mass market ceramic vaned turbos that
can also do this job -- and again -- one can couple two or more of those in
line to achieve desired efficiencies.

The great expense in making high efficiency turbines is the ganging up of
all the expansion stages -- and all on one shaft.

The first stage faces the most hazardous conditions. But is also smallest
-- as pressure goes down -- expanded volume goes up -- each successive
stage must become much larger accordingly.

Apparently -- good turbo expanders can retrieve 70% of all expansion energy
through a single pass -- that is rather incredible!

And they are basically not much more complicated to construct than a Tesla.
The huge complication being the high operating temperatures -- which the
Tesla must engineer for as well.

Still -- disks are cheaper to make well than vanes!

Oh -- both turbo extractors and Tesla designs suffer one other disatvantage
-- extremely high rpms -- so great costs in efficiency as well as dollars
-- to gear down.

Guess we also need a super high speed alternator. Then no gearing.

Peter / Belize

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Tue Apr 6 11:50:55 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: Biomass Cars
Message-ID: <TUE.6.APR.2004.095055.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Lewis and all:

Lewis Smith is correct that there is much disagreement as to when world oil
production will peak and start to decline. Even after we pass the peak it
will take a few years to recognize it as a true supply peak, rather than
political adjustment etc.

However, whether it occurs in 2010 or 2020, there is no doubt that it will
greatly affect the future and very existence of civilization. Among other
things, as the peak is recognized, major wars to grab the remaining oil
supplies could consume a great deal of oil - and money - and lives - and
civilization.

So, the sooner we can demonstrate "life without oil" the better. We do have
a mini test case. During WWII the civilian population had NO oil - all went
to the military. Over a million vehicles were operated on "woodgas"
(including many in the military when not on the front lines). Modern cities
require supplies of food and fuel and can't function without them. Without
woodgas vehicles, the war might have ended in 1 year when the soldiers
discovered everyone dead at home.

~~~~~~~
WWII gasifier conversion cars were developed and manufactured under wartime
conditions and were discarded as soon as gasoline became available again. I
am considering using modern technology to develop "turnkey, tarfree" cars
running on wood pellets, a uniform fuel. (We have already developed much of
this technology for generating electric power in the 20-50 kW range at
Community Power, see www.gocpc.com If anyone is interested in the post oil
future, let me know.

Yours truly,

Thomas Reed The Biomass Energy Foundation

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lewis L. Smith" <MMBTUPR@AOL.COM>
To: <BIOENERGY@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 9:08 PM
Subject: [BIOENERGY] Promotion of bioenergy

> to Bioenergy List from Lewis L. Smith
>
> I have recently argued against advancing the cause of renewables by
> claiming that the peak of world crude-oil capacity is drawing nigh. The
matter is
> highly debatable, the criteria are not too exact and the numbers are even
less
> so. In fact, based on recent revelations, one suspects that certain oil
> companies and countries may have systematically lied about their reserves
and well
> capacities, mostly overstating but some understating. Moreover, there is
the
> unbridgeable conceptual difference between the Russian definition of
reserves
> and those used in most of the world.
>
> To give you an idea of the complexities and uncertainties of this
issue,
> just read the following :
>
> Maureen Lorenzetti [DC editor] > "Saudis refute claims of
oil-field
> production declines", "Oil & Gas Journal", Mar. 8, 2004, pp. 24-25.
>
> Stanley Reed & Stephanie Anderson > "A Saudi oil shortage ?",
> "Business Week", Apr. 5, 2004, pp. 62-64.
>
> Cordially.
>
> End.

From oscar at GEPROP.CU Tue Apr 6 13:15:57 2004
From: oscar at GEPROP.CU (=?utf-8?Q?Oscar_Jim=C3=A9nez?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: Biomass Cars
Message-ID: <TUE.6.APR.2004.131557.0400.OSCAR@GEPROP.CU>

Dear All.

>If anyone is interested in the post oil
future, let me know.<

I am really interested.

On the other hand stressing the cause on renewable by >claiming that the peak of world crude-oil capacity is drawing nigh< seems to me too early. We should claim on that, having in mind let's say " around of the corner" events such as global warming, GHG effects, learning for a better future etc. I've always thought that the best " energy way out" is combining all energy resources (fossil and renewable) using them wisely. The country capable of balancing its energy resources, no matters where them come from, will be the winner in long terms basis.

Kind regards.

Oscar.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: TBReed [mailto:tombreed@COMCAST.NET]
Enviado el: mar 06/04/2004 11:50
Para: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
CC:
Asunto: [GASL] Biomass Cars

Dear Lewis and all:

Lewis Smith is correct that there is much disagreement as to when world oil
production will peak and start to decline. Even after we pass the peak it
will take a few years to recognize it as a true supply peak, rather than
political adjustment etc.

However, whether it occurs in 2010 or 2020, there is no doubt that it will
greatly affect the future and very existence of civilization. Among other
things, as the peak is recognized, major wars to grab the remaining oil
supplies could consume a great deal of oil - and money - and lives - and
civilization.

So, the sooner we can demonstrate "life without oil" the better. We do have
a mini test case. During WWII the civilian population had NO oil - all went
to the military. Over a million vehicles were operated on "woodgas"
(including many in the military when not on the front lines). Modern cities
require supplies of food and fuel and can't function without them. Without
woodgas vehicles, the war might have ended in 1 year when the soldiers
discovered everyone dead at home.

~~~~~~~
WWII gasifier conversion cars were developed and manufactured under wartime
conditions and were discarded as soon as gasoline became available again. I
am considering using modern technology to develop "turnkey, tarfree" cars
running on wood pellets, a uniform fuel. (We have already developed much of
this technology for generating electric power in the 20-50 kW range at
Community Power, see www.gocpc.com If anyone is interested in the post oil
future, let me know.

Yours truly,

Thomas Reed The Biomass Energy Foundation

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lewis L. Smith" <MMBTUPR@AOL.COM>
To: <BIOENERGY@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 9:08 PM
Subject: [BIOENERGY] Promotion of bioenergy

> to Bioenergy List from Lewis L. Smith
>
> I have recently argued against advancing the cause of renewables by
> claiming that the peak of world crude-oil capacity is drawing nigh. The
matter is
> highly debatable, the criteria are not too exact and the numbers are even
less
> so. In fact, based on recent revelations, one suspects that certain oil
> companies and countries may have systematically lied about their reserves
and well
> capacities, mostly overstating but some understating. Moreover, there is
the
> unbridgeable conceptual difference between the Russian definition of
reserves
> and those used in most of the world.
>
> To give you an idea of the complexities and uncertainties of this
issue,
> just read the following :
>
> Maureen Lorenzetti [DC editor] > "Saudis refute claims of
oil-field
> production declines", "Oil & Gas Journal", Mar. 8, 2004, pp. 24-25.
>
> Stanley Reed & Stephanie Anderson > "A Saudi oil shortage ?",
> "Business Week", Apr. 5, 2004, pp. 62-64.
>
> Cordially.
>
> End.

From MMBTUPR at AOL.COM Tue Apr 6 20:38:22 2004
From: MMBTUPR at AOL.COM (Lewis L. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: Biomass Cars
Message-ID: <TUE.6.APR.2004.203822.EDT.>

to Bioenergy List from Lewis L. Smith

Ref Tom Reed's posting of 06 Apr above subject. Very interesting idea.
During WW II, "biomass cars" were also used in Europe and Paraguay, among other
places. So there is a lot of experience, if we can only find where it is
stored. [Probably mostly in people's heads.]

I strongly recommend wood pellets. Pelletizing grasses and leaves is
hard on the pelletizing dies, because of the amount of dirt which inevitably
attaches to this kind of vegetation. And one doesn't want to end up washing the
pelletizer feed, as they used to do in Hawaii with cane harvested with a push
rake.

Cordially.

End.

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Wed Apr 7 07:43:39 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: Biomass Cars
Message-ID: <WED.7.APR.2004.054339.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear All:

Most of the experience that Lewis Smith refers to below is stored in many books published and available at the BEF website (www.woodgas.com) such as:

Gengas: The Swedish Classic on Wood Fueled Vehicles (Written in 1950 by the Swedish Royal Academy and translated by NREL in 1978, The "Old Testament of woodgas vehicles)

Biomass Downdraft Gasifier Engine System Handbook (The "New Testament", of woodgas vehicles and power generation by T. Reed and Agua Das, written for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ~1985)

Producer Gas: Another Fuel for Motor Transport (Written by a blue ribbon team for the National Acadamy of Sciences)

The PEGASUS UNIT: The Lost Art of Driving without Gasoline (Petroleum/Gasoline Substitue Systems, with detailed plans for making a WWII type gasifier)

Construction of a Simplified Wood Gas Generator (Written by H. LaFontaine for the Federal Emergency Management Authority, FEMA and describing construction of a vehicle gasifierusing the new stratified downdraft gasifier for use on tractors and cars)

and some other publications. So there is no excuse for not starting a "modern woodgas car" today.

Tom Reed THe Biomass Energy Foundation

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lewis L. Smith" <MMBTUPR@AOL.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Biomass Cars

> to Bioenergy List from Lewis L. Smith
>
> Ref Tom Reed's posting of 06 Apr above subject. Very interesting idea.
> During WW II, "biomass cars" were also used in Europe and Paraguay, among other
> places. So there is a lot of experience, if we can only find where it is
> stored. [Probably mostly in people's heads.]
>
> I strongly recommend wood pellets. Pelletizing grasses and leaves is
> hard on the pelletizing dies, because of the amount of dirt which inevitably
> attaches to this kind of vegetation. And one doesn't want to end up washing the
> pelletizer feed, as they used to do in Hawaii with cane harvested with a push
> rake.
>
> Cordially.
>
> End.

From joacim at YMEX.NET Wed Apr 7 12:43:23 2004
From: joacim at YMEX.NET (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: Biomass Cars
In-Reply-To: <002f01c41bee$f2c30510$6401a8c0@TOM>
Message-ID: <WED.7.APR.2004.184323.0200.JOACIM@YMEX.NET>

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, TBReed wrote:

> So, the sooner we can demonstrate "life without oil" the better. We do have
> a mini test case. During WWII the civilian population had NO oil - all went
> to the military. Over a million vehicles were operated on "woodgas"

There were significantly fewer cars, trucks, buses and tractors in those
days, even before the war broke out. There were more horses though. And
also a bit fewer people, who were not quite as fat as today. People get fat
from working less than they eat. (first law, fat is accumulated energy)
Machines do the hard work these days, not people.

In october 1943 (peak for producer gas vehicles in Sweden during ww2),
there were about 74000 civilian road vehicles (cars, trucks, buses) running
on producer gas in Sweden and some 25000-30000 tractors. The military had
roughly 10000 vehicles converted to producer gas. Numbers taken from
Chapter 1 in Gengas.

Statistics from 1994 (most recent I have at hands right now, from
Statistical Yearbook of 1996) for Sweden: 3594000 cars, 558000 lorries,
14000 buses, 115000 motorcycles and 326000 tractors.

The 74000 road vehicles (motorcycles not counted) in 1943 have thus grown a
factor of 56 to a bit over 4 million in 1994. Tractors grew a factor 12 or
so. Population increased from 6.3 million (1940) to 8.8 million (1994), and
cities grew as less people worked in farming. Mileage per vehicle has also
increased I would guess.

Gross felling of wood in Sweden season 1992/93 (harvest is done mostly during
winter): 63.6 million [m?fub] "cubic metres, solid under bark", i.e. solid
wood. (3 million of this was fuel) A quick calculation yields that this (if
recycled 100% and dried "naturally", i.e. without adding refined energy)
should correspond to about 25 million tons a year of dry fuel for
gasifiers.

In Joules, this yields 350 PJ (petajoule) or so of energy.

The net consumption of crude oil (oil products) in Sweden for 1994: 507 PJ.

(300 PJ for transportation, 79 for industry and mining, 127 for housing
etc. More recent numbers can be obtained from the Swedish bureau of
statistics, at www.scb.se.)

Some of the gross felling is exported and far from 100% can be recycled or
used directly for fuel (e.g. paper). To top it off, the forestry industry
consumes oil too: harvesters, timber trucks etc run on diesel...

An optimistic guess would be half the energy from oil being consumed today
for transports, is available from gasifying wood (recycled waste wood).
There are too many hidden factors to make a proper calculation.

Wood is of course not the only source of energy available, but there sure
is a lot of trees in the taiga. Wood is /the/ major source of energy here.
It's still barely enough though. But there is no way the countries on the
European continent or the US could convert all of or even a significant
amount of their road transports to woodgas. Finland, Sweden and a few
eastern European countries have barely enough forest for domestic
consumption. Canada and Russia has plenty of trees but very long
transports to the population concentrations.

The bottom line is that things will have to change drastically regarding
infrastructure and cultural geography. Too many home fires burning and not
enough trees, as the saying goes. Too heavy urbanisation and too much industry
concentration and ditto specialisation; demanding a lot of logistics. Too
low entropy and not enough exergy to keep it low. Entropy will increase.
The low-entropy energy-consuming big cities will fade away and the meek
shall inherit. I guess Peter's mayan mates up in the highlands of Yucatan
couldn't care less about Hubbart's Peak v2.0, right Peter? ;)

An interesting side-effect of an oil shortage scenario is the effect it has
on military doctrines. An ever so fancy jet fighter, helicopter or bomber
simply won't fly with no fuel. Same goes for tanks, not to mention military
logistics for supplies. There is today no technology to replace jet motors,
and no suitable replacement fuel either. Forget "Air-Land-battle". There
won't be an air force. Forget "manouver tactics" in the modern mechanised
sense. The latest fashion in military doctrines, "network based defense",
assumes a small number of fast re-grouping units: consuming more fuel in
the process. There won't be any fuel for the fast armored vehicles and the
high-tech aircrafts manouvering about in such a hurry. The brass is up for
a surprise.

One Swedish political party leader suggested just the other day that 11 to
13 new nuclear power stations ought to be built in Sweden. (There is a
decision from a poll in 1980 to shut them all down.) He should have
suggested rather 3 to 4 million nuclear power devices, one in each vehicle,
since trucks and cars aren't fed from the power grid... This would of
course be a wet dream for your regular barking mad terrorist, so it's not
an option. The oil shortage impact is not on the grid, but on the road.
Political power too has an energy tag on it. Legions of administrators
consuming but producing nothing. The suits are up for a surprise them too.

