For more information about Gasifiers and Gasification, please see our web site: http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
To join the discussion list and see the current archives, please use this page: http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
For more messages see our 1996-2004 Gasification Discussion List Archives.
From a31ford at inetlink.ca Sat Aug 14 23:01:22 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 23:01:22 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] RE: [Bioenergy] Talbotts Boilers,
An Apology from Gavin
In-Reply-To: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGCEOLDMAA.Gavin@3genergi.co.uk>
Message-ID: <001101c4827c$878ae980$1900a8c0@a31server>
Gavin, I speak for more than myself on this,
All of us have moments in our lives where others totally misunderstand ALL
facets of what,who, why, thought process, and our spoken words.
When I originally read your first post, It was NOT taken as a "bad
statement" about "Talbotts" OR the "C4", In my eyes, you where stating an
opinion, based on knowledge that you had at the time, for Mr.. Talbott to
take your comment so negatively... I would assume "Bob" is trying to "Get
one Up" on you on this board.
On that note, I have read MANY posts from Gavin, BUT, have NEVER seen a post
from Bob in over 3 years, IF he has posted, I am unaware of it (And this is
MY opinion, based on the knowledge I have, at the time).
Therefore, I make the following statement....
"Bob" you are NOT the only person in the world that can "slam" someone on a
message board, see...
Gavin, DON'T let him dictate what, when and HOW, you write your opinions,
they are yours, and in HIS words..... "I will publish where and when I
want to and won't be forced by you "
One very displeased reader, (P.S. Gavin keep up the great work)
Greg Manning
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
-----Original Message-----
From: bioenergy-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:bioenergy-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Gavin
Gulliver-Goodall
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 1:40 PM
To: BIOENERGY
Cc: Bob Talbott
Subject: [Bioenergy] Talbotts Boilers, An Apology from Gavin
To:
The Bioenergy Technology list:
Re Pellet Boilers ? Talbotts
On 27 July 04 I wrote
?Please exclude Talbotts from the list of modern efficient pellet burning
boilers.
I have just witnessed their "state of the art" C4 boiler and it bears no
resemblance to the sophisticated combustion engineering and electronic
control used in other European boilers.?
I acknowledge that this statement is unjustified as I do not have
technical knowledge or experience of Talbotts more advanced pellet burning
models.
I therefore retract my recommendation to exclude Talbotts from the list of
modern efficient pellet burning boilers.
Talbotts have a well established reputation worldwide for their wood
boiler products an I did not intend to affect that reputation in any way. I
sincerely apologise for any misunderstandings that may have occurred as a
result of the above statement or any subsequent related correspondence.
Kind regards
Gavin
Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
3G Energi Ltd.,
Allesudden,
Charlesfield,
St. Boswells
Melrose
TD6 0HH
Tel +44 (0)1835 824201
Fax +44 (0)870 8314098
Mob +44 (0)7773 781498
E mail Gavin at 3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin at 3genergi.co.uk>
The contents of this email and any attachments are the property of 3G
Energi Ltd. and are intended for the confidential use of the named
recipient(s) only. They may be legally privileged and should not be
communicated to or relied upon by any person without our express written
consent. If you are not an addressee please notify us immediately at the
address above or by email at admin at 3genergi.co.uk
<mailto:admin at 3genergi.co.uk>.
Any files attached to this email will have been checked with virus
detection software before transmission. However, you should carry out your
own virus check before opening any attachment. 3G Energi Ltd. accepts no
liability for any loss or damage that may be caused by software viruses.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040815/b01eaca1/attachment.html
From boilrmkr at surfsouth.com Sun Aug 15 11:34:00 2004
From: boilrmkr at surfsouth.com (Gene Zebley)
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:34:00 +0000
Subject: [Gasification] Just thought I'd check in on you guys....
Message-ID: <1092587655_77@mail.rose.net>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040815/c6346342/attachment.html
From tmiles at trmiles.com Sun Aug 15 12:23:11 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 10:23:11 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] RE: [Bioenergy] Talbotts Boilers,
An Apology from Gavin
References: <001101c4827c$878ae980$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <00b701c482ec$8dc531a0$6601a8c0@Yellow>
All,
Efficiency and emissions performance are measurable. While this particular exchange flared up from gasification to combustion we can still measure both the useful and the waste heat from the reaction.
Is there third party performance data from chip and pellet burning appliances in the (C4) size range that we're talking about?
Thanks
Tom Miles
----- Original Message -----
From: a31ford
To: 'Gavin Gulliver-Goodall' ; A Gasification List (E-mail)
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 9:01 PM
Subject: [Gasification] RE: [Bioenergy] Talbotts Boilers,An Apology from Gavin
Gavin, I speak for more than myself on this,
All of us have moments in our lives where others totally misunderstand ALL facets of what,who, why, thought process, and our spoken words.
When I originally read your first post, It was NOT taken as a "bad statement" about "Talbotts" OR the "C4", In my eyes, you where stating an opinion, based on knowledge that you had at the time, for Mr.. Talbott to take your comment so negatively... I would assume "Bob" is trying to "Get one Up" on you on this board.
On that note, I have read MANY posts from Gavin, BUT, have NEVER seen a post from Bob in over 3 years, IF he has posted, I am unaware of it (And this is MY opinion, based on the knowledge I have, at the time).
Therefore, I make the following statement....
"Bob" you are NOT the only person in the world that can "slam" someone on a message board, see...
Gavin, DON'T let him dictate what, when and HOW, you write your opinions, they are yours, and in HIS words..... "I will publish where and when I want to and won't be forced by you "
One very displeased reader, (P.S. Gavin keep up the great work)
Greg Manning
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
-----Original Message-----
From: bioenergy-bounces at listserv.repp.org [mailto:bioenergy-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 1:40 PM
To: BIOENERGY
Cc: Bob Talbott
Subject: [Bioenergy] Talbotts Boilers, An Apology from Gavin
To:
The Bioenergy Technology list:
Re Pellet Boilers - Talbotts
On 27 July 04 I wrote
"Please exclude Talbotts from the list of modern efficient pellet burning boilers.
I have just witnessed their "state of the art" C4 boiler and it bears no resemblance to the sophisticated combustion engineering and electronic control used in other European boilers."
I acknowledge that this statement is unjustified as I do not have technical knowledge or experience of Talbotts more advanced pellet burning models.
I therefore retract my recommendation to exclude Talbotts from the list of modern efficient pellet burning boilers.
Talbotts have a well established reputation worldwide for their wood boiler products an I did not intend to affect that reputation in any way. I sincerely apologise for any misunderstandings that may have occurred as a result of the above statement or any subsequent related correspondence.
Kind regards
Gavin
Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
3G Energi Ltd.,
Allesudden,
Charlesfield,
St. Boswells
Melrose
TD6 0HH
Tel +44 (0)1835 824201
Fax +44 (0)870 8314098
Mob +44 (0)7773 781498
E mail Gavin at 3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin at 3genergi.co.uk>
The contents of this email and any attachments are the property of 3G Energi Ltd. and are intended for the confidential use of the named recipient(s) only. They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to or relied upon by any person without our express written consent. If you are not an addressee please notify us immediately at the address above or by email at admin at 3genergi.co.uk <mailto:admin at 3genergi.co.uk>.
Any files attached to this email will have been checked with virus detection software before transmission. However, you should carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. 3G Energi Ltd. accepts no liability for any loss or damage that may be caused by software viruses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040815/0e783941/attachment.html
From snkm at btl.net Sun Aug 15 20:44:47 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 19:44:47 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Just thought I'd check in on you guys....
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20040815194415.0093a100@pop.btl.net>
Hey Gene!!
I'm still here -- and still in the same place in Belize.
Still figure your boilers married to an ORMAT ORC is the slickest whistle
out there.
For my personal post apocalypse energy situation -- acquired three old
style Lister low RPM diesels (New from India) and have now put up enough
used car oil to run same for the next 25 years!!
Your right -- I don't practice what I preach -- but then I can't afford to!!
Belize never did do one single biomass power plant!! And of course --
wouldn't you know it -- the Government just went totally "BROKE" -- so it's
to late now.
If you ever download a satellite picture over Belize at night and see one
brite place -- that will be my house -- eh??
I also started a project to make sugar cane alcohol -- actually -- aguahol
-- strong rum -- but I have become addicted to the cane wine (local name
Chee-cha) and have been putting that up as well!!
Have 500 gallons so far -- but plan to stock at least 2000! (I consume on
average .5 liters per day -- so I am good for ten years supply now -- and
40 years once I have the rest put up!!)
This not for sale -- but future personal consumption.
So -- with lights and wine -- I can sit on the roof of my large hurricane
shelter and watch the sky light up to the north --
Figure -- eventually -- there will be to many deer on this one wood lot
called earth -- not enough resources to go round -- and die off will be
required -- in typical human style though -- war -- and this time round --
nukes -- so expect to see some spectacular light shows -- eh??
We were taught that entropy rules supreme -- that all things must change --
but that was a lie -- human nature never changes!!
Besides running a small cane crushing/wine making unit -- I am also making
"oil" --
See here:
http://www.turneffecoconut.com
The picture of me there is "dated" -- the beard is much longer now!
Guess what my nick-name is among all the local children here -- eh??
Actually -- life is wonderful here -- it all you fellows I worry about.
For me -- it's pretty well "Mission Accomplished".
row -- row -- row your boat -- life is but a dream!
Peter
At 04:34 PM 8/15/2004 +0000, Gene Zebley wrote:
>>>>
Hello, Gentlemen. Just thought I'd drop by and see what was transpiring
in the world of gasification. Tom, it's good to see the list survives.
Leland, good to see business still supports your interests. Peter, they
still have electricity in Belize? I figured world economic chaos would
have stranded you down there by now. \;-) Have you got that lighter fluid
boiler running, yet? Matthew, you keep goin, boy. Nothing like fresh
blood and refusals to take no for an answer to get things moving around
this joint. Damn, Gavin, you don't work for Bob, do you? Your retraction
sounds like he threatened to fire you or something. Don't let ol' Bob
scare you. His bark (and skiing) are much worse than his bite. Still
sellin boilers............
Best Regards,
Gene Zebley
Energy System Sales Hurst Boiler and Welding Co., Inc.