The importance logistics has for the world economy is greatly underestimated.
But logistics consists basically of vehicles built from oil (plastics),
lubricated with oil, powered by oil, and nylon tyres rolling on asphalt
roads. We're so hooked on oil it's comical. We should all join Oiloholics
Anonymous for therapy and support. ;)

Joacim

From MMBTUPR at AOL.COM Wed Apr 7 13:36:09 2004
From: MMBTUPR at AOL.COM (Lewis L. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: Biomass Cars
Message-ID: <WED.7.APR.2004.133609.EDT.>

to Bioenergy List from Lewis L. Smith

? Congratulations to Tom Reed and to NREL !

So often technological advances which become temporarily obsolete, get
lost when people retire or die. [I recently participated in just such a
rescue.]

Cordially.

End.

From oscar at GEPROP.CU Wed Apr 7 14:35:17 2004
From: oscar at GEPROP.CU (=?utf-8?Q?Oscar_Jim=C3=A9nez?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: Biomass Cars
Message-ID: <WED.7.APR.2004.143517.0400.OSCAR@GEPROP.CU>

<The bottom line is that things will have to change drastically regarding
infrastructure and cultural geography. >

....it will take a long, long, long, long time before such a dream (drastical change) comes true... for sure the oil shortage will come over long before people get aware of the necesity of drastically changing their consuming energy pattern....

<We should all join Oiloholics
Anonymous for therapy and support. ;)>

....too many people having consumer-mind for being gathered to such a therapy and most probably uncapable of understanding each other real and justifyable energy needs...

<The oil shortage impact is not on the grid, but on the road.>

...as long as people learn how to get the most from different energy sources and smartly combine them for the world's benefits...Nothing depending on oil, for its functioning, will be set free from oil shortage...

Kind regards

Oscar.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Joacim Persson [mailto:joacim@YMEX.NET]
Enviado el: mi? 07/04/2004 12:43
Para: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
CC:
Asunto: Re: [GASL] Biomass Cars

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, TBReed wrote:

> So, the sooner we can demonstrate "life without oil" the better. We do have
> a mini test case. During WWII the civilian population had NO oil - all went
> to the military. Over a million vehicles were operated on "woodgas"

There were significantly fewer cars, trucks, buses and tractors in those
days, even before the war broke out. There were more horses though. And
also a bit fewer people, who were not quite as fat as today. People get fat
from working less than they eat. (first law, fat is accumulated energy)
Machines do the hard work these days, not people.

In october 1943 (peak for producer gas vehicles in Sweden during ww2),
there were about 74000 civilian road vehicles (cars, trucks, buses) running
on producer gas in Sweden and some 25000-30000 tractors. The military had
roughly 10000 vehicles converted to producer gas. Numbers taken from
Chapter 1 in Gengas.

Statistics from 1994 (most recent I have at hands right now, from
Statistical Yearbook of 1996) for Sweden: 3594000 cars, 558000 lorries,
14000 buses, 115000 motorcycles and 326000 tractors.

The 74000 road vehicles (motorcycles not counted) in 1943 have thus grown a
factor of 56 to a bit over 4 million in 1994. Tractors grew a factor 12 or
so. Population increased from 6.3 million (1940) to 8.8 million (1994), and
cities grew as less people worked in farming. Mileage per vehicle has also
increased I would guess.

Gross felling of wood in Sweden season 1992/93 (harvest is done mostly during
winter): 63.6 million [m?fub] "cubic metres, solid under bark", i.e. solid
wood. (3 million of this was fuel) A quick calculation yields that this (if
recycled 100% and dried "naturally", i.e. without adding refined energy)
should correspond to about 25 million tons a year of dry fuel for
gasifiers.

In Joules, this yields 350 PJ (petajoule) or so of energy.

The net consumption of crude oil (oil products) in Sweden for 1994: 507 PJ.

(300 PJ for transportation, 79 for industry and mining, 127 for housing
etc. More recent numbers can be obtained from the Swedish bureau of
statistics, at www.scb.se.)

Some of the gross felling is exported and far from 100% can be recycled or
used directly for fuel (e.g. paper). To top it off, the forestry industry
consumes oil too: harvesters, timber trucks etc run on diesel...

An optimistic guess would be half the energy from oil being consumed today
for transports, is available from gasifying wood (recycled waste wood).
There are too many hidden factors to make a proper calculation.

Wood is of course not the only source of energy available, but there sure
is a lot of trees in the taiga. Wood is /the/ major source of energy here.
It's still barely enough though. But there is no way the countries on the
European continent or the US could convert all of or even a significant
amount of their road transports to woodgas. Finland, Sweden and a few
eastern European countries have barely enough forest for domestic
consumption. Canada and Russia has plenty of trees but very long
transports to the population concentrations.

The bottom line is that things will have to change drastically regarding
infrastructure and cultural geography. Too many home fires burning and not
enough trees, as the saying goes. Too heavy urbanisation and too much industry
concentration and ditto specialisation; demanding a lot of logistics. Too
low entropy and not enough exergy to keep it low. Entropy will increase.
The low-entropy energy-consuming big cities will fade away and the meek
shall inherit. I guess Peter's mayan mates up in the highlands of Yucatan
couldn't care less about Hubbart's Peak v2.0, right Peter? ;)

An interesting side-effect of an oil shortage scenario is the effect it has
on military doctrines. An ever so fancy jet fighter, helicopter or bomber
simply won't fly with no fuel. Same goes for tanks, not to mention military
logistics for supplies. There is today no technology to replace jet motors,
and no suitable replacement fuel either. Forget "Air-Land-battle". There
won't be an air force. Forget "manouver tactics" in the modern mechanised
sense. The latest fashion in military doctrines, "network based defense",
assumes a small number of fast re-grouping units: consuming more fuel in
the process. There won't be any fuel for the fast armored vehicles and the
high-tech aircrafts manouvering about in such a hurry. The brass is up for
a surprise.

One Swedish political party leader suggested just the other day that 11 to
13 new nuclear power stations ought to be built in Sweden. (There is a
decision from a poll in 1980 to shut them all down.) He should have
suggested rather 3 to 4 million nuclear power devices, one in each vehicle,
since trucks and cars aren't fed from the power grid... This would of
course be a wet dream for your regular barking mad terrorist, so it's not
an option. The oil shortage impact is not on the grid, but on the road.
Political power too has an energy tag on it. Legions of administrators
consuming but producing nothing. The suits are up for a surprise them too.

The importance logistics has for the world economy is greatly underestimated.
But logistics consists basically of vehicles built from oil (plastics),
lubricated with oil, powered by oil, and nylon tyres rolling on asphalt
roads. We're so hooked on oil it's comical. We should all join Oiloholics
Anonymous for therapy and support. ;)

Joacim

From VHarris001 at AOL.COM Wed Apr 7 15:42:07 2004
From: VHarris001 at AOL.COM (Vernon Harris)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: Plastics To Become Fuel
Message-ID: <WED.7.APR.2004.154207.EDT.>

This might interest some listers. From:

===========================================
Solid Waste.com Newsletter - http://www.solidwaste.com
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
============================================

3) Plastics To Become Fuel

Last night's take-out food containers, packing "peanuts" and plastic grocery
bags may soon power tractor-trailers and garbage trucks. Plastic
Energy-Hanford plans to convert post-consumer plastic -- most of which ends up in landfills
-- into low-sulfur diesel fuel. The company will lease space from the Kings
Waste & Recycling Authority in Hanford and start making fuel from waste plastic
in about a year...
http://www.solidwaste.com/nl/82399/310078

From Steve.Goldthorpe at XTRA.CO.NZ Wed Apr 7 21:01:44 2004
From: Steve.Goldthorpe at XTRA.CO.NZ (Steve Goldthorpe)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: Biomass Cars
Message-ID: <THU.8.APR.2004.130144.1200.STEVE.GOLDTHORPE@XTRA.CO.NZ>

Lewis,

Your concept of wood pellet fuelled cars being used on a grand scale is very
interesting. I presume that it would require a network of wood-pellet
stations to supplement and eventually replace the gas stations that retail
fuel to people on the move.

Of course, the energy density difference between wood pellets and gasoline
would mean that a new compromise would have to be established between the
size of the on-board fuel storage and the distance travelled between
refuelling stops. That seems quite doable.

However, I caution the logical leap between the feasibility of the niche use
of wood pellets in suitable designed vehicles and the feasibility of
widespread use of the technology in the absence of petroleum. My concern is
the availability of wood pellet fuel.

It is my understanding that wood pellets are currently made from sawdust
etc. which is a by-product of wood processing or lumber operations. The
main value of the harvested tree is in the principal wood product and the
utilisation of the by-product is a convenient little business on-the-side,
which is an economic parasite on the main business.

If the scale of the demand for wood pellets was to increase by many orders
of magnitude to become the main transport fuel source then the by-product
market would be soon exhausted and the conversion of the whole tree resource
into wood pellet fuel would have to become the norm. Under this scenario,
all the costs of forestry, harvesting, drying and processing the wood to
fuel pellets would have to be reflected in the delivered wood pellet price.
I fear that this would make the use of wood pellet fuel much less viable in
the face of alternatives than it might appear at present.

In general the energy value of a material is far less than its value for
some other higher level purpose, like building a house. Hence what is viable
as a niche activity may be very much less viable as a mainstream activity.

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: "Lewis L. Smith" <MMBTUPR@AOL.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Biomass Cars

> to Bioenergy List from Lewis L. Smith
>
> Ref Tom Reed's posting of 06 Apr above subject. Very interesting
idea.
> During WW II, "biomass cars" were also used in Europe and Paraguay, among
other
> places. So there is a lot of experience, if we can only find where it is
> stored. [Probably mostly in people's heads.]
>
> I strongly recommend wood pellets. Pelletizing grasses and leaves is
> hard on the pelletizing dies, because of the amount of dirt which
inevitably
> attaches to this kind of vegetation. And one doesn't want to end up
washing the
> pelletizer feed, as they used to do in Hawaii with cane harvested with a
push
> rake.
>
> Cordially.
>
> End.

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Wed Apr 7 21:36:26 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: Biomass Cars
In-Reply-To: <00fe01c41d05$0f9dac50$f45a58db@STEVE5DVH1TDNY>
Message-ID: <WED.7.APR.2004.203626.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

The whole concept of energy from *wood* pellets is bogus. Energy from some
other biomass, like switchgrass or cattails, works much better, but only if the
pelletizer can be brought to the place of harvest.
But this whole thread ignores the fact that when the oil runs out, it won't
be just the cars that stop -- food production as we know it will also totally
stop, and mass starvation will begin.
Read about the Oil We Eat:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/280191.shtml

On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 01:01:44PM +1200, Steve Goldthorpe wrote:
> Lewis,
>
> Your concept of wood pellet fuelled cars being used on a grand scale is very
> interesting. I presume that it would require a network of wood-pellet
> stations to supplement and eventually replace the gas stations that retail
> fuel to people on the move.
>
> Of course, the energy density difference between wood pellets and gasoline
> would mean that a new compromise would have to be established between the
> size of the on-board fuel storage and the distance travelled between
> refuelling stops. That seems quite doable.
>
> However, I caution the logical leap between the feasibility of the niche use
> of wood pellets in suitable designed vehicles and the feasibility of
> widespread use of the technology in the absence of petroleum. My concern is
> the availability of wood pellet fuel.
>
> It is my understanding that wood pellets are currently made from sawdust
> etc. which is a by-product of wood processing or lumber operations. The
> main value of the harvested tree is in the principal wood product and the
> utilisation of the by-product is a convenient little business on-the-side,
> which is an economic parasite on the main business.
>
> If the scale of the demand for wood pellets was to increase by many orders
> of magnitude to become the main transport fuel source then the by-product
> market would be soon exhausted and the conversion of the whole tree resource
> into wood pellet fuel would have to become the norm. Under this scenario,
> all the costs of forestry, harvesting, drying and processing the wood to
> fuel pellets would have to be reflected in the delivered wood pellet price.
> I fear that this would make the use of wood pellet fuel much less viable in
> the face of alternatives than it might appear at present.
>
> In general the energy value of a material is far less than its value for
> some other higher level purpose, like building a house. Hence what is viable
> as a niche activity may be very much less viable as a mainstream activity.
>
> 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: "Lewis L. Smith" <MMBTUPR@AOL.COM>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 12:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Biomass Cars
>
>
> > to Bioenergy List from Lewis L. Smith
> >
> > Ref Tom Reed's posting of 06 Apr above subject. Very interesting
> idea.
> > During WW II, "biomass cars" were also used in Europe and Paraguay, among
> other
> > places. So there is a lot of experience, if we can only find where it is
> > stored. [Probably mostly in people's heads.]
> >
> > I strongly recommend wood pellets. Pelletizing grasses and leaves is
> > hard on the pelletizing dies, because of the amount of dirt which
> inevitably
> > attaches to this kind of vegetation. And one doesn't want to end up
> washing the
> > pelletizer feed, as they used to do in Hawaii with cane harvested with a
> push
> > rake.
> >
> > Cordially.
> >
> > End.

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com
Hoka hey!

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Wed Apr 7 22:40:55 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:48 2004
Subject: Biomass Cars
Message-ID: <WED.7.APR.2004.234055.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Harmon

Thanks indeed for the reference to the excellent article. A real eye-opener,
and perspective giver.

At the present, we have biomass in abundance. Setting fire to it to make
electricity is one way to use it. Pelletizing it for fuelling vehicles is
another. Composting it to enhance food production is another.... There are
lots of uses for biomass.

What then are the best uses for biomass? What "new uses" for biomass just
need a little "technology push" to make them economically viable? What uses
for biomass are "less likely to succeed?"

Kevin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 10:36 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Biomass Cars

> The whole concept of energy from *wood* pellets is bogus. Energy from
some
> other biomass, like switchgrass or cattails, works much better, but only
if the
> pelletizer can be brought to the place of harvest.
> But this whole thread ignores the fact that when the oil runs out, it
won't
> be just the cars that stop -- food production as we know it will also
totally
> stop, and mass starvation will begin.
> Read about the Oil We Eat:
>
> http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/280191.shtml
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 01:01:44PM +1200, Steve Goldthorpe wrote:
> > Lewis,
> >
> > Your concept of wood pellet fuelled cars being used on a grand scale is
very
> > interesting. I presume that it would require a network of wood-pellet
> > stations to supplement and eventually replace the gas stations that
retail
> > fuel to people on the move.
> >
> > Of course, the energy density difference between wood pellets and
gasoline
> > would mean that a new compromise would have to be established between
the
> > size of the on-board fuel storage and the distance travelled between
> > refuelling stops. That seems quite doable.
> >
> > However, I caution the logical leap between the feasibility of the niche
use
> > of wood pellets in suitable designed vehicles and the feasibility of
> > widespread use of the technology in the absence of petroleum. My
concern is
> > the availability of wood pellet fuel.
> >
> > It is my understanding that wood pellets are currently made from sawdust
> > etc. which is a by-product of wood processing or lumber operations. The
> > main value of the harvested tree is in the principal wood product and
the
> > utilisation of the by-product is a convenient little business
on-the-side,
> > which is an economic parasite on the main business.
> >
> > If the scale of the demand for wood pellets was to increase by many
orders
> > of magnitude to become the main transport fuel source then the
by-product
> > market would be soon exhausted and the conversion of the whole tree
resource
> > into wood pellet fuel would have to become the norm. Under this
scenario,
> > all the costs of forestry, harvesting, drying and processing the wood to
> > fuel pellets would have to be reflected in the delivered wood pellet
price.
> > I fear that this would make the use of wood pellet fuel much less viable
in
> > the face of alternatives than it might appear at present.
> >
> > In general the energy value of a material is far less than its value for
> > some other higher level purpose, like building a house. Hence what is
viable
> > as a niche activity may be very much less viable as a mainstream
activity.
> >
> > 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: "Lewis L. Smith" <MMBTUPR@AOL.COM>
> > To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 12:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: [GASL] Biomass Cars
> >
> >
> > > to Bioenergy List from Lewis L. Smith
> > >
> > > Ref Tom Reed's posting of 06 Apr above subject. Very interesting
> > idea.
> > > During WW II, "biomass cars" were also used in Europe and Paraguay,
among
> > other
> > > places. So there is a lot of experience, if we can only find where it
is
> > > stored. [Probably mostly in people's heads.]
> > >
> > > I strongly recommend wood pellets. Pelletizing grasses and leaves
is
> > > hard on the pelletizing dies, because of the amount of dirt which
> > inevitably
> > > attaches to this kind of vegetation. And one doesn't want to end up
> > washing the
> > > pelletizer feed, as they used to do in Hawaii with cane harvested with
a
> > push
> > > rake.
> > >
> > > Cordially.
> > >
> > > End.
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com
> Hoka hey!

From robdeutsch at ONLINE.COM.KH Wed Apr 7 10:42:42 2004
From: robdeutsch at ONLINE.COM.KH (Robert Deutsch)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Gasification = incineration in California??
Message-ID: <WED.7.APR.2004.214242.0700.ROBDEUTSCH@ONLINE.COM.KH>

Repost from United States Composting Council Website - All rights reserved
Opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the USCC, the Foundation or Board of Directors.

Contact

Jim McNelly
US Composting Council
Discussion List Moderator
jim@composter.com
www.compostingcouncil.org
www.composter.com

== Original Message =====

From: "Monica Wilson" <mwilson@essential.org
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:34:38 -0700

There are three upcoming events in Sacramento about the study of "conversion technologies," including technologies that we consider incinerators-in-disguise. We encourage you to attend of these events, in order to express concerns about environmental impacts of these technologies, especially if you live in a community that is considering one of these schemes.

On April 14 and 15 there will be workshops in Sacramento to review summaries of the "conversion technology" studies from the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). Location information is below. On May 11 or 12 the CIWMB board meeting will be reviewing these studies and considering their own report to the California Legislature (there is no information yet on this meeting).

We hope you will attend one or both of the April workshops and/or the May board meeting in order to express concerns about the incinerator-in-disguise technologies of gasification, pyrolysis, plasma arc. Concerns about these technologies include impacts on waste prevention, recycling and composting programs and zero waste; dangerous air emissions; and other pollution issues. The meetings will likely be dominated by industry representatives who see dollar signs in these technologies -- so PLEASE COME AND BE A VOICE FOR HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND SUSTAINABLE WASTE AND ENERGY POLICIES.

If you are planning to attend either workshop and would like suggested comments, or if you are willing to give written comments on these studies, please contact Monica Wilson for suggested comments letters and points (mwilson@essential.org or 510-883-9490). Deadlines for written comments have not yet been released, but please note that written comments will need to be submitted within just a few days of the workshops. The study summaries are expected to be released a week prior to the workshops, and they will be available at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Organics/Conversion/

Comments made last fall on the methodologies of these studies can be found at http://www.no-burn.org/campaigns/ca/ We are not optimistic that the concerns raised last fall will be adequately addressed, so we will likely raise many of these same comments about the studies.

An example of a potential incinerator-in-disguise project in California are the current efforts by Alameda Power and Telecom to build a gasification facility for municipal solid waste. Read more about this project at Greenaction's website: http://www.greenaction.org

* * WORKSHOP DETAILS * *
April 14, 2004--9:00 a.m.
Workshop on Results of Conversion Technology Evaluation Processes and Products, Sierra Hearing Room, Cal/EPA Building, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA

April 15, 2004--9:00 a.m.
Workshop on Results of Conversion Technology Lifecycle and Market Impact Assessments, Central Valley Auditorium, Cal/EPA Building, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA

Note1: The Cal/EPA building is 6 blocks up I street from the Sacramento Amtrak station.

Note2: both workshops will be audio cast on the CIWMB website: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Organics/Conversion/ . However, if you want to make any verbal comments you have to be physically present at the meeting -- you can't do that over the internet. You can definitely submit a letter whether or not you attend the workshops.

* * CIWMB BOARD MEETING * *
May 11 or 12 -- we will forward more information about this meeting as it becomes available

Gary Liss
916-652-7850
Fax: 916-652-0485

Jim~ McNelly
Renewable Carbon Management LLC 320-253-5076
NaturTech, NaturSoil, CompostMan
jim@composter.com
www.composter.com
Associate of RRT Design and Construction
www.rrtenviro.com

From Carefreeland at AOL.COM Thu Apr 8 09:08:37 2004
From: Carefreeland at AOL.COM (Carefreeland@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Biomass Cars
Message-ID: <THU.8.APR.2004.090837.EDT.>

In a message dated 4/7/04 9:06:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Steve.Goldthorpe@XTRA.CO.NZ writes:

DD Dan Dimiduk comments:
>
> Lewis,
>
> Your concept of wood pellet fuelled cars being used on a grand scale is very
> interesting. I presume that it would require a network of wood-pellet
> stations to supplement and eventually replace the gas stations that retail
> fuel to people on the move.
>
> Of course, the energy density difference between wood pellets and gasoline
> would mean that a new compromise would have to be established between the
> size of the on-board fuel storage and the distance travelled between
> refuelling stops. That seems quite doable.
>
> However, I caution the logical leap between the feasibility of the niche use
> of wood pellets in suitable designed vehicles and the feasibility of
> widespread use of the technology in the absence of petroleum. My concern is
> the availability of wood pellet fuel.
>
> It is my understanding that wood pellets are currently made from sawdust
> etc. which is a by-product of wood processing or lumber operations. The
> main value of the harvested tree is in the principal wood product and the
> utilisation of the by-product is a convenient little business on-the-side,
> which is an economic parasite on the main business.
>
> If the scale of the demand for wood pellets was to increase by many orders
> of magnitude to become the main transport fuel source then the by-product
> market would be soon exhausted and the conversion of the whole tree resource
> into wood pellet fuel would have to become the norm. Under this scenario,
> all the costs of forestry, harvesting, drying and processing the wood to
> fuel pellets would have to be reflected in the delivered wood pellet price.
> I fear that this would make the use of wood pellet fuel much less viable in
> the face of alternatives than it might appear at present.
>
> In general the energy value of a material is far less than its value for
> some other higher level purpose, like building a house. Hence what is viable
> as a niche activity may be very much less viable as a mainstream activity.
>
> Regards
>
> Steve
>
>
DD The largest source of biomass energy by far in this country (USA) and most
industrial countries is wastewood being sent to landfills. Every house and
building that is built has a life cycle, hence all of the wood being harvested
is eventually being sent to the pile. What we need to explore are ways to
separate that wood waste including removing paint. Large facility gasification
holds a lot of promise because a rough grade of feedstock can be utilized and
the resulting gas can be separated.
DD The second most common source is from inner city tree service woodchips.
The urban forest replaces farm fields and actually increases the amount of
biomass production per acre in many cases. In some areas like around here, this
has caused a glut of firewood and priced are falling.
DDAt the small landfill I operate out of, only the top grades of cleanest
hardwoods are not dumped. All softwoods such as silver maple and pine (at 6000
Btu per pound) are dumped, along with chips and any wood with bugs or rot in it.
Many landfills are limiting the amount of wood they take due to methane and
settling problems. Tipping fees can be even higher for wood than other waste
because of this.
DD I believe that gasification on site, with a high conversion rate to
charcoal will be the predominant technology in the future. Charcoal has all of the
benefits of coal with less drawbacks. Only the density is less, and high
pressure briquetting can solve that. Charcoal stores indefinitely, and makes a
better transportation fuel than wood. The gas can be directly converted to electric
power on demand or stored overnight for the daily peak.
Dan Dimiduk

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Thu Apr 8 09:30:33 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Biomass Cars
Message-ID: <THU.8.APR.2004.073033.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Dan and All:

My initial posting on wood/biomass/gas for transport was looking at the
present and far into the future. The postings below are focussed more on
the here and now.

1) Densification can convert all biomass into an acceptable gasification
fuel. Some of my favorite other sources are bagasse (from sugar cane, sweet
smelling and superdense), peanut shells (after extracting food and oil, a
great fuel) and rice hulls (the high silica may limit to special
applications).

2) There is probably more agricultural, MSW and other biomass available
than woody biomass. Straws, shells, .... all available and generally a
disposable problem.

3) We spend billions of dollars to build oil refineries, but are irritated
if we have to even dry biomass. Pelletizing/cubing/logging the waste
biomass is inherently cheap and has a 50/1 energy return, but needs
improvement of the technology (see various previous postings) and the
technology of gasifying high ash biomass.

First steps first...

Yours truly, TOM REED THE BIOMASS ENERGY FOUNDATION
----- Original Message -----
From: <Carefreeland@AOL.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 7:08 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Biomass Cars

> In a message dated 4/7/04 9:06:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Steve.Goldthorpe@XTRA.CO.NZ writes:
>
> DD Dan Dimiduk comments:
> >
> > Lewis,
> >
> > Your concept of wood pellet fuelled cars being used on a grand scale is
very
> > interesting. I presume that it would require a network of wood-pellet
> > stations to supplement and eventually replace the gas stations that
retail
> > fuel to people on the move.
> >
> > Of course, the energy density difference between wood pellets and
gasoline
> > would mean that a new compromise would have to be established between
the
> > size of the on-board fuel storage and the distance travelled between
> > refuelling stops. That seems quite doable.
> >
> > However, I caution the logical leap between the feasibility of the niche
use
> > of wood pellets in suitable designed vehicles and the feasibility of
> > widespread use of the technology in the absence of petroleum. My
concern is
> > the availability of wood pellet fuel.
> >
> > It is my understanding that wood pellets are currently made from sawdust
> > etc. which is a by-product of wood processing or lumber operations. The
> > main value of the harvested tree is in the principal wood product and
the
> > utilisation of the by-product is a convenient little business
on-the-side,
> > which is an economic parasite on the main business.
> >
> > If the scale of the demand for wood pellets was to increase by many
orders
> > of magnitude to become the main transport fuel source then the
by-product
> > market would be soon exhausted and the conversion of the whole tree
resource
> > into wood pellet fuel would have to become the norm. Under this
scenario,
> > all the costs of forestry, harvesting, drying and processing the wood to
> > fuel pellets would have to be reflected in the delivered wood pellet
price.
> > I fear that this would make the use of wood pellet fuel much less viable
in
> > the face of alternatives than it might appear at present.
> >
> > In general the energy value of a material is far less than its value for
> > some other higher level purpose, like building a house. Hence what is
viable
> > as a niche activity may be very much less viable as a mainstream
activity.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> DD The largest source of biomass energy by far in this country (USA) and
most
> industrial countries is wastewood being sent to landfills. Every house
and
> building that is built has a life cycle, hence all of the wood being
harvested
> is eventually being sent to the pile. What we need to explore are ways to
> separate that wood waste including removing paint. Large facility
gasification
> holds a lot of promise because a rough grade of feedstock can be utilized
and
> the resulting gas can be separated.
> DD The second most common source is from inner city tree service
woodchips.
> The urban forest replaces farm fields and actually increases the amount of
> biomass production per acre in many cases. In some areas like around here,
this
> has caused a glut of firewood and priced are falling.
> DDAt the small landfill I operate out of, only the top grades of cleanest
> hardwoods are not dumped. All softwoods such as silver maple and pine (at
6000
> Btu per pound) are dumped, along with chips and any wood with bugs or rot
in it.
> Many landfills are limiting the amount of wood they take due to methane
and
> settling problems. Tipping fees can be even higher for wood than other
waste
> because of this.
> DD I believe that gasification on site, with a high conversion rate to
> charcoal will be the predominant technology in the future. Charcoal has
all of the
> benefits of coal with less drawbacks. Only the density is less, and high
> pressure briquetting can solve that. Charcoal stores indefinitely, and
makes a
> better transportation fuel than wood. The gas can be directly converted to
electric
> power on demand or stored overnight for the daily peak.
> Dan Dimiduk

From CAVM at AOL.COM Fri Apr 9 09:36:18 2004
From: CAVM at AOL.COM (C. Van Milligen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Biomass fueled cars
Message-ID: <FRI.9.APR.2004.093618.EDT.>

Tom, you are correct. There are plentiful amounts of various biomass located
throughout the world.

I am not going to try to convert the entire transportation system to wood gas
or other alternative fuels but I am going to convert my site to it. We
expect to begin the process in a few weeks when we add a wood gasifier to one of
our company 2.5 ton 6X6 army trucks.

We will also install gasifier fueled generators to our site and attempt to
provide our own electrical energy.

When we get this finished later in the summer, I will send photos and invite
visits.

Neal Van Milligen
www.kentuckyenrichment.com

From phoenix98604 at EARTHLINK.NET Fri Apr 9 11:21:08 2004
From: phoenix98604 at EARTHLINK.NET (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Biomass fueled cars
Message-ID: <FRI.9.APR.2004.082108.0700.PHOENIX98604@EARTHLINK.NET>

Neal,

Have you considered biogas as a fuel source for your stationary engines?