21791 US Hwy 319 North
Coolidge, GA 31738 Phone: (877) 994-8778, Toll Free US/Canada
Phone: (229) 346-3545, Ext. 139
Fax: (229) 346-3874
Cell: (229) 798-0664 http://www.hurstboiler.com/solid_fuel_fired.htm
mailto:boilrmkr at surfsouth.com _______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
From MMBTUPR at aol.com Sun Aug 15 20:55:59 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 21:55:59 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Renewable Environmental Solutions
Message-ID: <1e6.27c6a88e.2e516e2f@aol.com>
to Gasification List from Lewis L.
Smith
This co's Carthage IL plant, which gasifies turkey renderings, continues
to ramp up. There are occasional odor problems to which the co responds by
trying to detect and shut down the offending unit ASAP, although not always fast
enough to suit some of the neighbors !
They selling 100-200 BCD of an oil equivalent to No. 4 distillate.
Have not responded to my EM of several months ago requesting comments on
the applicability of their process to Napier grass, one of the grasses
sometimes known as "elephant grass".
Web site is UC, so I get news from < news.google.com > . Pretty good
source, if you are clever in your choice of key words. Nowadays its even hard
to go to the sanitary service without someone, somewhere taking notice !
Cordially.
End.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040815/85fc98a9/attachment.html
From CAVM at aol.com Sun Aug 15 21:13:56 2004
From: CAVM at aol.com (CAVM at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 22:13:56 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Just thought I'd check in on you guys....
Message-ID: <fb.5e74e81d.2e517264@aol.com>
Peter, I am stunned by your photo. I have imagined you as a 20 something
hot shot engineer with a high energy drive due to youth, vision and wild
imagination. Now I see that you are much more experienced than I had imagined
(older). :-)
Neal Van Milligen
age 57 in a cple of weeks and with a shorter beard than Peter
_www.kentuckyenrichment.com_ (http://www.kentuckyenrichment.com)
_cavm at aol.com_ (mailto:cavm at aol.com)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040815/42f5322a/attachment.html
From larencorie at axilar.net Sun Aug 15 19:54:47 2004
From: larencorie at axilar.net (LarenCorie)
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 20:54:47 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Note To List Administrator.......
References: <200408050402.i7542tl18820@ns1.repp.org>
Message-ID: <008c01c4832c$2e5d90a0$4c5c2745@default>
I apologize to the group for sending this request, this way,
but I have exactly followed the instructions that were sent
to me, when I originally joined, and have gotten no results.
As a member of the GreenBuilding list, I have been a
recent victim of REPP's resubscription blunder. As a result,
my settings for this group have been also changed. I have
tried the password sent to me, but have repeatedly been
told that it is not valid. I have sent several emails with
the command "SET GASIFICATION DIGEST" to no avail.
Could the list administrator, please return my settings
to digest, as they were before they were accidentally
reset by REPP.org.
Thanks, and sorry for the interruption, folks.
-Laren Corie-
From LINVENT at aol.com Mon Aug 16 02:10:05 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 03:10:05 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Just thought I'd check in on you guys....
Message-ID: <102.4c8cba7b.2e51b7cd@aol.com>
Thermogenics has recently operated the gasification system sent to Italy in
2002. When it was received there, the purchasers promtly decided to revise the
plant and rewired the skid mounted sensing and controls which they did not
keep a wiring diagram of. Some of the pressure sensors and low pressure flow
monitoring equipment were moved off the skid so they do not work well. The project
had not been paid for and was dormant for 2 years.
Recently, the provincial government of Campania, which includes Naples,
decided not to continue using landfills. They built municipal waste recovery
facilities (MRF) and were planning on using incineration for waste reduction.
However, when the incineration plants were started to be constructed, the
protests shut them down, so now the garbage is being piled up in fields or shipped
to Germany for incineration.
With this problem arising, the project owners decided to get the system
running and resumed funding and had an incentive to bring the project back to
life. After additional fixes on the wiring, and other revisions to handle the
large sized pieces of wood and other oversized material found in the RDF , we
ran the gasifier and operated an internal combustion engine on it. The plant is
a small plant set up as a demonstrator but demonstrates all of the principals
of gasification to engine quality gas. The gas has no visible plume going to
the engine and leaves no visible contamination when passed through a filter to
trap contaminants. The engine starts right up and runs smoothly and will be
set up for long term continuous operation.
Additional upgrades will add capacity to the system and there is no
permanent feeding system or power to the operating site. It will result in large
project contracts and additional operations there. it will be completed to
operate the tile plant at the site to replace part of the natural gas supply and
generate a small amount of power for the site.
This will positively put gasification on the map for waste to energy
conversion. There have been recent interests by many municipalities for waste to
energy by gasification usage, but none have moved forward due to the lack of
operating systems for their consideration. A recent report had to rely upon
distant connections to gasification in order to have anything to present at all to
the municipal entity which had the report prepared. Others have had similar
results when trying to seek out gasification as a solution to their waste
problems.
One of the major facilities which is a combined
gasification/combustion/pyrolysis system is so expensive to operate and construct that it has been
summarily dismissed by US municipalities, had a German facility shut down. My
understanding is that the subsidies to operate the plant are very high, but the
exact reason for it to be closed is not known.
Leland T. Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
7100-F 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107 Phone: 505-761-5633, fax:
341-0424, website: thermogenics.com.
In order to read the compressed files forwarded under AOL, it is necessary to
download Aladdin's freeware Unstuffit at
http://www.stuffit.com/expander/index.html
From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Mon Aug 16 09:46:09 2004
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 11:46:09 -0300
Subject: [Gasification] Renewable Environmental Solutions
References: <1e6.27c6a88e.2e516e2f@aol.com>
Message-ID: <007001c483a1$58817930$a09a0a40@kevin>
Dear Lewis
Thanks for the update...
Pardon my ignorance, but what is a "BCD?"
Given that they produce an oil equivalent to #4 distillate, would you know
what it is being used for? More specifically, for example, are they simply
burning it in a boiler, or are they using it as an engine fuel?
Thanks.
Kevin Chisholm
----- Original Message -----
From: <MMBTUPR at aol.com>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2004 10:55 PM
Subject: [Gasification] Renewable Environmental Solutions
> to Gasification List from Lewis
L.
> Smith
>
> This co's Carthage IL plant, which gasifies turkey renderings,
continues
> to ramp up. There are occasional odor problems to which the co responds by
> trying to detect and shut down the offending unit ASAP, although not
always fast
> enough to suit some of the neighbors !
>
> They selling 100-200 BCD of an oil equivalent to No. 4 distillate.
>
> Have not responded to my EM of several months ago requesting comments
on
> the applicability of their process to Napier grass, one of the grasses
> sometimes known as "elephant grass".
>
> Web site is UC, so I get news from < news.google.com > . Pretty
good
> source, if you are clever in your choice of key words. Nowadays its even
hard
> to go to the sanitary service without someone, somewhere taking notice !
>
> Cordially.
>
> End.
From tmiles at trmiles.com Mon Aug 16 13:09:48 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 11:09:48 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Just thought I'd check in on you guys....
References: <102.4c8cba7b.2e51b7cd@aol.com>
Message-ID: <011201c483bc$541466d0$6401a8c0@OFFICE3>
Tom,
Blanket statements about subsidies and processes are always misleading.
Waste to energy systems are expensive whether you use pyrolysis,
gasification, combustion, anaerobic digestion, conversion to liquid fuels or
some combination of any of these. Public funds are used to build and operate
waste to energy plants because you can't afford to buy waste as fuel and
make a profit from the energy. Mechanical wear and corrosion are probably
the biggest costs. So these plants are always "subsidized" to some degree.
Gasification has been used in several projects for non-putrescible waste and
for refuse derived fuel (RDF) and densified RDF. Lurgi, Foster Wheeler, TPS
and others have spent considerable money, time and effort developing these
systems. They tell me that the development will continue to be slow while
alternative disposal methods are less expensive. There are nineteen plants
using pyrolysis and gasification for wastes in the Netherlands alone. Some
of the more visible gasification plants currently operating on some form of
waste are in Finland (Lahti, 35,000 tpy; Varkhaus 50,000 tpy), The
Netherlands (Amer 9, woodwaste)and Germany (Rudersdorfer Zement, 38 tph)
For a recent review of refuse use for energy in Europe see:
http://www.environmental-center.com/articles/article1362/rdf.pdf
The IEA Task force on Gasification (Task 33/Thermal Gasification of Biomass)
keeps track of current projects. See:
http://www.gastechnology.org/webroot/app/xn/xd.aspx?it=enweb&xd=iea\homepage.xml
In the publications section you'll find many good reports on refuse
gasification. Also look for the Status report on activities in participating
countries:
http://www.gastechnology.org/webroot/downloads/en/IEA/StatusofGasificationSeptember2002.pdf
The European Gasification Networks (GASNET) is also an excellent source.
There are links from our REPP gasification reference pages at:
http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
or http://www.gasnet.uk.net/
Congratulations on the restart. We look forward to hearing reports from you
and others as your system converts refuse to energy through hundreds and
thousands of hours of operation.
Kind regards,
Tom Miles
----- Original Message -----
From: <LINVENT at aol.com>
To: <boilrmkr at surfsouth.com>; <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Just thought I'd check in on you guys....
> One of the major facilities which is a combined
> gasification/combustion/pyrolysis system is so expensive to operate and
construct that it has been
> summarily dismissed by US municipalities, had a German facility shut down.
My
> understanding is that the subsidies to operate the plant are very high,
but the
> exact reason for it to be closed is not known.
>
>
> Leland T. Taylor
> President
> Thermogenics Inc.
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Mon Aug 16 17:54:07 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:54:07 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Just thought I'd check in on you guys....
In-Reply-To: <1092587655_77@mail.rose.net>
References: <1092587655_77@mail.rose.net>
Message-ID: <41213B0F.9040904@renewableplanet.ca>
Thanks Gene!
Yep that is me! Stubborn as they come! Haha. I will make a business
venture out of biomass or waste recycling in some form or another, but
probably not from energy production! (yup, they all were right, no
profits there!)