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "C. Van Milligen" <CAVM@AOL.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 6:36 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Biomass fueled cars

> Tom, you are correct. There are plentiful amounts of various biomass
located
> throughout the world.
>
> I am not going to try to convert the entire transportation system to wood
gas
> or other alternative fuels but I am going to convert my site to it. We
> expect to begin the process in a few weeks when we add a wood gasifier to
one of
> our company 2.5 ton 6X6 army trucks.
>
> We will also install gasifier fueled generators to our site and attempt to
> provide our own electrical energy.
>
> When we get this finished later in the summer, I will send photos and
invite
> visits.
>
> Neal Van Milligen
> www.kentuckyenrichment.com

From renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ Fri Apr 9 22:50:24 2004
From: renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ (Ken Calvert)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Biomass Cars
In-Reply-To: <00fe01c41d05$0f9dac50$f45a58db@STEVE5DVH1TDNY>
Message-ID: <SAT.10.APR.2004.145024.1200.RENERTECH@XTRA.CO.NZ>

Gentlemen,
I have followed your lines of thought with great interest, and
can't resist having a poke myself.
Steve, your comments about the availability of sufficient timber byproducts
to produce wood pellets as a major commodity are very true! However, what
is presently taken out of the bush, even in a clear felling operation, is
only the millable logs. There are lots of branches etc. that are left
behind. If these were left for long enough for all the leaves/ needles to
drop off, or,they wereput through some sort of chomper when the tree comes
down, then a continued harvesting operation could provide much much more
suitable biomass for a fuel pelleting operation than is presently available.
As I understand it,
Most of that material is usually burnt in situ, to give a clean area for
replanting the next generation of the cycle. Maybe someone can make biomass
pellets from coffee grounds. Or cereal straws.
However, my real question is directed at the instigator's of the biomass
cars debate.
What technology got away with 30 years ago in the way of emmissions is
history!
If the world is clamping down on automotive emmissions and Americans are
spending lots of dosh on catalytic converters and the like, then I think
that, in this day and age, the emmissions from biomass cars will be a real
nono. The crunch issue will be gas cleanup in a small portable package. In a
large stationary plant, or maybe taking 10% of the freight capacity of a
large transport vehicle, present technology could cope. But in a domestic
vehicle, someone is going to have to spend a lot of money to develop the
concept. The biggest killer of women and children in the third world, is the
smoke from domestic cooking on the traditional three stones fireplace. Wood
smoke might smell oh so nostalgic, but believe you me it's a killer! The
major carcinogins in tobacco smoke have nothing to do with nicotine! Ken C.

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On Behalf Of Steve Goldthorpe
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 1:02 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Biomass Cars

Lewis,

Regards

Steve

> to Bioenergy List from Lewis L. Smith
>
> Ref Tom Reed's posting of 06 Apr above subject. Very interesting
idea.
> During WW II, "biomass cars" were also used in Europe and Paraguay,
> among
other
> places. So there is a lot of experience, if we can only find where it
> is stored. [Probably mostly in people's heads.]
>
> I strongly recommend wood pellets. Pelletizing grasses and leaves
> is hard on the pelletizing dies, because of the amount of dirt which
inevitably
> attaches to this kind of vegetation. And one doesn't want to end up
washing the
> pelletizer feed, as they used to do in Hawaii with cane harvested with
> a
push
> rake.
>
> Cordially.
>
> End.

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Fri Apr 9 23:02:23 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Biomass Cars
Message-ID: <SAT.10.APR.2004.000223.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Calvert" <renertech@XTRA.CO.NZ>
...del...
> The crunch issue will be gas cleanup in a small portable package. In a
> large stationary plant, or maybe taking 10% of the freight capacity of a
> large transport vehicle, present technology could cope. But in a domestic
> vehicle, someone is going to have to spend a lot of money to develop the
> concept. The biggest killer of women and children in the third world, is
the
> smoke from domestic cooking on the traditional three stones fireplace.
Wood
> smoke might smell oh so nostalgic, but believe you me it's a killer! The
> major carcinogins in tobacco smoke have nothing to do with nicotine! Ken
C.
>
You indeed bring up a very important point. I would propose for your
consideration a "counterpoint" as follows:
"Tailpipe emissions from biomass vehicles will tend to be inherently clean,
because the gasifier operation will have to be so good that intake side will
not get tarred up. The fuel gas that actually gets to the engine will be
CO2,CO, H2O, H2 and Nitrogen. Emissions would be similar in quality to those
from a LPG or NG engine."

Would anyone have any data to support or negate this hypothesis?

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Sat Apr 10 10:07:08 2004
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Biomass Cars
Message-ID: <SAT.10.APR.2004.100708.EDT.>

Recent tests of gasifier gas operating a brick kiln using tires as feedstock
has shown 31% reduction in NOx, 94% reduction in CO emissions, 96% reduction
in TSP, over natural gas based on per mmbtu. So, natural gas burns cleaner than
gasoline and producer gas burns cleaner than natural gas. This is a bit of a
revelation for the regulatory agencies.

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 arnt at C2I.NET Sat Apr 10 11:33:29 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Biomass Cars
In-Reply-To: <129.3ec8a969.2da9598c@aol.com>
Message-ID: <SAT.10.APR.2004.173329.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 10:07:08 EDT, LINVENT@AOL.COM wrote in message
<129.3ec8a969.2da9598c@aol.com>:

> Recent tests of gasifier gas operating a brick kiln using tires as
> feedstock has shown 31% reduction in NOx, 94% reduction in CO
> emissions, 96% reduction in TSP, over natural gas based on per mmbtu.
> So, natural gas burns cleaner than gasoline and producer gas burns
> cleaner than natural gas. This is a bit of a revelation for the
> regulatory agencies.

..url?

--
..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 CAVM at AOL.COM Sat Apr 10 11:33:35 2004
From: CAVM at AOL.COM (C. Van Milligen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Biogas fueled cars
Message-ID: <SAT.10.APR.2004.113335.EDT.>

In a message dated 4/9/2004 11:00:20 PM Central Standard Time,
LISTSERV@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG writes:
Have you considered biogas as a fuel source for your stationary engines?

Art Krenzel, P.E.
Art, my site has 4 very large concrete silos left over from a previous
manufacturing activity. I intend to use three of them for sequential fixed film
digesters. The methane will be used for energy for various activities on the
project.

We are located about 4 miles from a 250 cow dairy that uses a separator on
its manure solids. I can obtain the solids for the freight. We have our own
semi-tractors plus the army trucks. So it should be a workable idea.

The digestate from the methane production will be used in our on site compost
facility.

Neal Van Milligen
www.kentuckyenrichment.com

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Sat Apr 10 17:56:09 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Skive Fjernvarme 5.5 MW Gasification CHP
Message-ID: <SAT.10.APR.2004.145609.0700.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Carbona has announced a 5.5 MWe gasification CHP plant to be built at Skive, Denmmark. It should be an interesting installation. Carbona will apparently use a fluidized bed followed by a catalyst tar cracker, hot gas filter, and wet scrubber before entering Jenbacher engines and a boiler which will provide 11.5 MW for heating.

See:

http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/carbona/Skive.pdf

or from the 200 kWCHP page select "Skive Fjernvarme":

http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html

Tom Miles

From MMBTUPR at AOL.COM Sun Apr 11 22:25:57 2004
From: MMBTUPR at AOL.COM (Lewis L. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: BioTen process
Message-ID: <SUN.11.APR.2004.222557.EDT.>

to Gasification List from Lewis L.
Smith

Someone recently posted an inquiry about this direct-burn process.

A demonstration unit supplied electricity to TVA for over 5,000 hours
before negotiations over contract renewal broke down for reasons which I do
not know. The process was subsequently acquired by BioSolutions, 512 Main
Street, Lafayette IN 47901-1445, which now offers it for sale.

For more info, contact the firms president, Dr. Robert M. Stwalley PE at
< bstwalley@yahoo.com > . [The last name is correct. It is spelled "s",
"t", "w" etc.]

Cordially

From hli at TKOL.DK Mon Apr 12 08:31:43 2004
From: hli at TKOL.DK (Henrik Iversen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
Message-ID: <MON.12.APR.2004.083143.0400.HLI@TKOL.DK>

Dear all

I?m doing an update on gas cleaning technologies for biomass gasification
gas (for application at larger scale). I?m looking at recent progress in
the area. (last 4-5 years).

This includes cleaning for: particles, alkali compounds, tars, nitrogen-
containing-components. But most of all the tar problem.

Do any of you have recent information on biomass gasification gas cleaning
technologies?

Best regards

Henrik Iversen

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Mon Apr 12 09:18:48 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
Message-ID: <MON.12.APR.2004.101848.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Henrik

I would suggest that There are two fundamental ways to get clean gas through
a biomass gasification process:
1: Producing the gas with the least amount of tars and impurities present.
2: Removing the impurities from the gas after it is produced.

I was wondering if the purpose of your study is such that you could look for
both kinds of "impurity reduction technologies?

Will you be able to post the results of your study?

Thanks very much!

Kevin Chisholm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henrik Iversen" <hli@TKOL.DK>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 9:31 AM
Subject: [GASL] Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)

Dear all

I'm doing an update on gas cleaning technologies for biomass gasification
gas (for application at larger scale). I'm looking at recent progress in
the area. (last 4-5 years).

This includes cleaning for: particles, alkali compounds, tars, nitrogen-
containing-components. But most of all the tar problem.

Do any of you have recent information on biomass gasification gas cleaning
technologies?

Best regards

Henrik Iversen

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Mon Apr 12 10:11:42 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
Message-ID: <MON.12.APR.2004.091142.0500.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Hello Henrik and all.

To my knowledge, there is a person, or smaller company, that is
using horse manure as a filter agent, it appears that the
biological process involved in the real-time filter process
it fantastic !

The only problem is I can't remember the web link I saw it all in...

Evidently there is a special process happening using horse, as
cow or others do NOT have the same effect in the processing of
the gas stream.

Regards,
Greg Manning

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Henrik Iversen
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 7:32 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)

Dear all

I?m doing an update on gas cleaning technologies for biomass gasification
gas (for application at larger scale). I?m looking at recent progress in
the area. (last 4-5 years).

This includes cleaning for: particles, alkali compounds, tars, nitrogen-
containing-components. But most of all the tar problem.

Do any of you have recent information on biomass gasification gas cleaning
technologies?

Best regards

Henrik Iversen

From hli at TKOL.DK Mon Apr 12 10:54:46 2004
From: hli at TKOL.DK (Henrik Laudal Iversen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
Message-ID: <MON.12.APR.2004.165446.0200.HLI@TKOL.DK>

Dear Kevin and all

I'm looking at new techniques for gas cleaning (or old ones that have been
developed), and which plants are using the new techniques. And what has
happened in the area the last 4-5 years.

> I would suggest that There are two fundamental ways to get clean gas
through
> a biomass gasification process:
> 1: Producing the gas with the least amount of tars and impurities present.
> 2: Removing the impurities from the gas after it is produced.
>
> I was wondering if the purpose of your study is such that you could look
for
> both kinds of "impurity reduction technologies?

I am mostly looking at number 2, because for applications such as gas
engines and gas turbines the product gas has to be considerably clean. (more
clean for use in gas turbines). More clean gas than it's possible to produce
without gas cleaning (complex or simple cleaning systems). But you are right
with number 1. I think a combination of the two is the best solution, if
there is a need for a very clean gas.

Best regards

Henrik

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>
To: "Henrik Iversen" <hli@TKOL.DK>; <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)

> Dear Henrik
>
> I would suggest that There are two fundamental ways to get clean gas
through
> a biomass gasification process:
> 1: Producing the gas with the least amount of tars and impurities present.
> 2: Removing the impurities from the gas after it is produced.
>
> I was wondering if the purpose of your study is such that you could look
for
> both kinds of "impurity reduction technologies?
>
> Will you be able to post the results of your study?
>
> Thanks very much!
>
> Kevin Chisholm

From JMonteroA at ICE.GO.CR Mon Apr 12 12:06:54 2004
From: JMonteroA at ICE.GO.CR (Montero Arguedas Jorge Mario)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Biomass Cars
Message-ID: <MON.12.APR.2004.100654.0600.JMONTEROA@ICE.GO.CR>

Also what about the solid residue ? What logistics to dispose it ? At what
cost ?

Jorge.

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net]
> Enviado el: Friday, April 09, 2004 9:02 PM
> Para: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Asunto: Re: [GASL] Biomass Cars
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Calvert" <renertech@XTRA.CO.NZ>
> ...del...
> > The crunch issue will be gas cleanup in a small portable
> package. In a
> > large stationary plant, or maybe taking 10% of the freight
> capacity of a
> > large transport vehicle, present technology could cope.
> But in a domestic
> > vehicle, someone is going to have to spend a lot of money
> to develop the
> > concept. The biggest killer of women and children in the
> third world, is
> the
> > smoke from domestic cooking on the traditional three stones
> fireplace.
> Wood
> > smoke might smell oh so nostalgic, but believe you me it's
> a killer! The
> > major carcinogins in tobacco smoke have nothing to do with
> nicotine! Ken
> C.
> >
> You indeed bring up a very important point. I would propose for your
> consideration a "counterpoint" as follows:
> "Tailpipe emissions from biomass vehicles will tend to be
> inherently clean,
> because the gasifier operation will have to be so good that
> intake side will
> not get tarred up. The fuel gas that actually gets to the
> engine will be
> CO2,CO, H2O, H2 and Nitrogen. Emissions would be similar in
> quality to those
> from a LPG or NG engine."
>
> Would anyone have any data to support or negate this hypothesis?
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>

From renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ Mon Apr 12 23:11:26 2004
From: renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ (Ken Calvert)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
In-Reply-To: <LISTSERV%2004041208314336@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Message-ID: <TUE.13.APR.2004.151126.1200.RENERTECH@XTRA.CO.NZ>

Henrik, Hi!
I will give you the best solution that I have seen, and it was
closer to 50 years ago rather than 5. In theory, the incandescent carbon
in the throat of the gasifier should be able to convert everything to clean
gas, CO and H2. The problem is the rate at which the products of combustion
have to pass through the relatively small incandescent zone, as compared to
the time required to get a state of thermal equilibrium. And, that same
time has to incorporate the raising of the temperature a further several
hundred degrees. What the folks/blokes in Western Australia did, was to
extend this time by taking the hot gas from under the throat through a 180o
bend, to remove ash and solids and up through a small up draft gasifier unit
clipped on the side and running on clean dust free charcoal. Because the
gas was already hot, and steam etc was at a minimum, it was easy to maintain
a really high temperature in that carbon bed by bleeding a relatively small
amount of dry air into the gas stream. The bed could be quite deep, and give
much more time for equilibrium conditions to be reached, and because a
relatively small amount of major reaction was going on, that bed of fine
lump charcoal lasted much much longer than the bulk fuel in the main hopper
of the gasifier. In essence what they got was an incandescing carbon filter
system which worked a treat, was small enough to fit on the side of a car,
and during wartime conditions, charcoal was everywhere and 'dirt cheap'.
For our day and age, we would be also looking at what the equilibrium
conditions are at a range of temperatures and perhaps tweaking the system
to move that equilibrium towards maximizing the hydrogen, or any other set
of conditions that we might be aiming for. The theory that we worked on was
to try and cool the gas stream as quickly as possible to below 500oC, to
freeze the high temperature equilibrium, because things got was decidedly
negative at the intermediate temperatures between 1000 and 600oC or
thereabouts. From memory they pulled the gas out of the charcoal cleaner
through a small orifice to create As big an expansion as possible at that
point.
A.T.B. Ken C.