Alas, profiting from "cheap" energy from biomass/waste seems like a dead
end to me now. Recently, I've come to the conclusion that biomass to
energy and even waste to energy are not the way to go if I want to make
any money. My conclusion: Energy is a low value product, better focus
on non-energy products instead! So now I'm doing all the reading I can
on biorefineries, producing high value chemicals (not liquid fuels) from
waste. Chemicals and materials produced from biomass are worth so much
more than the energy that is contained in the biomass, and I did not
realize this before! So I am going to forget about burning it and learn
all I can about truly recycling it! Oh, one of the most intriguing
things to me is syngas fermentation, where syngas (or producer gas) is
fed through a fermenter and converted to acetic acid, polymers, ethanol,
or a host of other chemicals/enzymes. If I can learn more about it, and
find it feasible, that is the route I'd like to go now. Still learning!
Matt
Gene Zebley wrote:
>
> Matthew, you keep goin, boy. Nothing like fresh blood and refusals to
> take no for an answer to get things moving around this joint.
>
From snkm at btl.net Mon Aug 16 19:52:05 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:52:05 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Just thought I'd check in on you guys....
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20040816181817.00acf990@pop.btl.net>
58 this next Month Neal!!
At 10:13 PM 8/15/2004 EDT, CAVM at aol.com wrote:
>>>>
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7> face=Arial
color=#000000 size=2> Peter, I am stunned by your photo. I have imagined
you as a 20 something hot shot engineer with a high energy drive due to
youth, vision and wild imagination. Now I see that you are much more
experienced than I had imagined (older). :-) Neal Van Milligen age 57 in
a cple of weeks and with a shorter beard than Peter
www.kentuckyenrichment.com cavm at aol.com
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Mon Aug 16 19:57:53 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:57:53 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Just thought I'd check in on you guys....
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040815194415.0093a100@pop.btl.net>
References: <3.0.32.20040815194415.0093a100@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <41215811.1050005@renewableplanet.ca>
Dear Peter,
Haha, I am not worried about any light show anytime soon, not in the way
you anticipate anyway. I am a strong skeptic of these apocalyptic views
of an energy/resource crisis, with impending doom for all! Haha, I've
heard a lot about peak oil, etc, but who do you think is going to be
dropping the nukes in this light show, and for what purpose? There are
no more superpowers struggling for military superiority, just a few
stragglers such as North Korea and Iran making a nuisance of themselves.
China, well, they're smart, and they are concentrating on themselves and
developing their country, I don't see them trying to conquer the world,
just trying to feed their own people and become modern as quickly and as
intelligently as they can. Would invading the US or Canada help them in
that important goal? Would the US benefit from invading China? How about
India? Not one bit! I for one, prefer the current world situation for
what it is, it could be far worse than it is.
True, oil is going to become progressively more expensive, and yes, it
will eventually become unaffordable decades from now, gradually. Now
let's imagine oil just suddenly ran out or became totally unaffordable
for any useful purpose, is it any use to waste time and resources to
invade another country? Governments don't take action on something
unless there is something to be gained, some sort of "profit" from it.
Isn't it more likely that we will do what is obvious and exploit
unconventional oil reserves and coal derived fuels before fighting over
the puny little reserves of conventional oil that are left? Is an oil
shocked, energy poor, starving country going to develop bombs? Or would
they instead develop coal? Would they use that precious uranium for
making a pretty light show with bombs? Or would they be more occupied in
*keeping the lights going*? using the massive (yet more expensive than
oil) unconventional resources we have available? Light show? Maybe from
burning coal or from forest fires out of control from global warming!
But nukes? That is so cold war era, except maybe from the occasional
lunatic terrorist or rogue nation.
Nah, I'm not worried. Oil running out? Bad, yes, light show no haha.
When oil runs out, it will be expensive enough to make unconventional
resources worth pursuing. The war won't be between countries or with
nukes, it will be to develop those "unconventional reserves" as quickly
as we can. Wake me up when our coal, uranium, natural gas, methane
hydrate, biomass, tar sands, bitumen, and oil shale reserves are
depleted a few hundred years, or a thousand from now or more, and fusion
power still isn't developed. (at this rate maybe that is possible! nah
just kidding!)
Now, if you mean people starving and looting and pillaging and being
wiped out from disease and lack of fresh water, that is another story
and I think that could happen if oil ran out, but not a nuclear war, no
motive for that as far as I can see.
What about everyone else? Is a resource war on the horizon?
Matt
Peter Singfield wrote:
>Hey Gene!!
>
>I'm still here -- and still in the same place in Belize.
>
>Still figure your boilers married to an ORMAT ORC is the slickest whistle
>out there.
>
>For my personal post apocalypse energy situation -- acquired three old
>style Lister low RPM diesels (New from India) and have now put up enough
>used car oil to run same for the next 25 years!!
>
>Your right -- I don't practice what I preach -- but then I can't afford to!!
>
>Belize never did do one single biomass power plant!! And of course --
>wouldn't you know it -- the Government just went totally "BROKE" -- so it's
>to late now.
>
>If you ever download a satellite picture over Belize at night and see one
>brite place -- that will be my house -- eh??
>
>I also started a project to make sugar cane alcohol -- actually -- aguahol
>-- strong rum -- but I have become addicted to the cane wine (local name
>Chee-cha) and have been putting that up as well!!
>
>Have 500 gallons so far -- but plan to stock at least 2000! (I consume on
>average .5 liters per day -- so I am good for ten years supply now -- and
>40 years once I have the rest put up!!)
>
>This not for sale -- but future personal consumption.
>
>So -- with lights and wine -- I can sit on the roof of my large hurricane
>shelter and watch the sky light up to the north --
>
>Figure -- eventually -- there will be to many deer on this one wood lot
>called earth -- not enough resources to go round -- and die off will be
>required -- in typical human style though -- war -- and this time round --
>nukes -- so expect to see some spectacular light shows -- eh??
>
>We were taught that entropy rules supreme -- that all things must change --
>but that was a lie -- human nature never changes!!
>
>Besides running a small cane crushing/wine making unit -- I am also making
>"oil" --
>
>See here:
>
>http://www.turneffecoconut.com
>
>The picture of me there is "dated" -- the beard is much longer now!
>
>Guess what my nick-name is among all the local children here -- eh??
>
>Actually -- life is wonderful here -- it all you fellows I worry about.
>
>For me -- it's pretty well "Mission Accomplished".
>
>row -- row -- row your boat -- life is but a dream!
>
>Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>At 04:34 PM 8/15/2004 +0000, Gene Zebley wrote:
>
>
>Hello, Gentlemen. Just thought I'd drop by and see what was transpiring
>in the world of gasification. Tom, it's good to see the list survives.
>Leland, good to see business still supports your interests. Peter, they
>still have electricity in Belize? I figured world economic chaos would
>have stranded you down there by now. \;-) Have you got that lighter fluid
>boiler running, yet? Matthew, you keep goin, boy. Nothing like fresh
>blood and refusals to take no for an answer to get things moving around
>this joint. Damn, Gavin, you don't work for Bob, do you? Your retraction
>sounds like he threatened to fire you or something. Don't let ol' Bob
>scare you. His bark (and skiing) are much worse than his bite. Still
>sellin boilers............
>Best Regards,
>Gene Zebley
>Energy System Sales Hurst Boiler and Welding Co., Inc.
>21791 US Hwy 319 North
>Coolidge, GA 31738 Phone: (877) 994-8778, Toll Free US/Canada
>Phone: (229) 346-3545, Ext. 139
>Fax: (229) 346-3874
>Cell: (229) 798-0664 http://www.hurstboiler.com/solid_fuel_fired.htm
>mailto:boilrmkr at surfsouth.com _______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
>
From tmiles at trmiles.com Mon Aug 16 20:13:43 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:13:43 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Just thought I'd check in on you guys....
References: <3.0.32.20040815194415.0093a100@pop.btl.net>
<41215811.1050005@renewableplanet.ca>
Message-ID: <001401c483f7$80acb720$6401a8c0@OFFICE3>
Matt,
You can move this topic to bioenergy at listserv.repp.org list. That's the list
for discussion of resource and policy issues. This list is for technical
discussions of pyrolysis and gasification.
This list has been online now for more than 70,000 hours (which is more than
most commercial gasifiers). Production has been good but it always declines
when you guys fuel it with garbage. Every time you people get on a rant like
this other list members "vote with their feet" and start leaving.
Let's keep the quality and content of the postings in line with the intent
of the list.
Thanks
Tom Miles
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Pottinger" <mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca>
To: "Peter Singfield" <snkm at btl.net>
Cc: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Just thought I'd check in on you guys....
>
> What about everyone else? Is a resource war on the horizon?
>
> Matt
From MMBTUPR at aol.com Mon Aug 16 22:23:07 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:23:07 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Renewable Environmental Solutions
Message-ID: <1c8.1d4b5264.2e52d41b@aol.com>
to Gasification list from Lewis L. Smith
"BCD" is a standard oil-industry abbreviation for "barrels per calendar
day".
Each such barrel contains 42 gallons liquid. This standard goes back to
the 14th century when it was established by an English king Edward as the
standard for North Sea small fish packed in brine, at the behest of English
merchants. In the latter part of the 19th century it was adapted for the oil
industry, which at that time was shipping crude oil and kerosene in wooden barrels of
diverse sizes !
I don't know what the oil is used for. Note that the info is from
Google. The co site is still UC, after all these months.
Cordially.
End.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040816/8c6fca46/attachment.html
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Tue Aug 17 02:07:51 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 03:07:51 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Bioenergy] Termiculture
In-Reply-To: <24390ABC-F005-11D8-85E5-000393C59A62@caverock.net.nz>
References: <41217271.6090709@renewableplanet.ca>
<24390ABC-F005-11D8-85E5-000393C59A62@caverock.net.nz>
Message-ID: <4121AEC7.9040700@renewableplanet.ca>
Ian Bywater wrote:
>
> On 17/08/2004, at 2:50 PM, Matt Pottinger wrote:
>
>> Instead of thermal conversion, use termites instead, they are very
>> efficient at decomposing wood and converting it to animal biomass.
>
>
> The same might be said for fungi - fungiculture?
>
>
Yep, exactly, fungi could perform the same duty very well, if that
fungi could be processed into valuable products. Some termites actually
require fungi to decompose the wood before they can consume it, fungi by
itself might be good too, has it been tried before? Maybe some species
could have some medicinal use, or some other high value use? You see,
termites produce chitin and a considerable amount of fat (for
biodiesel). Termites can also process dried manure and possibly sewage
sludge.
Chitin is worth anywhere from $10/lb for low end uses and up to $2000/lb
in pharmaceutical markets, and anywhere between those two. Up to $2000
per pound! Incredible, try selling any components of bio-oil for that
much, not going to happen right? So that is why termites seem like a
good idea to me.
Does anyone know any uses for wood consuming fungi? Possibly good
potential there too.
From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Tue Aug 17 06:49:30 2004
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:49:30 -0300
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Bioenergy] Termiculture
References: <41217271.6090709@renewableplanet.ca><24390ABC-F005-11D8-85E5-000393C59A62@caverock.net.nz>
<4121AEC7.9040700@renewableplanet.ca>
Message-ID: <001401c48451$00760b10$f59a0a40@kevin>
Dear Matt
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Bioenergy] Termiculture
> Ian Bywater wrote:
>
> >
> > On 17/08/2004, at 2:50 PM, Matt Pottinger wrote:
> >
> >> Instead of thermal conversion, use termites instead, they are very
> >> efficient at decomposing wood and converting it to animal biomass.
> >
Why do you say that termites are:
1: very efficient at decomposing wood
and
2:converting it to animal biomass
A bonfire is a very efficient way of disposing of gasoline, in that none is
left after it is consumed. However, it may be quite inefficient in terms of
completeness of combustion. (sooty combustion) Similarily, a termite may be
able to eat a lot of wood, but very little may actually get converted to a
desirable end product.
In aquaculture, for example, about 1.1 kilograms of feed can be converted
into 1 kilogram of fish. That, on the surface, is quite impressive. Is there
any known "feed conversion rate" for termites, for example, how many
kilograms of wood are required to grow 1 kilogram of termites?
Now, given that one had 1.00 kilograms of termites, how much of that
kilogram what be fats, oils and chitins?
And of the fats, oils, and chitins that are produced, what percentages can
be recovered?
I would intuitively guess that termites would be inefficient converters of
biomass into oils, fats and chitins, simply because they have a high surface
area/weight ratio and would consume a lot of the incoming energy to support
their rapid metabolism.
There are indeed a lot of interesting questions to be addressed!! :-)
> >
Best wishes,
Kevin Chisholm
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Tue Aug 17 16:19:17 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:19:17 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Bioenergy] Termiculture
In-Reply-To: <001401c48451$00760b10$f59a0a40@kevin>
References: <41217271.6090709@renewableplanet.ca><24390ABC-F005-11D8-85E5-000393C59A62@caverock.net.nz>
<4121AEC7.9040700@renewableplanet.ca>
<001401c48451$00760b10$f59a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <41227655.1040305@renewableplanet.ca>
That I am not sure about. As far as I know there is no information on
it, well, at least not that I could find. Since they would be adults you
are right they would probably waste a lot of energy through their
metabolism. Some kind of larvae would probably be more efficient,
because it's their purpose to store the energy and nutrients in their
bodies before they mature. Well, there could be a trade off though, with
the products being of high enough value to offset that wasted energy,
then it could still be worth it in the end. Selective breeding could
help also. Maybe one day we will have genetically engineered organisms
which can convert all of our waste to useful products, efficiently, but
then again, some large corporation would own the rights to those organisms!
Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>Dear Matt
>Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Bioenergy] Termiculture
>
>
>
>
>>Ian Bywater wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On 17/08/2004, at 2:50 PM, Matt Pottinger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Instead of thermal conversion, use termites instead, they are very
>>>>efficient at decomposing wood and converting it to animal biomass.
>>>>
>>>>
>Why do you say that termites are:
>1: very efficient at decomposing wood
>and
>2:converting it to animal biomass
>
>A bonfire is a very efficient way of disposing of gasoline, in that none is
>left after it is consumed. However, it may be quite inefficient in terms of
>completeness of combustion. (sooty combustion) Similarily, a termite may be
>able to eat a lot of wood, but very little may actually get converted to a
>desirable end product.
>
>In aquaculture, for example, about 1.1 kilograms of feed can be converted
>into 1 kilogram of fish. That, on the surface, is quite impressive. Is there
>any known "feed conversion rate" for termites, for example, how many
>kilograms of wood are required to grow 1 kilogram of termites?
>
>Now, given that one had 1.00 kilograms of termites, how much of that
>kilogram what be fats, oils and chitins?
>
>And of the fats, oils, and chitins that are produced, what percentages can
>be recovered?
>
>I would intuitively guess that termites would be inefficient converters of
>biomass into oils, fats and chitins, simply because they have a high surface
>area/weight ratio and would consume a lot of the incoming energy to support
>their rapid metabolism.
>
>There are indeed a lot of interesting questions to be addressed!! :-)
>
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Kevin Chisholm
>
>
>
>
From snkm at btl.net Tue Aug 17 18:50:20 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:50:20 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Bioenergy] Termiculture
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20040817174631.0097a2d0@pop.btl.net>
At 05:19 PM 8/17/2004 -0400, Matt Pottinger wrote:
>
>That I am not sure about. As far as I know there is no information on
>it, well, at least not that I could find. Since they would be adults you
>are right they would probably waste a lot of energy through their
>metabolism. Some kind of larvae would probably be more efficient,
>because it's their purpose to store the energy and nutrients in their
>bodies before they mature. Well, there could be a trade off though, with
>the products being of high enough value to offset that wasted energy,
>then it could still be worth it in the end. Selective breeding could
>help also. Maybe one day we will have genetically engineered organisms
>which can convert all of our waste to useful products, efficiently, but
>then again, some large corporation would own the rights to those organisms!
>
Matt:
Both Kevin and I were members of a mail list a while back that addresses
all your concerns in the greatest of detail.
And yes -- well worth the "study"
I have clipped in appended the old information -- maybe the archives are
functional??
However -- I do have every com saved to hard drive for far future
reference. So have archive on hand.
It is a totally amazing avenue of study -- there might be a few others on
this list interested??
highlighting of interest:
WANTED: An organism(s) that can consume all types of bio-organic wastes,
do the job very quickly, convert all wastes into useful by-products. It
should be able to work independently.
Well -- over the time span of activity on this list -- they came up with a
number - -really!!
Matt -- go search out:
black soldier fly
and here is an interesting clip:
Normally when we think of composting, we focus mainly on the activity of
thermophilic bacteria. But composting should include the promotion of
consumers at many different levels. The black soldier fly is just one of
many creatures we could enlist to consume the staggering quantities of
waste generated by human activity.
Oops -- just found this to:
Current discussion messages are archived:
http://segate.sunet.se/archives/et-jizo.html
And see that:
Cornelius A. Van Milligen
Kentucky Enrichment Inc.
Rural Innovations Inc.
Was also on that list -- another long standing member of this gas list here.
Peter in Belize -- always a few steps ahead of Matt --
*************************************************************
Return-Path: <owner-et-ann at SEGATE.SUNET.SE>
Approved-By: foo at BIOTECH.KTH.SE
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:22:39 +0100
Reply-To: Jacky Foo <foo at BIOTECH.KTH.SE>
Sender: Announcements from Integrated Bio-Systems Network
<ET-ANN at SEGATE.SUNET.SE>
From: Jacky Foo <foo at BIOTECH.KTH.SE>
Subject: [ET-ANN] Insect Larvae in Organic Waste Recycling & Management
To: ET-ANN at SEGATE.SUNET.SE
Preliminary Registration for Participants
Electronic workshop on
"Insect Larvae in Organic Waste Recycling and Management"
Date: April/May (to be announced)
Organiser: Integrated Biosystems Network of IOBB
(Intl Org. on Biotechnology & Bioengineering)
Registration: http://segate.sunet.se/archives/et-jizo.html
or
Email listserv at segate.sunet.se and use the subscription command:
SUB ET-JIZO yourfirstname yourlastname, country
Summary:
WANTED: An organism(s) that can consume all types of bio-organic wastes,
do the job very quickly, convert all wastes into useful by-products. It
should be able to work independently.
ARE THERE SUCH ORGANISMS ?. Yes, certain larvae of Insects that can
consume as much as 15 kg of organic wastes per m2 per day, do a neat
clean-up job quickly and achieve zero waste. Who can they be, how do
they do it, how can I get them to work for me ?
This electronic workshop is organised by the Integrated Biosystems
Network (IBSnet) and will enable you to join a group of experts and
practitioners to discuss how zero waste can be achieved in organic waste
recycling, how to grow and manage these larvae, what are the risks we
need to consider, what and how to use the by-products, etc.. The goal of
this e-workshop is to increase public awareness and to form a sub-group
under the IBSnet; in order to popularise the approach for organic waste
recycling, to convince policy makers and encourage agencies and
individuals to fund R&D projects globally, and to apply, adapt and
further develop technology to suit local needs.
The following experts will provide materials for discussion by email :
(1) Paul Olivier (USA). The Bio-Conversion of Putrescent Waste
(2) Lylian Rodriguez, Siv Kong & Thomas R Preston (Cambodia). Insect
larvae as recycling agents: an alternative for the conversion of organic
wastes into high quality protein
(3) Craig Sheppard (USA). Black Soldier Fly and Others for Value-Added
Manure Management
(4) Tran Tan Viet (Vietnam). Mass Production of Insect larvae
(5) Kevin Warburton & Vivienne Hallman (Australia). Processing of
organic materials by the soldier fly, Hermetia illicens
More information to be provided via the ET-JIZO mailing list.
+++
Please help to copy this announcement to your friends who may be
interested.
Thank you.
Jacky Foo, Coordinator
Integrated Biosystems Network
International Organization on Biotechnology and Bioengineering
http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ibs/ibsnet
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Wed Aug 18 15:19:23 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 16:19:23 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Integrated Plasma Fuel Cell
Message-ID: <4123B9CB.1060705@renewableplanet.ca>
Still think fossil fuels have no future? Hydrogen from fossil fuels,
expensive & polluting? Think again! Read thoroughly.
Make sure to read the faq, also.
http://www.hceco.com/faqs.html
TRULY Awesome technology: http://www.hceco.com/
The future of power generation?
The overall thermal efficiency of the IPFC process for electricity and
hydrogen is over 90%
The calculated capital cost for an electricity and hydrogen plant using
IPFC is about $700/KW
/Question:/ IPFC Efficiency. How do you get 92% efficiency with the IPFC
using coal?