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List [mailto:] On Behalf Of Henrik Iversen
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 12:32 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)

Dear all

I'm doing an update on gas cleaning technologies for biomass gasification
gas (for application at larger scale). I'm looking at recent progress in the
area. (last 4-5 years).

This includes cleaning for: particles, alkali compounds, tars, nitrogen-
containing-components. But most of all the tar problem.

Do any of you have recent information on biomass gasification gas cleaning
technologies?

Best regards

Henrik Iversen

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Tue Apr 13 08:36:09 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Biomass Cars Emissions and Residue
Message-ID: <TUE.13.APR.2004.063609.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Jorge, Kevin and all:

The last step in well run gasification is the breakdown of the cellular
lattice into ~10-50 micron bits of cell wall that blow into the cyclone.
They still contain most of the original mineral matter.

All indications are that the ~4% Carbon dust with 20-50% minieral makes an
excellent soil amendment, since it contains both carbon and the minerals
that the plant removed initially from the soil.

As Kevin says, a suitable engine will burn the CO-H2-Methane mixture cleanly
and efficiently. So, net environmental impact very positive.

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF

----- Original Message -----
From: "Montero Arguedas Jorge Mario" <JMonteroA@ICE.GO.CR>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Biomass Cars

> Also what about the solid residue ? What logistics to dispose it ? At what
> cost ?
>
> Jorge.
>
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net]
> > Enviado el: Friday, April 09, 2004 9:02 PM
> > Para: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> > Asunto: Re: [GASL] Biomass Cars
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ken Calvert" <renertech@XTRA.CO.NZ>
> > ...del...
> > > The crunch issue will be gas cleanup in a small portable
> > package. In a
> > > large stationary plant, or maybe taking 10% of the freight
> > capacity of a
> > > large transport vehicle, present technology could cope.
> > But in a domestic
> > > vehicle, someone is going to have to spend a lot of money
> > to develop the
> > > concept. The biggest killer of women and children in the
> > third world, is
> > the
> > > smoke from domestic cooking on the traditional three stones
> > fireplace.
> > Wood
> > > smoke might smell oh so nostalgic, but believe you me it's
> > a killer! The
> > > major carcinogins in tobacco smoke have nothing to do with
> > nicotine! Ken
> > C.
> > >
> > You indeed bring up a very important point. I would propose for your
> > consideration a "counterpoint" as follows:
> > "Tailpipe emissions from biomass vehicles will tend to be
> > inherently clean,
> > because the gasifier operation will have to be so good that
> > intake side will
> > not get tarred up. The fuel gas that actually gets to the
> > engine will be
> > CO2,CO, H2O, H2 and Nitrogen. Emissions would be similar in
> > quality to those
> > from a LPG or NG engine."
> >
> > Would anyone have any data to support or negate this hypothesis?
> >
> > Kindest regards,
> >
> > Kevin Chisholm
> >

From oscar at GEPROP.CU Tue Apr 13 08:39:33 2004
From: oscar at GEPROP.CU (=?utf-8?Q?Oscar_Jim=C3=A9nez?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
Message-ID: <TUE.13.APR.2004.083933.0400.OSCAR@GEPROP.CU>

Dear Mr. Henrik Iversen and all.

I am also really interested in producer gas cleaning technologies. Recently I had been looking for some hints addressing newer insight on this issue capable of really guarantying a wholly gas clean-up. Unfortunately it seems that no completely tar free gas is achieved using currently state-of-the art technologies. Many researchs focus on the pollution problems coming from cleaning waste disposal (mainly water used for gas clean up). On the other hand, as far as I know, this last issue has not been solved. Hence it will be really fantastic that any one on the list can bring some light which help in solving this important matter.

Kind regards.

Oscar.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Henrik Iversen [mailto:hli@TKOL.DK]
Enviado el: lun 12/04/2004 8:31
Para: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
CC:
Asunto: [GASL] Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)

Dear all

I?m doing an update on gas cleaning technologies for biomass gasification
gas (for application at larger scale). I?m looking at recent progress in
the area. (last 4-5 years).

This includes cleaning for: particles, alkali compounds, tars, nitrogen-
containing-components. But most of all the tar problem.

Do any of you have recent information on biomass gasification gas cleaning
technologies?

Best regards

Henrik Iversen

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Tue Apr 13 08:53:53 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
Message-ID: <TUE.13.APR.2004.065353.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Ken, Henrik and All:

Lots of good thoughts emerging about gasifier for transport.

Ken's post treatment has considerable chemical merit. It is often claimed
that passing producer gas through the final charcoal bed will crack the
tars.

Not so! The CO2 and H2O in the gases react at a good rate down to 750-800C,
making more CO and H2 (good for fuel production), but these endothermic
reactions quench the bed very rapidly (bad for cracking).

The addition of some extra air in this zone forms a "secondary charcoal
gasifier" and keeps the temperature up and promotes tar destruction. This
effect was exploited by Prof. Mukunda at the Bangalore IISc in the early
1990s to make the low tar gasifiers now being produced in India and now used
in a more controlled manner by CPC to make "tarfree, turnkey" gasifiers in
the US. It sounds like the Australian technique is quite similar except
with more separation between the flaming pyrolysis zone and the final
charcoal gasifier.

One problem with excess air addition is that the carbon-air flame
temperature is 1400C, uncomfortably exothermic and high for most metals.
This can be moderated with wet air since the carbon-steam reaction is very
endothermic (and makes more H2).

Small gasifiers have suffered from an excess of mechanical ingenuity without
sufficient understanding of the thermal/chemical processes going on. I hope
all of us at GASIFICATION can think more fundamentally about the thermal and
chemical processes going on as we try to evolve better small and large
gasifiers.

Yours truly, Thomas B. Reed Moderator
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Calvert" <renertech@XTRA.CO.NZ>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)

> Henrik, Hi!
> I will give you the best solution that I have seen, and it was
> closer to 50 years ago rather than 5. In theory, the incandescent carbon
> in the throat of the gasifier should be able to convert everything to
clean
> gas, CO and H2. The problem is the rate at which the products of
combustion
> have to pass through the relatively small incandescent zone, as compared
to
> the time required to get a state of thermal equilibrium. And, that same
> time has to incorporate the raising of the temperature a further several
> hundred degrees. What the folks/blokes in Western Australia did, was to
> extend this time by taking the hot gas from under the throat through a
180o
> bend, to remove ash and solids and up through a small up draft gasifier
unit
> clipped on the side and running on clean dust free charcoal. Because the
> gas was already hot, and steam etc was at a minimum, it was easy to
maintain
> a really high temperature in that carbon bed by bleeding a relatively
small
> amount of dry air into the gas stream. The bed could be quite deep, and
give
> much more time for equilibrium conditions to be reached, and because a
> relatively small amount of major reaction was going on, that bed of fine
> lump charcoal lasted much much longer than the bulk fuel in the main
hopper
> of the gasifier. In essence what they got was an incandescing carbon
filter
> system which worked a treat, was small enough to fit on the side of a car,
> and during wartime conditions, charcoal was everywhere and 'dirt cheap'.
> For our day and age, we would be also looking at what the equilibrium
> conditions are at a range of temperatures and perhaps tweaking the system
> to move that equilibrium towards maximizing the hydrogen, or any other set
> of conditions that we might be aiming for. The theory that we worked on
was
> to try and cool the gas stream as quickly as possible to below 500oC, to
> freeze the high temperature equilibrium, because things got was decidedly
> negative at the intermediate temperatures between 1000 and 600oC or
> thereabouts. From memory they pulled the gas out of the charcoal cleaner
> through a small orifice to create As big an expansion as possible at that

> point.
> A.T.B. Ken C.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Gasification Discussion List [mailto:] On Behalf Of Henrik
Iversen
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 12:32 AM
> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: [GASL] Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
>
> Dear all
>
> I'm doing an update on gas cleaning technologies for biomass gasification
> gas (for application at larger scale). I'm looking at recent progress in
the
> area. (last 4-5 years).
>
> This includes cleaning for: particles, alkali compounds, tars, nitrogen-
> containing-components. But most of all the tar problem.
>
> Do any of you have recent information on biomass gasification gas cleaning
> technologies?
>
> Best regards
>
> Henrik Iversen

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Tue Apr 13 09:01:43 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
Message-ID: <TUE.13.APR.2004.070143.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Ken, Henrik and all:

Absolutely "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" and the
removing the tars in the gasifier is the main reason that downdraft
gasifiers are necessary for small systems.

The Australian technique below, IISc/Bangalore gasifiers and the CPC
gasifiers are all low tar and rely on introduction of more air before the
final charcoal gasification step. Otherwise the endothermic
charcoal-CO2-H2O reactions quench the gas below 750C and all tar destruction
action stops.

Tom Reed Gasification Moderator
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Calvert" <renertech@XTRA.CO.NZ>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Tue Apr 13 09:17:23 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
In-Reply-To: <00ac01c42156$6054a2c0$6401a8c0@TOM>
Message-ID: <TUE.13.APR.2004.081723.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

Would it help to use refractory insulation in the gasifier to keep temps
up? And if you did that, could you then use wetter fuels? I'm more than a bit
unclear as to why moisture in the fuel doesn't work as well as adding steam or
wet air.

On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 06:53:53AM -0600, TBReed wrote:
> Dear Ken, Henrik and All:
>
> Lots of good thoughts emerging about gasifier for transport.
>
> Ken's post treatment has considerable chemical merit. It is often claimed
> that passing producer gas through the final charcoal bed will crack the
> tars.
>
> Not so! The CO2 and H2O in the gases react at a good rate down to 750-800C,
> making more CO and H2 (good for fuel production), but these endothermic
> reactions quench the bed very rapidly (bad for cracking).
>
> The addition of some extra air in this zone forms a "secondary charcoal
> gasifier" and keeps the temperature up and promotes tar destruction. This
> effect was exploited by Prof. Mukunda at the Bangalore IISc in the early
> 1990s to make the low tar gasifiers now being produced in India and now used
> in a more controlled manner by CPC to make "tarfree, turnkey" gasifiers in
> the US. It sounds like the Australian technique is quite similar except
> with more separation between the flaming pyrolysis zone and the final
> charcoal gasifier.
>
> One problem with excess air addition is that the carbon-air flame
> temperature is 1400C, uncomfortably exothermic and high for most metals.
> This can be moderated with wet air since the carbon-steam reaction is very
> endothermic (and makes more H2).
>
> Small gasifiers have suffered from an excess of mechanical ingenuity without
> sufficient understanding of the thermal/chemical processes going on. I hope
> all of us at GASIFICATION can think more fundamentally about the thermal and
> chemical processes going on as we try to evolve better small and large
> gasifiers.
>
> Yours truly, Thomas B. Reed Moderator
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Calvert" <renertech@XTRA.CO.NZ>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 9:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
>
>
> > Henrik, Hi!
> > I will give you the best solution that I have seen, and it was
> > closer to 50 years ago rather than 5. In theory, the incandescent carbon
> > in the throat of the gasifier should be able to convert everything to
> clean
> > gas, CO and H2. The problem is the rate at which the products of
> combustion
> > have to pass through the relatively small incandescent zone, as compared
> to
> > the time required to get a state of thermal equilibrium. And, that same
> > time has to incorporate the raising of the temperature a further several
> > hundred degrees. What the folks/blokes in Western Australia did, was to
> > extend this time by taking the hot gas from under the throat through a
> 180o
> > bend, to remove ash and solids and up through a small up draft gasifier
> unit
> > clipped on the side and running on clean dust free charcoal. Because the
> > gas was already hot, and steam etc was at a minimum, it was easy to
> maintain
> > a really high temperature in that carbon bed by bleeding a relatively
> small
> > amount of dry air into the gas stream. The bed could be quite deep, and
> give
> > much more time for equilibrium conditions to be reached, and because a
> > relatively small amount of major reaction was going on, that bed of fine
> > lump charcoal lasted much much longer than the bulk fuel in the main
> hopper
> > of the gasifier. In essence what they got was an incandescing carbon
> filter
> > system which worked a treat, was small enough to fit on the side of a car,
> > and during wartime conditions, charcoal was everywhere and 'dirt cheap'.
> > For our day and age, we would be also looking at what the equilibrium
> > conditions are at a range of temperatures and perhaps tweaking the system
> > to move that equilibrium towards maximizing the hydrogen, or any other set
> > of conditions that we might be aiming for. The theory that we worked on
> was
> > to try and cool the gas stream as quickly as possible to below 500oC, to
> > freeze the high temperature equilibrium, because things got was decidedly
> > negative at the intermediate temperatures between 1000 and 600oC or
> > thereabouts. From memory they pulled the gas out of the charcoal cleaner
> > through a small orifice to create As big an expansion as possible at that
>
> > point.
> > A.T.B. Ken C.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: The Gasification Discussion List [mailto:] On Behalf Of Henrik
> Iversen
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 12:32 AM
> > To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> > Subject: [GASL] Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
> >
> > Dear all
> >
> > I'm doing an update on gas cleaning technologies for biomass gasification
> > gas (for application at larger scale). I'm looking at recent progress in
> the
> > area. (last 4-5 years).
> >
> > This includes cleaning for: particles, alkali compounds, tars, nitrogen-
> > containing-components. But most of all the tar problem.
> >
> > Do any of you have recent information on biomass gasification gas cleaning
> > technologies?
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Henrik Iversen

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com
Hoka hey!

From Arotstein at ORMAT.COM Tue Apr 13 13:25:47 2004
From: Arotstein at ORMAT.COM (Ariel Rotstein)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Biomass Chipper
Message-ID: <TUE.13.APR.2004.192547.0200.AROTSTEIN@ORMAT.COM>

Dear list,

I am looking for a small electrical biomass chipper, . It should be able to chip wood to diameter not bigger then 3/4" and length of not longer then 2".
The biomass will be fuelled into a furnace. It should be electrical as I don't want to use fossil fuel for its operation, with 2 kW maximum power requirement.
If anyone knows of any supplier, please let me know.

Thanks,
Ariel

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Tue Apr 13 13:20:44 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Biomass Chipper
Message-ID: <TUE.13.APR.2004.142044.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Ariel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ariel Rotstein" <Arotstein@ORMAT.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 2:25 PM
Subject: [GASL] Biomass Chipper

> Dear list,
>
> I am looking for a small electrical biomass chipper, . It should be able
to chip wood to diameter not bigger then 3/4" and length of not longer then
2".

1: What is the size of the wood being fed to the chipper?
2: Will it be hand fed?
3: Did you have a desired hourly production rate in mind?
4: Do you require only one of them?

> The biomass will be fuelled into a furnace.

This could be a reasonable fuel for a furnace, but it might not be an ideal
fuel for a gasifier. How do you propose to feed the chipped fuel to the
furnace? (Shovel, vibrating conveyor, screw conveyor, etc)

It should be electrical as I don't want to use fossil fuel for its
operation, with 2 kW maximum power requirement.
> If anyone knows of any supplier, please let me know.

From Arotstein at ORMAT.COM Tue Apr 13 14:48:30 2004
From: Arotstein at ORMAT.COM (Ariel Rotstein)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: FW: [GALS] Biomass Chipper
Message-ID: <TUE.13.APR.2004.204830.0200.AROTSTEIN@ORMAT.COM>

Dear Kevin,

The main constraint is capacity not exceeding 2 kW, as this is the maximum power I can supply.
The rate can be few kilograms per hour.
The feeding is with two options: One is a silo filled manually and then automatically is fed into the chipper, the second option is a constant manual feeding of the chipper.
For now I require one. If it will proof itself then the quantity will increase.
The biomass is corncob and wood trimmings such as pine tree hand made trimmings.

The chipped fuel will be manually loaded to the furnace container and from there with a screw conveyer to the combustion chamber.

Ariel

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 7:21 PM
To: Ariel Rotstein; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Biomass Chipper

Dear Ariel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ariel Rotstein" <Arotstein@ORMAT.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 2:25 PM
Subject: [GASL] Biomass Chipper

> Dear list,
>
> I am looking for a small electrical biomass chipper, . It should be able
to chip wood to diameter not bigger then 3/4" and length of not longer then
2".

1: What is the size of the wood being fed to the chipper?
2: Will it be hand fed?
3: Did you have a desired hourly production rate in mind?
4: Do you require only one of them?

> The biomass will be fuelled into a furnace.

It should be electrical as I don't want to use fossil fuel for its
operation, with 2 kW maximum power requirement.
> If anyone knows of any supplier, please let me know.

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Tue Apr 13 14:06:27 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: FW: [GALS] Biomass Chipper
In-Reply-To: <7AE84FC91388474AB37B4FBEF2FF41F3D1F1B4@ex2k.ormat.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.13.APR.2004.130627.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

Have you tried Google? I just put in "electric chipper" and got 38,300 hits.
But a 2kw chipper isn't going to do much.

On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 08:48:30PM +0200, Ariel Rotstein wrote:
> Dear Kevin,
>
> The main constraint is capacity not exceeding 2 kW, as this is the maximum power I can supply.
> The rate can be few kilograms per hour.
> The feeding is with two options: One is a silo filled manually and then automatically is fed into the chipper, the second option is a constant manual feeding of the chipper.
> For now I require one. If it will proof itself then the quantity will increase.
> The biomass is corncob and wood trimmings such as pine tree hand made trimmings.
>
> The chipped fuel will be manually loaded to the furnace container and from there with a screw conveyer to the combustion chamber.
>
> Ariel
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 7:21 PM
> To: Ariel Rotstein; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Biomass Chipper
>
>
> Dear Ariel
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ariel Rotstein" <Arotstein@ORMAT.COM>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 2:25 PM
> Subject: [GASL] Biomass Chipper
>
>
> > Dear list,
> >
> > I am looking for a small electrical biomass chipper, . It should be able
> to chip wood to diameter not bigger then 3/4" and length of not longer then
> 2".
>
> 1: What is the size of the wood being fed to the chipper?
> 2: Will it be hand fed?
> 3: Did you have a desired hourly production rate in mind?
> 4: Do you require only one of them?
>
> > The biomass will be fuelled into a furnace.
>
> This could be a reasonable fuel for a furnace, but it might not be an ideal
> fuel for a gasifier. How do you propose to feed the chipped fuel to the
> furnace? (Shovel, vibrating conveyor, screw conveyor, etc)
>
> It should be electrical as I don't want to use fossil fuel for its
> operation, with 2 kW maximum power requirement.
> > If anyone knows of any supplier, please let me know.

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com
Hoka hey!

From Arotstein at ORMAT.COM Wed Apr 14 10:16:31 2004
From: Arotstein at ORMAT.COM (Ariel Rotstein)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: FW: [GALS] Biomass Chipper
Message-ID: <WED.14.APR.2004.161631.0200.AROTSTEIN@ORMAT.COM>

I have seen electrical chippers in the range of 1500-2500 kW. Such as:
http://www.cleanairgardening.com/ch.html
http://www.gonegardening.com/xq/ASP/dept_id.50/pf_id.0005065/referer.3QUAVWB82WTM9NFCAXPJFQSX8B500439/qx/gg_shop/product.htm
http://www.mowdirect.co.uk/acatalog/MowDIRECT_ALKO_GARDEN_SHREDDERS_1210.html
http://www.mowdirect.co.uk/acatalog/MowDIRECT_ATCO_GARDEN_SHREDDERS_1211.html

They claim they can chip branches in the diameter range of 30-40 mm.
Does anyone have experience with these chippers, or with others and could suggest a reliable one. Do they stand

Thanks,
Ariel

-----Original Message-----
From: Harmon Seaver [mailto:hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 8:06 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] FW: [GALS] Biomass Chipper

Have you tried Google? I just put in "electric chipper" and got 38,300 hits.
But a 2kw chipper isn't going to do much.

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com
Hoka hey!

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Wed Apr 14 09:41:14 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: FW: [GALS] Biomass Chipper
In-Reply-To: <7AE84FC91388474AB37B4FBEF2FF41F3D1F3F8@ex2k.ormat.com>
Message-ID: <WED.14.APR.2004.084114.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 04:16:31PM +0200, Ariel Rotstein wrote:
> I have seen electrical chippers in the range of 1500-2500 kW. Such as:
> http://www.cleanairgardening.com/ch.html
> http://www.gonegardening.com/xq/ASP/dept_id.50/pf_id.0005065/referer.3QUAVWB82WTM9NFCAXPJFQSX8B500439/qx/gg_shop/product.htm
> http://www.mowdirect.co.uk/acatalog/MowDIRECT_ALKO_GARDEN_SHREDDERS_1210.html
> http://www.mowdirect.co.uk/acatalog/MowDIRECT_ATCO_GARDEN_SHREDDERS_1211.html
>
> They claim they can chip branches in the diameter range of 30-40 mm.
> Does anyone have experience with these chippers, or with others and could suggest a reliable one. Do they stand
>

Haven't tried one of those, but I have used a 10hp gasoline powered chipper,
and have also used extensively a more industrial sized chipper (like you would
see tree trimmers or the local utility company using) and the 10hp seemed pretty
slow, okay for doing up your yard waste, which is what they are designed
for. I'd much rather have one that ran off a tractor PTO at least if I were
chipping to feed a gasifier or chipburning boiler.
Have you considered getting a diesel powered chipper and running it on
waste veggie oil?

--
Harmon Seaver
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com
Hoka hey!

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Thu Apr 15 09:59:56 2004
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
Message-ID: <THU.15.APR.2004.095956.EDT.>

In a message dated 4/13/04 6:41:47 AM, oscar@GEPROP.CU writes:

<< Dear Mr. Henrik Iversen and all.

I am also really interested in producer gas cleaning technologies. Recently I
had been looking for some hints addressing newer insight on this issue
capable of really guarantying a wholly gas clean-up. Unfortunately it seems that no
completely tar free gas is achieved using currently state-of-the art
technologies. Many researchs focus on the pollution problems coming from cleaning waste
disposal (mainly water used for gas clean up). On the other hand, as far as I
know, this last issue has not been solved. Hence it will be really fantastic
that any one on the list can bring some light which help in solving this
important matter.

Kind regards.

Oscar. >>

Dear Oscar,
The water cleaning issue has been successfully addressed also.
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.

From sheltonvictor at YAHOO.CO.IN Thu Apr 15 14:24:21 2004
From: sheltonvictor at YAHOO.CO.IN (=?iso-8859-1?q?shelton=20victor?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Carbon Dioxide gasification
In-Reply-To: <001801c3cf63$7907eba0$5b28d4d8@main>
Message-ID: <THU.15.APR.2004.192421.0100.SHELTONVICTOR@YAHOO.CO.IN>

hello

how does carbon dioxide affects gasiifcation if injected seprately,suppose say 5% of the air supplied, especially in terms of gas composition and also with respect to the bed temprature.kindly forward the details.

thank you

Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online.

From snkm at BTL.NET Thu Apr 15 19:32:32 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
Message-ID: <THU.15.APR.2004.173232.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

One of the techniques peripherally mentioned that does do a complete job of
this --

Passing the product through a steam reforming device.

This will convert all tars to gas --

Sure -- it takes heat to do this -- but that is not lost heat -- rather
heat invested to producing a richer heat value gas --

Well -- some is lost in efficiencies -- believe the figure is 80%
efficiency -- so 20% "lost" -- 80% invested.

But then tars end up "good" gas -- mostly methane. And tars are a loss in
under normal circumstances.

Another way to investigate -- catalytic converters as used presently on
wood stoves.

Same deal -- but less temperature required.

Peter / Belize

At 09:59 AM 4/15/2004 EDT, LINVENT@AOL.COM wrote:
>In a message dated 4/13/04 6:41:47 AM, oscar@GEPROP.CU writes:
>
><< Dear Mr. Henrik Iversen and all.
>
>
>
>I am also really interested in producer gas cleaning technologies. Recently I
>had been looking for some hints addressing newer insight on this issue
>capable of really guarantying a wholly gas clean-up. Unfortunately it
seems that no
>completely tar free gas is achieved using currently state-of-the art
>technologies. Many researchs focus on the pollution problems coming from
cleaning waste
>disposal (mainly water used for gas clean up). On the other hand, as far as I
>know, this last issue has not been solved. Hence it will be really fantastic
>that any one on the list can bring some light which help in solving this
>important matter.
>
>
>
>Kind regards.
>
>
>
>Oscar. >>
>
>Dear Oscar,
> The water cleaning issue has been successfully addressed also.
>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.
>

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Fri Apr 16 09:56:46 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040415153348.009f3190@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <FRI.16.APR.2004.085646.0500.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Good Day, Peter and all,

I wholeheartedly agree that gas cleaning is a good thing, however,
If the production unit (gasifier, stove, etc.) is only "vaguely"
efficient, then gas cleaning is totally necessary, and almost a "clean air"
requirement.

I'm not saying "I can", rather "we should", be looking "up stream" in the
gas flow, rather than down stream.

Catalytic cleaning of the gas flow, I would think, is a downhill adventure,
in the fact that catalytic cleaning requires an almost exothermic heat
reaction to do it's job, I would think that in order to get a catalytic to
the temperature required to do a proper cleaning job, the heat required
would be most of the gas produced, being burned off, to heat the catalytic
unit in the first place.

Note: this would be a good thing, IF, and only IF, one was seeking Heat only
output from this unit.

However, having originally gone the route of a "heat only" gasifier, and now
moving to a CHP system, the requirement of cleaning does intensely come to
the forefront.

I to, have done research into "cleaning" and the only solution I found that
was even remotely sustainable in my area, is "horse dung", NOT cow, NOT
sheep, ONLY horse! The "what" & "why" of this still needs massive research
into it's potential.

It appears that what a horse produces for waste is a great filter agent for
producer gas, the dung can be dry, however it will remove moisture from the
gas stream, and become very wet, therefore a sieve style container would be
required to do the filtering. I have been told that the process is
biological in nature, but have no understanding of it yet.

(If one needs to filter, and that is the whole question in the first
place)....

The route I have gone is to produce a cleaner gas in the first place,
therefore Hopefully only requiring a cyclone fly ash separator, time will
tell on this adventure.

Will post my findings, as time permits.

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Peter Singfield
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 6:33 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)

One of the techniques peripherally mentioned that does do a complete job of
this --

Passing the product through a steam reforming device.

This will convert all tars to gas --

Sure -- it takes heat to do this -- but that is not lost heat -- rather
heat invested to producing a richer heat value gas --

Well -- some is lost in efficiencies -- believe the figure is 80%
efficiency -- so 20% "lost" -- 80% invested.

But then tars end up "good" gas -- mostly methane. And tars are a loss in
under normal circumstances.

Another way to investigate -- catalytic converters as used presently on
wood stoves.

Same deal -- but less temperature required.

Peter / Belize

At 09:59 AM 4/15/2004 EDT, LINVENT@AOL.COM wrote:
>In a message dated 4/13/04 6:41:47 AM, oscar@GEPROP.CU writes:
>
><< Dear Mr. Henrik Iversen and all.
>
>
>
>I am also really interested in producer gas cleaning technologies. Recently
I
>had been looking for some hints addressing newer insight on this issue
>capable of really guarantying a wholly gas clean-up. Unfortunately it
seems that no
>completely tar free gas is achieved using currently state-of-the art
>technologies. Many researchs focus on the pollution problems coming from
cleaning waste
>disposal (mainly water used for gas clean up). On the other hand, as far as
I
>know, this last issue has not been solved. Hence it will be really
fantastic
>that any one on the list can bring some light which help in solving this
>important matter.
>
>
>
>Kind regards.
>
>
>
>Oscar. >>
>
>Dear Oscar,
> The water cleaning issue has been successfully addressed also.
>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.
>

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Sat Apr 17 09:22:46 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
Message-ID: <SAT.17.APR.2004.072246.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Gas Cleaners (I hope, you hope):

"Tars are the Achilles heel of biomass gasification". So I am glad that the
recent discussions have focussed on them. However, there is a lot of
reinventing the wheel going on here.