/Answer:/ Efficiency for the IPFC applications is maximized by the
co-production of electricity and hydrogen. For this co-product case, the
electrical energy obtained is 53% to 59% of that available from the
heating value of the feedstock coal, which is 1.47 times the 38%
efficiency of a steam plant. The hydrogen that is produced adds between
28% and 39% additional useful energy. Therefore, the total thermal
efficiency increases to between 87% and 92%.
The remaining 8% to 13% of the energy in the fuel is in high temperature
gases, which would be used to grind and dry the coal and keep the molten
salt hot. However, unlike the case described in the previous question
for only electricity production, it is possible that this residual
thermal energy may be insufficient to grind and dry the coal and keep
the molten salt hot. So, in that event, some of the hydrogen would be
burned to provide the additional energy required. This would diminish
the overall efficiency, but is not expected to be significant.
From snkm at btl.net Wed Aug 18 20:58:43 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:58:43 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Integrated Plasma Fuel Cell
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20040818195839.00a90100@pop.btl.net>
Oops -- see the Url you refer to is a different process --
At 04:19 PM 8/18/2004 -0400, Matt Pottinger wrote:
>
>Still think fossil fuels have no future? Hydrogen from fossil fuels,
>expensive & polluting? Think again! Read thoroughly.
**********snipped*********
>For this co-product case, the
>electrical energy obtained is 53% to 59% of that available from the
>heating value of the feedstock coal, which is 1.47 times the 38%
>efficiency of a steam plant.
Well Matt -- to begin with --
Though it might be true that the US and Canada only get 38% in their
ancient -- backwards -- low technology -- coal fired thermal plants -- the
Europeans get 50% and better always.
>The hydrogen that is produced adds between
>28% and 39% additional useful energy. Therefore, the total thermal
>efficiency increases to between 87% and 92%.
Wow!! Now that is outright lying huge time!!
If I find time I'll look over that sight -- salt baths eh??
I set out a design for recuperating CO to H2 using salt baths a while back
on this list -- so to achieve up to 60% over all thermal efficiencies a
while back on this list.
You don't suppose they took that advice??
And imagine -- if you had been a list member then -- and with your ability
to commercialize ideas -- you would be a billionaire today -- eh??
Actually -- I still say the salt bath conversion route works --
But at that time -- it was a liquid metal bath of tin --
First you pass steam through -- and that strips out the O2 -- leaving pure H2
Then you sparge the tin oxide with CO -- which takes back the oxygen!
The first stage is endothermic -- the second is exothermic -- so balances
out. The result product is H2 pure -- and CO2 -- both in separate streams.
The original "fuel" (coal -- biomasses -- you name it) is steam reformed
into mostly H2 -- CO -- CO2
As this is a steam reformation -- no huge amounts of nitrogen as in air
based partial combustion gasification.
Or -- alternatively -- it is gasified in a pure O2 atmosphere -- which by
the way -- is how Europeans now "burn" coal -- and get those high over all
efficiencies!!
Your talking old technology -- and someone wrapping it in a new container.
Well -- old to some of us -- eh??
I remember references that tin was to be replaced with specialized molten
salt baths -- no time to go searching that out right now ---
but have appended a clip from a pdf file on the last of this technology --
Taken from this url:
http://www.alchemix.us/hydromax.pdf
But urls come and go -- I do keep extensive hard drive archives though --
Some "other" references of interest -- (and you marry this with the tin
bath -- to "freely" convert the CO to H2) -- and your talking 60% or better
conversion to power rates -- though that depends on the claimes of the fuel
cell makers --
(Note -- this is specifically about "coal")
United States Patent 6,110,239
Malone , et al. August 29, 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Molten metal hydrocarbon gasification process
Abstract
A process in which a high-purity, high-pressure hydrogen-rich gas stream
and a high-purity, high-pressure carbon monoxide-rich gas stream are
simultaneously produced separately and continuously using a molten metal
gasifier that contains at least two zones, thereby avoiding the need to
separate or compress the gases in down-stream equipment. In one version of
the process, the steps comprise (a) introducing a hydrocarbon feed into a
molten metal bath beneath the molten metal surface in a feed zone operating
at a pressure above 5 atmospheres absolute, and decomposing the hydrocarbon
feed into hydrogen, which leaves the feed zone as a hydrogen-rich gas, and
into carbon, which dissolves in the molten metal and increases the carbon
concentration, but controlling the carbon concentration to at or below the
limit of solubility of carbon in the molten metal, (b) transferring a
portion of the molten metal from the feed zone to another molten metal
oxidation zone operating at a pressure above 5 atmospheres absolute into
which an oxygen-containing material is introduced beneath the molten metal
surface to react with a portion of the carbon to form a carbon
monoxide-rich gas which leaves the oxidation zone, wherein the carbon
concentration in the molten metal is controlled so that it does not reach
the concentration at which the equilibrium oxygen concentration would
exceed its solubility limit in the molten metal and a separate iron oxide
phase would accumulate, (c) transferring at least a portion of the molten
metal which has a lower carbon concentration from the oxidation zone back
to the feed zone, and (d) passing said separate high-pressure, high-purity
hydrogen-rich and carbon monoxide-rich gas streams out of their respective
zones, removing entrained dust and cooling the gas streams to temperatures
suitable for use in industrial processes.
***********appended************
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The HydroMax technology is a two-step process. First, steam contacts a
molten metal to form metal oxide and produce hydrogen. The hydrogen
produced requires no further separation or purification after the
un-reacted steam is condensed. In the second step, metal oxide reduction,
the metal oxide is reduced with a carbon source into metal. Both process
steps occur in the same reactor, but at different times. A production plant
requires at least two furnaces operating in tandem in order to produce
hydrogen continuously. Metal smelting furnaces that are commercially
available today can be adapted for use as the reactor vessel.
Metal is not consumed in the process. It simply acts as a carrier for the
oxygen from one part of the process to the other. The choice of metal is
critical for the economic viability of the process. The metal must have a
high affinity for oxygen to maximize the yield of hydrogen. The metal oxide
formed in the hydrogen production step must also be readily reduced by carbon.
After some experimentation, Alchemix has selected a mixture of iron and
tin. Iron strongly attracts the oxygen in steam to form iron oxide. The
iron oxide is then reduced back to iron by reacting with carbon and air.
Carbon dioxide is formed in this process. The tin does not oxidize but
allows operation at lower temperatures and helps to remove sulfur at low
cost. The following simplified Figure 1 diagram shows the principal reactions.
From ktwu at itri.org.tw Wed Aug 18 21:36:00 2004
From: ktwu at itri.org.tw (ktwu at itri.org.tw)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:36:00 +0800
Subject: [Gasification] petroleum coke
Message-ID: <OF30107527.376959C6-ON48256EF5.000E4803-48256EF5.000E4875@itri.org.tw>
Dear Listers
We know that petroleum coke is the by-products of oil refineries. Is it a
kind of waste? If so, could it be classed as biomass? The same how about
peat?
Look forward to having your comments. Thank you very much indeed.
Keng-Tung
------------------------------------------------------------
Keng-Tung Wu, PhD
Biomass Energy Laboratory
Industrial Technology Research Institute
TAIWAN, ROC
E-mail: ktwu @ itri.org.tw
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Wed Aug 18 22:35:50 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 23:35:50 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Integrated Plasma Fuel Cell
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040818195839.00a90100@pop.btl.net>
References: <3.0.32.20040818195839.00a90100@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <41242016.4050709@renewableplanet.ca>
Peter, Peter, Peter, I know it is common policy for anything I post to
be criticized and guffawed to the end, but before doing so, I wish
people would learn the detals of the process I am referrring to. You are
wrong.
I know about molten metal gasification, you make many assumptions about
what I am or am not aware of, I am aware of more than you think. You,
however, are not aware of the specific details of this process you are
criticizing. So before insulting me with sarcasm, this is not a
"combustion" system. It uses Direct Carbon Fuel Cells, and a hydrogen
fuel cell combined together. It is totally different from this "old"
system you are referring to, it uses two different types of fuel cells.
Read more, I am utterly disappointed in many people on here, I expected
more open minds, and less ego. Just a hint..... read before
dismissing. No reading.... no dismissing (at least not in an insulting
manner)
Sincerely,
Matt
Peter Singfield wrote:
>Oops -- see the Url you refer to is a different process --
>
>At 04:19 PM 8/18/2004 -0400, Matt Pottinger wrote:
>
>
>>Still think fossil fuels have no future? Hydrogen from fossil fuels,
>>expensive & polluting? Think again! Read thoroughly.
>>
>>
>
>**********snipped*********
>
>
>
>>For this co-product case, the
>>electrical energy obtained is 53% to 59% of that available from the
>>heating value of the feedstock coal, which is 1.47 times the 38%
>>efficiency of a steam plant.
>>
>>
>
>Well Matt -- to begin with --
>
>Though it might be true that the US and Canada only get 38% in their
>ancient -- backwards -- low technology -- coal fired thermal plants -- the
>Europeans get 50% and better always.
>
>
>
>>The hydrogen that is produced adds between
>>28% and 39% additional useful energy. Therefore, the total thermal
>>efficiency increases to between 87% and 92%.
>>
>>
>
>Wow!! Now that is outright lying huge time!!
>
>If I find time I'll look over that sight -- salt baths eh??
>
>I set out a design for recuperating CO to H2 using salt baths a while back
>on this list -- so to achieve up to 60% over all thermal efficiencies a
>while back on this list.
>
>You don't suppose they took that advice??
>
>And imagine -- if you had been a list member then -- and with your ability
>to commercialize ideas -- you would be a billionaire today -- eh??
>
>Actually -- I still say the salt bath conversion route works --
>
>But at that time -- it was a liquid metal bath of tin --
>
>First you pass steam through -- and that strips out the O2 -- leaving pure H2
>
>Then you sparge the tin oxide with CO -- which takes back the oxygen!
>
>The first stage is endothermic -- the second is exothermic -- so balances
>out. The result product is H2 pure -- and CO2 -- both in separate streams.
>
>The original "fuel" (coal -- biomasses -- you name it) is steam reformed
>into mostly H2 -- CO -- CO2
>
>As this is a steam reformation -- no huge amounts of nitrogen as in air
>based partial combustion gasification.
>
>Or -- alternatively -- it is gasified in a pure O2 atmosphere -- which by
>the way -- is how Europeans now "burn" coal -- and get those high over all
>efficiencies!!
>
>Your talking old technology -- and someone wrapping it in a new container.
>
>Well -- old to some of us -- eh??
>
>I remember references that tin was to be replaced with specialized molten
>salt baths -- no time to go searching that out right now ---
>
>but have appended a clip from a pdf file on the last of this technology --
>
>Taken from this url:
>
>http://www.alchemix.us/hydromax.pdf
>
>But urls come and go -- I do keep extensive hard drive archives though --
>
>Some "other" references of interest -- (and you marry this with the tin
>bath -- to "freely" convert the CO to H2) -- and your talking 60% or better
>conversion to power rates -- though that depends on the claimes of the fuel
>cell makers --
>
>(Note -- this is specifically about "coal")
>
>United States Patent 6,110,239
>Malone , et al. August 29, 2000
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>Molten metal hydrocarbon gasification process
>
>
>Abstract
>A process in which a high-purity, high-pressure hydrogen-rich gas stream
>and a high-purity, high-pressure carbon monoxide-rich gas stream are
>simultaneously produced separately and continuously using a molten metal
>gasifier that contains at least two zones, thereby avoiding the need to
>separate or compress the gases in down-stream equipment. In one version of
>the process, the steps comprise (a) introducing a hydrocarbon feed into a
>molten metal bath beneath the molten metal surface in a feed zone operating
>at a pressure above 5 atmospheres absolute, and decomposing the hydrocarbon
>feed into hydrogen, which leaves the feed zone as a hydrogen-rich gas, and
>into carbon, which dissolves in the molten metal and increases the carbon
>concentration, but controlling the carbon concentration to at or below the
>limit of solubility of carbon in the molten metal, (b) transferring a
>portion of the molten metal from the feed zone to another molten metal
>oxidation zone operating at a pressure above 5 atmospheres absolute into
>which an oxygen-containing material is introduced beneath the molten metal
>surface to react with a portion of the carbon to form a carbon
>monoxide-rich gas which leaves the oxidation zone, wherein the carbon
>concentration in the molten metal is controlled so that it does not reach
>the concentration at which the equilibrium oxygen concentration would
>exceed its solubility limit in the molten metal and a separate iron oxide
>phase would accumulate, (c) transferring at least a portion of the molten
>metal which has a lower carbon concentration from the oxidation zone back
>to the feed zone, and (d) passing said separate high-pressure, high-purity
>hydrogen-rich and carbon monoxide-rich gas streams out of their respective
>zones, removing entrained dust and cooling the gas streams to temperatures
>suitable for use in industrial processes.
>
>***********appended************
>
>PROCESS DESCRIPTION
>The HydroMax technology is a two-step process. First, steam contacts a
>molten metal to form metal oxide and produce hydrogen. The hydrogen
>produced requires no further separation or purification after the
>un-reacted steam is condensed. In the second step, metal oxide reduction,
>the metal oxide is reduced with a carbon source into metal. Both process
>steps occur in the same reactor, but at different times. A production plant
>requires at least two furnaces operating in tandem in order to produce
>hydrogen continuously. Metal smelting furnaces that are commercially
>available today can be adapted for use as the reactor vessel.
>
>Metal is not consumed in the process. It simply acts as a carrier for the
>oxygen from one part of the process to the other. The choice of metal is
>critical for the economic viability of the process. The metal must have a
>high affinity for oxygen to maximize the yield of hydrogen. The metal oxide
>formed in the hydrogen production step must also be readily reduced by carbon.
>
>After some experimentation, Alchemix has selected a mixture of iron and
>tin. Iron strongly attracts the oxygen in steam to form iron oxide. The
>iron oxide is then reduced back to iron by reacting with carbon and air.
>Carbon dioxide is formed in this process. The tin does not oxidize but
>allows operation at lower temperatures and helps to remove sulfur at low
>cost. The following simplified Figure 1 diagram shows the principal reactions.
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
>
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Wed Aug 18 23:24:32 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 00:24:32 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Integrated Plasma Fuel Cell
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040818195839.00a90100@pop.btl.net>
References: <3.0.32.20040818195839.00a90100@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <41242B80.4020105@renewableplanet.ca>
Please excuse my tone, but sometimes, sarcasm can get to me. We are only
human. I will try to keep my cool and not get emotional over offensive
statements.
>Well Matt -- to begin with --
>
>Though it might be true that the US and Canada only get 38% in their
>ancient -- backwards -- low technology -- coal fired thermal plants -- the
>Europeans get 50% and better always.
>
>
Yes, maybe through heat recovery and cogeneration, the europeans are
probably more efficient than the North Americans, I won't dispute you
there, what does it have to do with the efficiency of fuel cells (with
near zero emissions of course). The Europeans currently use an
electro-chemical process? I highly doubt it. They use combustion. Look
into the efficiencies of direct carbon fuel cells, they are very high.
>>The hydrogen that is produced adds between
>>28% and 39% additional useful energy. Therefore, the total thermal
>>efficiency increases to between 87% and 92%.
>>
>>
>
>Wow!! Now that is outright lying huge time!!
>
>
>
No, they are not lying, the devil is in the details, when one looks for
them. Carbon is not converted to gas, the solid carbon is
electrochemically converte to electricity via a DCFC, VERY efficient.
Some hydrogen is also converted to electricity via the world famous
"Hydrogen Fuel Cell".
>If I find time I'll look over that sight -- salt baths eh??
>
>
>
Carbon black is produced by a hot hydrogen plasma gasification process,
the carbon black is carried by the molten salt to a Direct Carbon Fuel Cell.
Different system. The only similarity - yes, there is a presence of
molten salt.
>I set out a design for recuperating CO to H2 using salt baths a while back
>on this list -- so to achieve up to 60% over all thermal efficiencies a
>while back on this list.
>
>You don't suppose they took that advice??
>
>And imagine -- if you had been a list member then -- and with your ability
>to commercialize ideas -- you would be a billionaire today -- eh??
>
>
>
The only similarity is the presence of molten salt, I have seen
references to molten salt gasification all over the place, and they did
not have "invented by Peter Singfield" written anywhere.
>Actually -- I still say the salt bath conversion route works --
>
>But at that time -- it was a liquid metal bath of tin --
>
>
>
I read all of the messages about your system months ago, and I liked it,
but once again, there is more than just the concept of a molten metal
bath here.
In fact, I know many of the systems you mention to me before you point
them out to me, in fact, ALL of them. I've read more than you think, and
yes, through reading, I can learn quite a lot.
>First you pass steam through -- and that strips out the O2 -- leaving pure H2
>
>Then you sparge the tin oxide with CO -- which takes back the oxygen!
>
>The first stage is endothermic -- the second is exothermic -- so balances
>out. The result product is H2 pure -- and CO2 -- both in separate streams.
>
>The original "fuel" (coal -- biomasses -- you name it) is steam reformed
>into mostly H2 -- CO -- CO2
>
>As this is a steam reformation -- no huge amounts of nitrogen as in air
>based partial combustion gasification.
>
>Or -- alternatively -- it is gasified in a pure O2 atmosphere -- which by
>the way -- is how Europeans now "burn" coal -- and get those high over all
>efficiencies!!
>
>Your talking old technology -- and someone wrapping it in a new container.
>
>Well -- old to some of us -- eh??
>
>I remember references that tin was to be replaced with specialized molten
>salt baths -- no time to go searching that out right now ---
>
>but have appended a clip from a pdf file on the last of this technology --
>
>
>
I have looked at the alchemix system and visited their website a few
months ago, VERY interesting, but once again, a different process
entirely. Carbon is consumed in the alchemix reactor to produce
hydrogen. IPFC does not convert the carbon to a gas at all, it remains
solid, as carbon black, to pass through a carbon conversion fuel cell.
I could say more, but the info is there for those who have the time or
patience.
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Wed Aug 18 23:35:26 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 00:35:26 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] IPFC (why so efficient?)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040818195839.00a90100@pop.btl.net>
References: <3.0.32.20040818195839.00a90100@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <41242E0E.6030506@renewableplanet.ca>
Peter, to clarify the issue about efficiency, the electrical energy
obtained is 53% to 59% of that available from the heating value of the
feedstock coal. Similar to the european systems, however, the hydrogen
that is produced adds between 28% and 39% additional useful energy.
Therefore, the total thermal efficiency increases to between 87% and 92%.
All info is in the FAQ on their website. I realize you did not have the
time at the moment, but Peter, you judged too quickly, as you sometimes
judge me, far too quickly. I appreciate your knowledge and experience,
however I am not ignorant, in fact I know about 99% of the things you
point out to me, have read the old GASL messages, and have been to the
sites you refer me to. I wouldn't mind so much, if you didn't emphasize
so much how much I *supposedly* am not aware of them. I've been accused
in the past of making it seem like I think everyone on here is "stupid",
however, from my point of view, the opposite is true, and I think I have
some justification in that view.
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Thu Aug 19 00:05:45 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:05:45 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Breaking the laws of thermodynamics
In-Reply-To: <41242016.4050709@renewableplanet.ca>
References: <3.0.32.20040818195839.00a90100@pop.btl.net>
<41242016.4050709@renewableplanet.ca>
Message-ID: <41243529.1020805@renewableplanet.ca>
More insults my way via private e-mail. Wonderful. No, this is not a
Zero-point energy device!!!
*keep calm Matt, and explain*
CHP Systems achieve efficiencies of greater than 80% regularly. They are
*not* breaking the laws of thermodynamics.
Some CHP systems achieve 90% efficiency providing heat and electrical power.
Efficiency is high because the IPFC produces both hydrogen and electricity
Somehow, in the world of gasification, this is breaking the laws of
thermodynamics.
Read the FAQ first thoroughly.
You should at least know so much before sening insulting comments, that
might be a little "unprofessional".
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Thu Aug 19 01:41:31 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:41:31 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
In-Reply-To: <41243529.1020805@renewableplanet.ca>
References: <3.0.32.20040818195839.00a90100@pop.btl.net> <41242016.4050709@renewableplanet.ca>
<41243529.1020805@renewableplanet.ca>
Message-ID: <41244B9B.6010209@renewableplanet.ca>
Welcome to the stagnant pond, where all is still and settled in place.
Those who disturb this silence must drown!