I hesitate to use this list to advertise, but when I hear all this
speculation it is time to list some sources you may have missed. They are
available at my website www.woodgas.com and you can order through Amazon.
The most pertinent are...

BIOMASS GASIFIER "TARS": THEIR NATURE, FORMATION, AND CONVERSION: T. Milne,
N. Abatzoglou, & R. J. Evans. "Tars" are the Achilles Heel of gasification.
This thorough work explores the chemical nature of tars, their generation,
and methods for testing and destroying them.
ISBN 1-890607-14-2 180 pp
$25

CONTAMINANT TESTING FOR GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS: A. Das (TIPI 1989). Test
that gas for tar! Long engine life and reliable operation requires a gas
with less than 30 mg of tar and particulates per cubic meter (30 ppm). The
simplified test methods described here are adapted from standard ASTM and
EPA test procedures for sampling and analyzing char, tar and ash in the gas.
Suitable for raw and cleaned gas. New edition & figures, 1999. ISBN
1-890607-04-5 32 pp $10

BIOMASS DOWNDRAFT GASIFIER ENGINE SYSTEMS HANDBOOK: T. Reed and A. Das,
(SERI-1988) Over a million wood gasifiers were used to power cars and trucks
during World War II. Yet, after over two decades of interest, there are only
a few companies manufacturing gasifier systems. The authors have spent more
than 20 years working with various gasifier systems, In this book they
discuss ALL the factors that must be correct to have a successful "gasifier
power system." Our most popular book, the "new Testament" of gasification
ISBN 1-890607-00-2 140 pp
$25

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

but many of the others will contain a chapter or two on gas cleanup.
Certainly the wisest advice is to design the gasifier for minimal tar
production in the first place. Updraft gasifiers typically produce
100,000-200,000 ppm. Fluid bed gasifiers produce 10,000-50,000 ppm. WWII
gasifiers typically produce 1000-2000 ppm. And the improved downdrafts of
CPC and Bangalore are typically < 200 ppm, often < 50 ppm.

The time is fast approaching when woodgas will compete with "cheap" natural
gas and other fuels. So bone up if you want to be a player.

Yours truly, TOM REED LIST MODERATOR

From MMBTUPR at AOL.COM Sat Apr 17 09:48:52 2004
From: MMBTUPR at AOL.COM (Lewis L. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
Message-ID: <SAT.17.APR.2004.094852.EDT.>

to Thomas B. Reed from Lewis L. Smith

Thanks so much and "right on" !

Cordially.

End.

From wynn at IC.ORG Sat Apr 17 09:52:44 2004
From: wynn at IC.ORG (Wynn)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
In-Reply-To: <000001c423ba$a8da3b20$0200a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <SAT.17.APR.2004.095244.0400.WYNN@IC.ORG>

WRT the following... All I've found are expensive concerns which will
gladly custom design and build a cyclone "for your needs".
Does anyone have suggestions RE:
-finding a used cyclone
-design parameters used to choose/design a cyclone
-suitable materials
-someone mentioned designing a variable geometry cyclone to clean
effectively regardless of gas flow -- any designs yet? ideas?
control philosophy?

TIA
Wynn

a31ford wrote:

>Good Day, Peter and all,
>

>...
>
>
>The route I have gone is to produce a cleaner gas in the first place,
>therefore Hopefully only requiring a cyclone fly ash separator, time will
>tell on this adventure.
>
>

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Sat Apr 17 10:13:00 2004
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
Message-ID: <SAT.17.APR.2004.101300.EDT.>

In a message dated 4/17/04 7:53:39 AM, wynn@IC.ORG writes:

<< WRT the following... All I've found are expensive concerns which will

gladly custom design and build a cyclone "for your needs".

Does anyone have suggestions RE:

-finding a used cyclone

-design parameters used to choose/design a cyclone

-suitable materials

-someone mentioned designing a variable geometry cyclone to clean

effectively regardless of gas flow -- any designs yet? ideas?

control philosophy?

TIA

Wynn >>

Don't waste your time on a cyclone as it will have no effect upon tars, oils
in the gas stream as they are aerosols in the gas and cannot be removed with a
cyclone. It will eventually coat up and internal diameter will reduce over
time to zero. If operated at high temperature, the tars will crack, coke and
plug the system. When tars are mixed with particulates, the coating is faster. I
tried this in the late 70's and it did not work.

From santo at POCZTA.FM Sun Apr 18 06:36:06 2004
From: santo at POCZTA.FM (Krzysztof Lis)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
In-Reply-To: <001901c42098$15005e40$0200a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <SUN.18.APR.2004.123606.0200.SANTO@POCZTA.FM>

Dear Biomass Gasifiers!! ;)

a> To my knowledge, there is a person, or smaller company, that is
a> using horse manure as a filter agent, it appears that the
a> biological process involved in the real-time filter process
a> it fantastic !

a> The only problem is I can't remember the web link I saw it all in...

You probably mean Mr. Ed Burton, who uses "Bionox" filter with both
wet (water sprinkled using rotating discs) and dry (horse manure) ways
of filtering gas which comes from stratified downdraft gasifier (the
same design as described in "Construction of simplified woodgas gene-
rator for fueling i.c. engines..." (which book you all probably have
read). The link to article about him is:
http://www.clean-air.org/Ed%20Burton%20Story/wood_chips_to_bio.htm
You also will see here wood-chipper (Mr. (Ms.?? forgive me if I'm mis-
taken) Ariel Rotstein asked for it in some other email).

And now to answer the original email, containing questions:

a> I?m doing an update on gas cleaning technologies for biomass
a> gasification gas (for application at larger scale). I?m looking at
a> recent progress in the area. (last 4-5 years).

a> This includes cleaning for: particles, alkali compounds, tars,
a> nitrogen- containing-components. But most of all the tar problem.

a> Do any of you have recent information on biomass gasification gas
a> cleaning technologies?

What I'll write here is surely not recent, since this info comes from
book dated in early 50's. But since this book was published only in
Poland and wasn't translated onto any other language than polish, you
might not read all this data. The book I mean, "Gazogeneratory samo-
chodowe" by A.Tuszy?ski (title to be translated as "Gas generators for
automobiles") contains information about some gasifiers designed and
manufactured in USSR, maybe you haven't heard about them...

First we must define what we need to separate from our gas. I'd add to
the things that you mentioned also the water vapor, since it'll cause
much problems for installation (water condensing on the pipes will try
to rust them and may also close the pipes at the lowest points of the
installation) and engine (if left inside cylinders may induce
rusting).

We have two ways of cleaning the gas from patricles and tars. Firstly
we may try to stop them 'statically' (you must forgive me that I won't
use any technical vocabulary, since I'm not very good at using diffi-
cult words and I don't have technical dictionary around -- I'll just
try to describe in some more 'around' way what I mean and hope that
you'll get the idea). It means that the heavier (larger) particles
will probably in some specific cases stop 'flying' with gas and simply
drop to the 'ground' (the 'floor' of the place in which it will
happen). You may also make the gas to flow through some 'labirynth',
and when they hit any of the walls they'll probably fall and this way
be removed from the gas. I think that to this group we may also inclu-
de all cyclon filters.
The second group are the 'filters', probably in english also called
'surface filters', since they are made from material which has many
threads, fibers, which have totally (after 'sumation') large area. The
gas passes through the 'cloth' (or paper, or felt, or some other ma-
terial, e.g. wood chips (as in stratified downdraft gasifier)), and
all the 'sticky' substances glue themselves to surface of filter's ma-
terial.

The technical construction details are very different, varying because
of scale, used material and the impurities which the filter has to
take out of the gas. If you're interested, I might put somewhere in
the internet scans of this part of the book I mentioned before, which
refers to the filters.

--
Best regards,
Krzysztof Lis / Poland

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Sun Apr 18 10:54:54 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
In-Reply-To: <408136AC.2000303@ic.org>
Message-ID: <SUN.18.APR.2004.095454.0500.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Good Day Wynn and all....

Wynn, I have a great site for Cyclone building, it's for dust collectors in
a "wood shop", BUT the ideas & information ALSO pertain to working with
producer gas, as long as one understands that steel is used instead of wood
& tin.

http://cnets.net/~eclectic/woodworking/cyclone/Measurement.cfm

or to go to the main index:

http://cnets.net/~eclectic/woodworking/cyclone/index.cfm

Bill has spent many hours on this site, and I would say

"This site is a MUST, for anyone involved with Cyclone units, whatever the
application".

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Wynn
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 8:53 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)

TIA
Wynn

a31ford wrote:

>Good Day, Peter and all,
>

>...
>
>
>The route I have gone is to produce a cleaner gas in the first place,
>therefore Hopefully only requiring a cyclone fly ash separator, time will
>tell on this adventure.
>
>

From renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ Sun Apr 18 21:16:21 2004
From: renertech at XTRA.CO.NZ (Ken Calvert)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
In-Reply-To: <000a01c42555$1c762850$0200a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <MON.19.APR.2004.131621.1200.RENERTECH@XTRA.CO.NZ>

Gentlemen, On the subject of Cyclones:

The best cyclone for cleanup/cooling of producer gas that I ever saw, was
at the Indian Institute of Technology in New Delhi. In 1989, Rod Newell and
I visited Prof P.D.Grover,
The then Head of the Centre for Energy Studies. He showed us a very simple
looking cyclone in which the conventional top of the unit was sunk down 50mm
into the body of the unit and only partially welded in a short hit and miss
fashion. They had a continual stream of water flowing into the top which
flowed down the inside of the cyclone body, and made a kind of a liquid wall
which came in intimate contact with the hot gases flowing at right angles to
it in the conventional fashion, and then back up the central gas exit tube
in the centre of the top. The water flowed out the bottom of the cone,
taking not only particulates but also a lot of condensibles as well. The
water was allowed to cool and settle out most of the dirt before being
recycled back to the cyclone. The cyclone body was about 200mm in diameter
and height and the cone about 300mm long, and it could handle a gas flow
pipe of 50mm plus in diameter. They had a gasifier about the size of a 50
litre (12 gallon) oil drum, only longer, and the gas came out cooled and
cleaned in one simple operation. It then was used to run a heavy 6hp single
cylinder Lister diesel engine that had been converted to duel fuel
operation. (You can/could buy these engines already converted to
biogas/producer gas operation by the manufacturers.
Keep trying Ken C.

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List [mailto: On Behalf Of a31ford
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 2:55 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)

Good Day Wynn and all....

http://cnets.net/~eclectic/woodworking/cyclone/Measurement.cfm

or to go to the main index:

http://cnets.net/~eclectic/woodworking/cyclone/index.cfm

Bill has spent many hours on this site, and I would say

"This site is a MUST, for anyone involved with Cyclone units, whatever the
application".

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

TIA
Wynn

a31ford wrote:

>Good Day, Peter and all,
>

>...
>
>
>The route I have gone is to produce a cleaner gas in the first place,
>therefore Hopefully only requiring a cyclone fly ash separator, time
>will tell on this adventure.
>
>

From pletkarj at BV.COM Thu Apr 22 13:56:10 2004
From: pletkarj at BV.COM (Pletka, Ryan J.)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:49 2004
Subject: Kawasaki Gasifier
Message-ID: <THU.22.APR.2004.125610.0500.PLETKARJ@BV.COM>

I saw this news item on the internet (http://pe.pennwellnet.com/home.cfm).
The capital cost works out to be over $9,000/kW. Anyone know anything more
about the technology?

Kawasaki Heavy Cogeneration system uses scrap wood
22 April 2004 - Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd. has developed a small-scale
cogeneration system that uses scrap wood to generate electricity with a high
efficiency of 20 per cent and starts up in a quick 30 minutes.

The company will market the system in sizes that process some 1 to 5 tons of
scrap wood per day to local municipalities and sawmills. A standard system
that outputs 80 kilowatts will be priced at around 60-80m yen ($548 000-$731
000).

In the system, scrap wood is thermally decomposed by exposure to high heat
in a gasification furnace. Tar and other impurities are removed, leaving
carbon monoxide, hydrogen and other burnable gasses. These are used by a gas
engine to generate electricity, and waste heat is recovered for the boiler
or used for climate-control purposes. The entire system is operated at an
internal pressure that is lower than atmospheric pressure, which helps
prevent the escape of gases.

Ryan

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

From FMurrl at AOL.COM Thu Apr 22 14:44:56 2004
From: FMurrl at AOL.COM (FMurrl@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:50 2004
Subject: Kawasaki Gasifier
Message-ID: <THU.22.APR.2004.144456.EDT.>

In a message dated 4/22/2004 1:57:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
pletkarj@BV.COM writes:
The capital cost works out to be over $9,000/kW.
Ryan -- thanks for this, but the capital cost is all I need to know about
this "high efficiency" (20%) power producer.

Regards,
Fred Murrell
Biomass Development

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Thu Apr 22 16:21:09 2004
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:50 2004
Subject: Kawasaki Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <08B9A3D64E2E104BB4C2EA86332C761045F62A@kaci-mail-11.na.bvcorp.net>
Message-ID: <THU.22.APR.2004.212109.0100.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

If it's the Kawasaki then it probably works!

At $9000/kW it should do, at least they are being straight about the real
cost of the quality of engineering required to make a gasifer.
Presumably this cost includes feed silos and control automation?
Presumably the feed stock spec isn't as daft as all other gasifiers that
have been inflicted on the unknowing over the last few years...

Yrs cynically as ever

Gavin

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Pletka, Ryan J.
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 18:56
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] Kawasaki Gasifier

I saw this news item on the internet (http://pe.pennwellnet.com/home.cfm).
The capital cost works out to be over $9,000/kW. Anyone know anything more
about the technology?

Ryan

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

From hli at TKOL.DK Fri Apr 23 04:52:59 2004
From: hli at TKOL.DK (Henrik Laudal Iversen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:50 2004
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
Message-ID: <FRI.23.APR.2004.105259.0200.HLI@TKOL.DK>

Hi Bill

You wrote:

> We are entering our thirty third year in commercial gasification and
> haven't had a problem with tar or particulate since the early eighties.
> 0.00% tar and 0.000% DPM

Is that biomass gasification and what technology are you using? Are you
cleaning the Gas? Could you give us all a description of the plant?

For what application are you using the producer gas?

> Drop me a note if you have the opportunity and tell me what you are
> updating and why.