Is there anybody out there, free of this pond with Direct Carbon Fuell
Cell experience or Hybrid Fuell Cell, or "Plasma Black" knowledge
anywhere in sight to save me from this stagnant, unchanging pond? :) If
you have all three, you might save me from drowning, if only you could
hear my call. :)
From FMurrl at aol.com Thu Aug 19 07:43:19 2004
From: FMurrl at aol.com (FMurrl at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 08:43:19 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] petroleum coke
Message-ID: <c1.44ac4642.2e55fa67@aol.com>
In a message dated 8/18/2004 10:38:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ktwu at itri.org.tw writes:
We know that petroleum coke is the by-products of oil refineries. Is it a
kind of waste? If so, could it be classed as biomass? The same how about
peat?
I doubt that this would be characterized as any sort of biomass. It is
clearly a part of the barrel of oil that is left after a thermal coking process to
capture all the distillates from the crude.
Some petroleum coke is not even waste. Some green delayed coke is calcined
and used in very high end chemical and metallurgical processes. The balance is
used as a fuel, which has gained wide acceptance in the cement industry and
is now getting the attention of coal-burning power plants.
If you haven't seen it, "green delayed" petcoke usually looks a lot like
coal when sitting in a coal pile. The preponderance of petcoke is green delayed.
Another type of coke is "fluid" coke, and is made with a different coking
process. That material is like billions of very small black ball bearings. It is
difficult to handle and store, and is often used as a fuel.
Finally, there is petcoke "smoke" which is the very, very fine particulates
that are captured in air cleanup systems at refineries. This is even more
difficult to handle than fluid coke, and has not found much market acceptance.
Regards,
Frederick J. Murrell
Carbon Resources
1401 Manatee Avenue West Suite 910
Bradenton, Florida 34205
Phone 1 941 747 2630
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040819/34013ad1/attachment.html
From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Thu Aug 19 08:20:54 2004
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:20:54 -0300
Subject: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
References: <3.0.32.20040818195839.00a90100@pop.btl.net> <41242016.4050709@renewableplanet.ca><41243529.1020805@renewableplanet.ca>
<41244B9B.6010209@renewableplanet.ca>
Message-ID: <003e01c485f3$809aeb00$ec9a0a40@kevin>
Dear Matt
Sorry I can't help you, but I don't know much about these direct conversion
cells and plasmas either, but some of the more interesting questions that
come to mind are:
1: Based on the energy content of the incoming carbon, what percentage of
its energy must be supplied from external sources to get the carbon to the
point where it can be used in a "carbon fuel cell"?
2: Based on the energy content of the incoming carbon, how much is converted
for recovery as electrical energy in the carbon fuel cell?
3: Based on the energy content of the incoming carbon, how much energy
leaves the system as thermal energy in the plasma gas?
4: Given that the important issue is carbon fuel cells, can they be
discussed without getting the pond waters all muddy and complicated by
introducing hydrogen? The hydrogen economy seems destined for not very much,
and there is no point in dragging down a possible carbon cell by weighing it
down with hydrogen.
Kevin Chisholm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Pottinger" <mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca>
Cc: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 3:41 AM
Subject: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
>
> Welcome to the stagnant pond, where all is still and settled in place.
> Those who disturb this silence must drown!
>
>
> Is there anybody out there, free of this pond with Direct Carbon Fuell
> Cell experience or Hybrid Fuell Cell, or "Plasma Black" knowledge
> anywhere in sight to save me from this stagnant, unchanging pond? :) If
> you have all three, you might save me from drowning, if only you could
> hear my call. :)
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Thu Aug 19 09:49:18 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:49:18 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] petroleum coke
In-Reply-To: <OF30107527.376959C6-ON48256EF5.000E4803-48256EF5.000E4875@itri.org.tw>
References: <OF30107527.376959C6-ON48256EF5.000E4803-48256EF5.000E4875@itri.org.tw>
Message-ID: <4124BDEE.9090905@renewableplanet.ca>
Petroleum coke would more be classed as an alternative fossil fuel, but
a fossil fuel nontheless. Petcoke is slightly more polluting than coal,
and would release more excess greenhouse gases, and SOx, when burned.
The only advantage is that it is cheaper than coal and has almost no
mercury content. Petcoke does contain other heavy metals; chiefly
vanadium and nickel. Petcoke is essentially "Heavy Fuel Oil", which has
been exposed to high temperatures. To be a form of biomass, it would
have to come from plants which could be grown and harvested on a
cyclical basis within a reasonable period of time.
Some people try to refer to peat as biomass, but the general consensus
is that peat is a non-renewable resource and if burned as fuel could not
replenish itself quickly enough to absorb the CO2 released or replace
the peat that is harvested, so peat would be more akin to coal, a very
poor quality coal at that.
Petcoke, while being a byproduct, would still add excess carbon dioxide
to the atmosphere when burned.
ktwu at itri.org.tw wrote:
>Dear Listers
>
>We know that petroleum coke is the by-products of oil refineries. Is it a
>kind of waste? If so, could it be classed as biomass? The same how about
>peat?
>
>Look forward to having your comments. Thank you very much indeed.
>
>Keng-Tung
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>Keng-Tung Wu, PhD
>Biomass Energy Laboratory
>Industrial Technology Research Institute
>TAIWAN, ROC
>E-mail: ktwu @ itri.org.tw
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
>
From Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk Thu Aug 19 10:33:58 2004
From: Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:33:58 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] petroleum coke
In-Reply-To: <4124BDEE.9090905@renewableplanet.ca>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGKEDEDNAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
Harvesting/mining peat is also an environmentally sensitive issue as peat
habitats are considered unique and irreplaceable. Peat bogs also act as
natural rainwater accumulators (sponges) and reduce flooding by storing and
slowly releasing rainwater from storms etc.
Witness the flooding here in the Uk over the last few years brought on by:
increased concrete/tarmac land covering and man made drainage, restriction
of watercourses and natural floodplains, peat removal , house building in
typical floodplain lands and maybe extreme unseasonal weather
Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
3G Energi Ltd.,
Tel +44 (0)1835 824201
Fax +44 (0)870 8314098
Mob +44 (0)7773 781498
E mail Gavin at 3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin at 3genergi.co.uk>
The contents of this email and any attachments are the property of 3G Energi
Ltd. and are intended for the confidential use of the named recipient(s)
only. They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to or
relied upon by any person without our express written consent. If you are
not an addressee please notify us immediately at the address above or by
email at admin at 3genergi.co.uk <mailto:admin at 3genergi.co.uk>. Any files
attached to this email will have been checked with virus detection software
before transmission. However, you should carry out your own virus check
before opening any attachment. 3G Energi Ltd. accepts no liability for any
loss or damage that may be caused by software viruses.
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Matt Pottinger
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 15:49
To: ktwu at itri.org.tw
Cc: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Subject: Re: [Gasification] petroleum coke
Petroleum coke would more be classed as an alternative fossil fuel, but
a fossil fuel nontheless. Petcoke is slightly more polluting than coal,
and would release more excess greenhouse gases, and SOx, when burned.
The only advantage is that it is cheaper than coal and has almost no
mercury content. Petcoke does contain other heavy metals; chiefly
vanadium and nickel. Petcoke is essentially "Heavy Fuel Oil", which has
been exposed to high temperatures. To be a form of biomass, it would
have to come from plants which could be grown and harvested on a
cyclical basis within a reasonable period of time.
Some people try to refer to peat as biomass, but the general consensus
is that peat is a non-renewable resource and if burned as fuel could not
replenish itself quickly enough to absorb the CO2 released or replace
the peat that is harvested, so peat would be more akin to coal, a very
poor quality coal at that.
Petcoke, while being a byproduct, would still add excess carbon dioxide
to the atmosphere when burned.
ktwu at itri.org.tw wrote:
>Dear Listers
>
>We know that petroleum coke is the by-products of oil refineries. Is it a
>kind of waste? If so, could it be classed as biomass? The same how about
>peat?
>
>Look forward to having your comments. Thank you very much indeed.
>
>Keng-Tung
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>Keng-Tung Wu, PhD
>Biomass Energy Laboratory
>Industrial Technology Research Institute
>TAIWAN, ROC
>E-mail: ktwu @ itri.org.tw
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Thu Aug 19 11:33:24 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:33:24 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
In-Reply-To: <003e01c485f3$809aeb00$ec9a0a40@kevin>
References: <3.0.32.20040818195839.00a90100@pop.btl.net> <41242016.4050709@renewableplanet.ca><41243529.1020805@renewableplanet.ca>
<41244B9B.6010209@renewableplanet.ca>
<003e01c485f3$809aeb00$ec9a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <4124D654.7010000@renewableplanet.ca>
It's all in the FAQ. So I'll just cut and paste from there.
I must say though, I am amazed by some people here (not you included).
I'm just fed up with it, quite frankly. Fortunately, I have better
discussion with a smaller number of people, which is refreshing.
http://www.hceco.com/faqs.html
Also, skim through the summary of their process first.
http://www.hceco.com/summary.html
Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>Dear Matt
>
>Sorry I can't help you, but I don't know much about these direct conversion
>cells and plasmas either, but some of the more interesting questions that
>come to mind are:
>
>1: Based on the energy content of the incoming carbon, what percentage of
>its energy must be supplied from external sources to get the carbon to the
>point where it can be used in a "carbon fuel cell"?
>
>
>
Less than 10% of the electricity produced by the Direct Carbon Fuel Cell
(using a coal fuel) is expected to be consumed by the electric arc
Hydrogen Plasma Black Reactor.
>2: Based on the energy content of the incoming carbon, how much is converted
>for recovery as electrical energy in the carbon fuel cell?
>
>
>
Direct Carbon Fuel Cell efficiencies are projected to be 70-80%,
/
/The 82 to 92% efficiencies calculated for the IPFC are for the *final
products*, which includes the head end Plasma Black Reactor. These are
calculated with the Higher Heating Value of the fuels
The highest efficiency for electricity production is obtained by
supplementing the basic IPFC process with a Solid Oxide Fuel Cell and a
back-end Rankine cycle plant in the IPFC combined cycle. The cited
efficiencies (70% to 92%) for the IPFC do not include credit for the
efficiency improvements provided by these additional components.
/Question:/ IPFC Efficiency. How do you get 92% efficiency with the IPFC
using coal?
/Answer:/ Efficiency for the IPFC applications is maximized by the
co-production of electricity and hydrogen. For this co-product case, the
electrical energy obtained is 53% to 59% of that available from the
heating value of the feedstock coal, which is 1.47 times the 38%
efficiency of a steam plant. The hydrogen that is produced adds between
28% and 39% additional useful energy. Therefore, the total thermal
efficiency increases to between 87% and 92%.