During the biomass gasification process the producer gas normally contains
some tar, particles, alkali compounds, nitrogen-components. If the producer
gas is to be used in e.g. a gas engine, these impurities could cause
problems, therefore gas cleaning is necessary. Several efforts are made to
develop gas cleaning technologies. It's these technologies I doing a kind of
summery/update on.

Regards

Henrik

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

From: "Bill Klein" <Bill_Klein@3iAlternativePower.com>
To: "Henrik Iversen" <hli@TKOL.DK>
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 2:16 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)

>
> Hello,
>
> What are you updating?
>
> We are entering our thirty third year in commercial gasification and
> haven't had a problem with tar or particulate since the early eighties.
> 0.00% tar and 0.000% DPM
>
> Drop me a note if you have the opportunity and tell me what you are
> updating and why.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Bill Klein
>
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.662 / Virus Database: 425 - Release Date: 20-04-2004

From oscar at GEPROP.CU Fri Apr 23 08:28:31 2004
From: oscar at GEPROP.CU (=?utf-8?Q?Oscar_Jim=C3=A9nez?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:50 2004
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
Message-ID: <FRI.23.APR.2004.082831.0400.OSCAR@GEPROP.CU>

Dear Bill and All.

It really surprise me a lot knowing that someone has been, during 33 years, working on gasification on COMMERCIAL basis guarantying tar free producer gas....! ! !!!!. Can you bring some light on how you worked it out ???? Many gasification-listers will appreciate it.

Kindest regards.

Oscar.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Henrik Laudal Iversen [mailto:hli@tkol.dk]
Enviado el: vie 23/04/2004 4:52
Para: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
CC:
Asunto: Re: [GASL] Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)

Hi Bill

You wrote:

> We are entering our thirty third year in commercial gasification and
> haven't had a problem with tar or particulate since the early eighties.
> 0.00% tar and 0.000% DPM

Is that biomass gasification and what technology are you using? Are you
cleaning the Gas? Could you give us all a description of the plant?

For what application are you using the producer gas?

> Drop me a note if you have the opportunity and tell me what you are
> updating and why.

During the biomass gasification process the producer gas normally contains
some tar, particles, alkali compounds, nitrogen-components. If the producer
gas is to be used in e.g. a gas engine, these impurities could cause
problems, therefore gas cleaning is necessary. Several efforts are made to
develop gas cleaning technologies. It's these technologies I doing a kind of
summery/update on.

Regards

Henrik

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

From: "Bill Klein" <Bill_Klein@3iAlternativePower.com>
To: "Henrik Iversen" <hli@TKOL.DK>
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 2:16 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)

>
> Hello,
>
> What are you updating?
>
> We are entering our thirty third year in commercial gasification and
> haven't had a problem with tar or particulate since the early eighties.
> 0.00% tar and 0.000% DPM
>
> Drop me a note if you have the opportunity and tell me what you are
> updating and why.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Bill Klein
>
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.662 / Virus Database: 425 - Release Date: 20-04-2004

From rbwilliams at UCDAVIS.EDU Fri Apr 23 11:51:35 2004
From: rbwilliams at UCDAVIS.EDU (Rob Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:50 2004
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
In-Reply-To: <11197F61CBF36942AC3D9C998E99960B42AE3C@ntserver.geprop.cu>
Message-ID: <FRI.23.APR.2004.085135.0700.RBWILLIAMS@UCDAVIS.EDU>

I tried to find information on Mr. Klein's technology, but was not
successful (including a quick look through Tom Reed's gasifier database:
http://www.woodgas.com/Gdatabase.htm )

From,
http://www.3ialternativepower.com/
then Google some of the company and product names to get mentions of the
technology but no details here;

http://www.internationalinnovationsinc.com/
http://solstice.crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
http://www.bioenergy.org.nz/documents/newsletters/newsletter_5.pdf

Regards,
Rob Williams

At 08:28 AM 4/23/2004 -0400, Oscar Jim??nez wrote:
>Dear Bill and All.
>
>It really surprise me a lot knowing that someone has been, during 33
>years, working on gasification on COMMERCIAL basis guarantying tar free
>producer gas....! ! !!!!. Can you bring some light on how you worked it
>out ???? Many gasification-listers will appreciate it.
>
>Kindest regards.
>
>Oscar.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Henrik Laudal Iversen [mailto:hli@tkol.dk]
> Enviado el: vie 23/04/2004 4:52
> Para: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> CC:
> Asunto: Re: [GASL] Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
>
>
>
> Hi Bill
>
>
>
> You wrote:
>
> > We are entering our thirty third year in commercial
> gasification and
> > haven't had a problem with tar or particulate since the early
> eighties.
> > 0.00% tar and 0.000% DPM
>
>
>
> Is that biomass gasification and what technology are you using?
> Are you
> cleaning the Gas? Could you give us all a description of the plant?
>
>
>
> For what application are you using the producer gas?
>
>
>
> > Drop me a note if you have the opportunity and tell me what you are
> > updating and why.
>
>
>
> During the biomass gasification process the producer gas normally
> contains
> some tar, particles, alkali compounds, nitrogen-components. If
> the producer
> gas is to be used in e.g. a gas engine, these impurities could cause
> problems, therefore gas cleaning is necessary. Several efforts
> are made to
> develop gas cleaning technologies. It's these technologies I
> doing a kind of
> summery/update on.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Henrik
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Bill Klein" <Bill_Klein@3iAlternativePower.com>
> To: "Henrik Iversen" <hli@TKOL.DK>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 2:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
>
>
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > What are you updating?
> >
> > We are entering our thirty third year in commercial
> gasification and
> > haven't had a problem with tar or particulate since the early
> eighties.
> > 0.00% tar and 0.000% DPM
> >
> > Drop me a note if you have the opportunity and tell me what you are
> > updating and why.
> >
> > Cordially,
> >
> > Bill Klein
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.662 / Virus Database: 425 - Release Date: 20-04-2004
>

From MMBTUPR at AOL.COM Fri Apr 23 13:58:34 2004
From: MMBTUPR at AOL.COM (Lewis L. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:50 2004
Subject: Biomass Cars
Message-ID: <FRI.23.APR.2004.135834.EDT.>

to Thomas B. Reed from Lewis L. Smith

Three cheers for advanced planning and R&D.

Count me in.

Cordially.

End.

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Fri Apr 23 14:08:10 2004
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:50 2004
Subject: Biomass Cars
Message-ID: <FRI.23.APR.2004.140810.EDT.>

Shell is facing serious legal and financial problems arising from
overestimating their reserves. Are others also facing similar problems? Maybe our efforts
will begin to oay off?

From joacim at YMEX.NET Sat Apr 24 00:31:53 2004
From: joacim at YMEX.NET (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:50 2004
Subject: web tip, oil depletion
Message-ID: <SAT.24.APR.2004.063153.0200.JOACIM@YMEX.NET>

I haven't seen this web page mentioned on this list, so perhaps it's new to
some of you:

http://www.peakoil.net/

(Home page for The Association for Study of Peak Oil&Gas)

Joacim

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Sat Apr 24 07:24:56 2004
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:50 2004
Subject: Biomass Cars
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404071534220.2795-100000@trix.ixum>
Message-ID: <SAT.24.APR.2004.122456.0100.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

Jolly well said joacim
Cheers gavin

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Sun Apr 25 23:54:10 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:50 2004
Subject: Kawasaki Gasifier
Message-ID: <SUN.25.APR.2004.235410.0400.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Ryan,

Kawasaki Heavy Industries has been testing a South African gasifier in
recent years. Maybe they have licensed the technology. I don't know of any
similar systems developed in Japan.

Tom

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 21:21:09 +0100, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall >Subject:
[GASL] Kawasaki Gasifier
>
>I saw this news item on the internet (http://pe.pennwellnet.com/home.cfm).
>The capital cost works out to be over $9,000/kW. Anyone know anything
more
>about the technology?
>
>Kawasaki Heavy Cogeneration system uses scrap wood
>22 April 2004 - Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd. has developed a small-scale
>cogeneration system that uses scrap wood to generate electricity with a
high
>efficiency of 20 per cent and starts up in a quick 30 minutes.
>Ryan
>
>
>Ryan Pletka
>Renewable Energy Project Manager
>Black & Veatch Global Renewable Energy Group
>11401 Lamar / Overland Park, KS 66211 USA
>913-458-8222

From vanderdrift at ECN.NL Wed Apr 28 02:56:43 2004
From: vanderdrift at ECN.NL (Drift, A. van der)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:50 2004
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
Message-ID: <WED.28.APR.2004.085643.0200.VANDERDRIFT@ECN.NL>

Henrik,

ECN has been dealing with gas cleaning intensively in our gasification work
in recent years. Some relevant developments (some will be presented during
the biomass conference in Rome 10-14 May 2004, ECN will have a stand at the
exhibition for further information):

- OLGA: oil based tar scrubber, proved to work on lab-scale (1 nm3/h) and
pilot scale (200 nm3/h), will be tested next month in 50 h test and in
Sept/Oct for 1000 h test
- TREC: high temperature tar removal by char-catalysis, lab-scale tests have
proven that heavy tars are destroyed; new project is just started, this with
result in pilot-scale (ca. 100 nm3/h) TREC reactor downstream CFB gasifier,
which supplies the char (and tar).
- gas cooler: often ignored, but not easy. ECN did some fundamental studies
on the deposition behaviour of tar and particles on probes with fixed
temperatures.
- HELGA: fluidised bed heat exchanger
- high temperature filter (metal fibre)
- water scrubbing and stripping
- wet ESP
- thermal tar cracking

regards,

Bram (A.) van der Drift
ECN Biomass
PO Box 1
NL 1755 ZG Petten
the Netherlands
tel: +31 224 564515
fax: +31 224 568487
E-mail: vanderdrift@ecn.nl

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Henrik Iversen [mailto:hli@TKOL.DK]
Sent: maandag 12 april 2004 14:32
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)

Dear all

I'm doing an update on gas cleaning technologies for biomass gasification
gas (for application at larger scale). I'm looking at recent progress in
the area. (last 4-5 years).

This includes cleaning for: particles, alkali compounds, tars, nitrogen-
containing-components. But most of all the tar problem.

Do any of you have recent information on biomass gasification gas cleaning
technologies?

Best regards

Henrik Iversen

From oscar at GEPROP.CU Wed Apr 28 08:52:31 2004
From: oscar at GEPROP.CU (=?utf-8?Q?Oscar_Jim=C3=A9nez?=)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:50 2004
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
Message-ID: <WED.28.APR.2004.085231.0400.OSCAR@GEPROP.CU>

Dear Bram (A.) van der Drift and All.

Is there any available source of preliminary information to get OLGA pilot scale deeper insight from???

Kindest regards.

Oscar.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Drift, A. van der [mailto:vanderdrift@ECN.NL]
Enviado el: mi? 28/04/2004 2:56
Para: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
CC:
Asunto: Re: [GASL] Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)

Henrik,

ECN has been dealing with gas cleaning intensively in our gasification work
in recent years. Some relevant developments (some will be presented during
the biomass conference in Rome 10-14 May 2004, ECN will have a stand at the
exhibition for further information):

- OLGA: oil based tar scrubber, proved to work on lab-scale (1 nm3/h) and
pilot scale (200 nm3/h), will be tested next month in 50 h test and in
Sept/Oct for 1000 h test
- TREC: high temperature tar removal by char-catalysis, lab-scale tests have
proven that heavy tars are destroyed; new project is just started, this with
result in pilot-scale (ca. 100 nm3/h) TREC reactor downstream CFB gasifier,
which supplies the char (and tar).
- gas cooler: often ignored, but not easy. ECN did some fundamental studies
on the deposition behaviour of tar and particles on probes with fixed
temperatures.
- HELGA: fluidised bed heat exchanger
- high temperature filter (metal fibre)
- water scrubbing and stripping
- wet ESP
- thermal tar cracking

regards,

Bram (A.) van der Drift
ECN Biomass
PO Box 1
NL 1755 ZG Petten
the Netherlands
tel: +31 224 564515
fax: +31 224 568487
E-mail: vanderdrift@ecn.nl

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Henrik Iversen [mailto:hli@TKOL.DK]
Sent: maandag 12 april 2004 14:32
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)

Dear all

I'm doing an update on gas cleaning technologies for biomass gasification
gas (for application at larger scale). I'm looking at recent progress in
the area. (last 4-5 years).

This includes cleaning for: particles, alkali compounds, tars, nitrogen-
containing-components. But most of all the tar problem.

Do any of you have recent information on biomass gasification gas cleaning
technologies?

Best regards

Henrik Iversen

From vanderdrift at ECN.NL Thu Apr 29 05:30:55 2004
From: vanderdrift at ECN.NL (Drift, A. van der)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:50 2004
Subject: Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)
Message-ID: <THU.29.APR.2004.113055.0200.VANDERDRIFT@ECN.NL>

Oscar,

There is information available on OLGA via www.ecn.nl <http://www.ecn.nl> .
Most recent results will be presented during the world biomass conference in
Rome where you can contact several people on this subject in our stand .

regards,

Bram (A.) van der Drift
ECN Biomass
PO Box 1
NL 1755 ZG Petten
the Netherlands
tel: +31 224 564515
fax: +31 224 568487
E-mail: vanderdrift@ecn.nl

-----Original Message-----
From: Oscar Jim?nez [mailto:oscar@geprop.cu]
Sent: woensdag 28 april 2004 14:53
To: Drift, A. van der; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: RE: [GASL] Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)

Dear Bram (A.) van der Drift and All.

Is there any available source of preliminary information to get OLGA pilot
scale deeper insight from???

Kindest regards.

Oscar.

Henrik,

regards,

Bram (A.) van der Drift
ECN Biomass
PO Box 1
NL 1755 ZG Petten
the Netherlands
tel: +31 224 564515
fax: +31 224 568487
E-mail: vanderdrift@ecn.nl

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Henrik Iversen [ mailto:hli@TKOL.DK <mailto:hli@TKOL.DK> ]
Sent: maandag 12 april 2004 14:32
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] Gas cleaning technologies (biomass)

Dear all

I'm doing an update on gas cleaning technologies for biomass gasification
gas (for application at larger scale). I'm looking at recent progress in
the area. (last 4-5 years).

This includes cleaning for: particles, alkali compounds, tars, nitrogen-
containing-components. But most of all the tar problem.

Do any of you have recent information on biomass gasification gas cleaning
technologies?

Best regards

Henrik Iversen

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

April 2004 Gasification Archive