The remaining 8% to 13% of the energy in the fuel is in high temperature
gases, which would be used to grind and dry the coal and keep the molten
salt hot. However, unlike the case described in the previous question
for only electricity production, it is possible that this residual
thermal energy may be insufficient to grind and dry the coal and keep
the molten salt hot. So, in that event, some of the hydrogen would be
burned to provide the additional energy required. This would diminish
the overall efficiency, but is not expected to be significant.
The lower waste heat in the Direct Carbon Fuel Cell is also an advantage.
Another important distinction is that the efficiency of a steam gasifier
is lower than the Hydrogen Plasma Black Reactor because the steam-carbon
reaction creating carbon monoxide and hydrogen is highly endothermic,
requiring part of the coal to be burned to produce the energy to drive
the steam gasification. In comparison, the Hydrogen Plasma Black Reactor
consumes only a small fraction of the energy in the form of electricity
from the Direct Carbon Fuel Cell to crack the coal. This is the reason
the Hydrogen Plasma Black Reactor is highly thermally efficient and
together with the Direct Carbon Fuel Cell makes the Integrated Plasma
Fuel Cell process highly efficient.
>3: Based on the energy content of the incoming carbon, how much energy
>leaves the system as thermal energy in the plasma gas?
>
>4: Given that the important issue is carbon fuel cells, can they be
>discussed without getting the pond waters all muddy and complicated by
>introducing hydrogen? The hydrogen economy seems destined for not very much,
>and there is no point in dragging down a possible carbon cell by weighing it
>down with hydrogen.
>
>Kevin Chisholm
>
>
>
Hydrogen does not necessarily have to be sold. It can be sent through a
hydrogen fuel cell.
IPFC-FT process with US coal feedstock can co-produce gasoline or diesel
*OR*, more electricity can be produced, for higher elecrical efficiency,
NOT thermal efficiency!!!!
Once again, I quote:/ "The ICCP for electricity using hydrogen in a
Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) and carbon in the DCFC can reach into the
70 to 80% thermal efficiency which is double that of conventional steam
plants."/
/Question:/ Hydrogen vs. Synfuels. What are the advantages in terms of
the IPFC process of producing synfuels versus hydrogen?
/Answer:/Synfuels (gasoline and diesel fuels) can be used today in the
economy without any changes to the marketing and consuming
infrastructure. They constitute a product in high demand. Whereas,
hydrogen for vehicles requires a change in infrastructure and hydrogen
for use in oil refineries requires co-location at or near the refinery.
The near-term hydrogen economy is limited, but the future demand for
hydrogen is unlimited.
Anything that's missing is in here is there to read in their summaries,
documentation, FAQ, etc. When you can see how the process works, it is
really not all that magical, nor is it worth the intense ridicule I've
recieved. I'm just floored by the attitudes of some people here, it's
madness.
From j.undurraga at mi.cl Thu Aug 19 13:35:36 2004
From: j.undurraga at mi.cl (J. Undurraga)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:35:36 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] mailing list
Message-ID: <003201c4861b$5355fe00$8c00a8c0@pc.metropolisinter.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040819/8830941b/attachment.html
From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Thu Aug 19 16:29:42 2004
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:29:42 -0300
Subject: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
References: <3.0.32.20040818195839.00a90100@pop.btl.net> <41242016.4050709@renewableplanet.ca><41243529.1020805@renewableplanet.ca>
<41244B9B.6010209@renewableplanet.ca>
<003e01c485f3$809aeb00$ec9a0a40@kevin>
<4124D654.7010000@renewableplanet.ca>
Message-ID: <00b401c48633$cec2bf20$ec9a0a40@kevin>
Dear Matt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Pottinger" <mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca>
To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
Cc: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
> It's all in the FAQ. So I'll just cut and paste from there.
I must have missed a lot when I read it. I could see a lot of soft
information, but not uch hard data.
>
> I must say though, I am amazed by some people here (not you included).
> I'm just fed up with it, quite frankly. Fortunately, I have better
> discussion with a smaller number of people, which is refreshing.
>
> http://www.hceco.com/faqs.html
>
A lot of the questions in their FAQ's are somewhat self serving, have little
technical relevance, and are suggestive of a promotion.
>
> Also, skim through the summary of their process first.
>
> http://www.hceco.com/summary.html
>
They seem to be long on concepts and short on specifics. Their promotion
seems to be directed at those who actually believe their is potential for a
Hydrogen Economy.
>
...del...
> >
> >1: Based on the energy content of the incoming carbon, what percentage of
> >its energy must be supplied from external sources to get the carbon to
the
> >point where it can be used in a "carbon fuel cell"?
> >
> Less than 10% of the electricity produced by the Direct Carbon Fuel Cell
> (using a coal fuel) is expected to be consumed by the electric arc
> Hydrogen Plasma Black Reactor.
>
> >2: Based on the energy content of the incoming carbon, how much is
converted
> >for recovery as electrical energy in the carbon fuel cell?
> >
> Direct Carbon Fuel Cell efficiencies are projected to be 70-80%,
> /
> /The 82 to 92% efficiencies calculated for the IPFC are for the *final
> products*, which includes the head end Plasma Black Reactor. These are
> calculated with the Higher Heating Value of the fuels
>
OK... here is their first "fatal flaw" that goes a long way to discrediting
the site in my view. Assuming they use their own power for the plasma, the
10% energy demand for the plasma would need about 15% of the fuel to meet
its needs. Given that they would now be down to 85% of incoming fuel, 70% to
80% conversion eficiency would give 60% to 68% overall efficiency for the
carbon. In other words, their efficiency claim may be correct based only on
inputs and outputs from the DCFC, but they are very wrong when they account
for losses for fuel preparation.
It is impossible to get a 92% overall efficiency when most of the incoming
fuel has a conversion efficiency in the 65% range.
> The highest efficiency for electricity production is obtained by
> supplementing the basic IPFC process with a Solid Oxide Fuel Cell and a
> back-end Rankine cycle plant in the IPFC combined cycle. The cited
> efficiencies (70% to 92%) for the IPFC do not include credit for the
> efficiency improvements provided by these additional components.
>
They should not be considered at this time, because they add more confusion.
>
> /Question:/ IPFC Efficiency. How do you get 92% efficiency with the IPFC
> using coal?
>
> /Answer:/ Efficiency for the IPFC applications is maximized by the
> co-production of electricity and hydrogen. For this co-product case, the
> electrical energy obtained is 53% to 59% of that available from the
> heating value of the feedstock coal, which is 1.47 times the 38%
> efficiency of a steam plant. The hydrogen that is produced adds between
> 28% and 39% additional useful energy. Therefore, the total thermal
> efficiency increases to between 87% and 92%.
53% + 28% = 81%; 59% +39% = 99%. When the numbers are added in this manner,
we get an efficiency range of 81% to 99%. This is not a believable figure.
>
> The remaining 8% to 13% of the energy in the fuel is in high temperature
> gases, which would be used to grind and dry the coal and keep the molten
> salt hot. However, unlike the case described in the previous question
> for only electricity production, it is possible that this residual
> thermal energy may be insufficient to grind and dry the coal and keep
> the molten salt hot. So, in that event, some of the hydrogen would be
> burned to provide the additional energy required. This would diminish
> the overall efficiency, but is not expected to be significant.
Things are going downhill real bad.10% loss for conversion to for plasma
energy, say 5% for grinding energy; total 15% electrical energy requirement,
or say 22.5% of incoming coal energy is required to generate power to dry
and crack it. If drying energy took 2.5%, then, in round numbers, 25% of
energy is required for fuel preparation.
>
> The lower waste heat in the Direct Carbon Fuel Cell is also an advantage.
>
> Another important distinction is that the efficiency of a steam gasifier
> is lower than the Hydrogen Plasma Black Reactor because the steam-carbon
> reaction creating carbon monoxide and hydrogen is highly endothermic,
> requiring part of the coal to be burned to produce the energy to drive
> the steam gasification. In comparison, the Hydrogen Plasma Black Reactor
> consumes only a small fraction of the energy in the form of electricity
> from the Direct Carbon Fuel Cell to crack the coal. This is the reason
> the Hydrogen Plasma Black Reactor is highly thermally efficient and
> together with the Direct Carbon Fuel Cell makes the Integrated Plasma
> Fuel Cell process highly efficient.
This is a very confused explanation of their process. The "highly efficient
black plasma process" is simply a way of getting the carbon dissolved or
reacted with the molten salt. Plasma, as used here, has nothing to do with
the generation of power; it is only used for fuel preparation. 25% parasitic
energy load for fuel preparation is very significant.
Their thermochemistry seems flawed; Sodium Carbonate plus carbon at 1,500 C
would likely produce Na2O or metallic sodium vapor; someone with an
Ellingham Diagram could sort this one out quickly.
>
> >3: Based on the energy content of the incoming carbon, how much energy
> >leaves the system as thermal energy in the plasma gas?
> >
They do the reader a disservice by not including a mass and energy balance.
> >4: Given that the important issue is carbon fuel cells, can they be
> >discussed without getting the pond waters all muddy and complicated by
> >introducing hydrogen? The hydrogen economy seems destined for not very
much,
> >and there is no point in dragging down a possible carbon cell by weighing
it
> >down with hydrogen.
> >
> Hydrogen does not necessarily have to be sold. It can be sent through a
> hydrogen fuel cell.
Hydrogen fuel cells seem to be going nowhere.
> IPFC-FT process with US coal feedstock can co-produce gasoline or diesel
>
If the object is petro fuels, then why not simply stay with FT only?
> *OR*, more electricity can be produced, for higher elecrical efficiency,
> NOT thermal efficiency!!!!
>
What we are trying to do is sort out a very confusing and evasive
presentation.
> Once again, I quote:/ "The ICCP for electricity using hydrogen in a
> Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) and carbon in the DCFC can reach into the
> 70 to 80% thermal efficiency which is double that of conventional steam
> plants."/
>
Their numbers seem shaky.
> /Question:/ Hydrogen vs. Synfuels. What are the advantages in terms of
> the IPFC process of producing synfuels versus hydrogen?
>
> /Answer:/Synfuels (gasoline and diesel fuels) can be used today in the
> economy without any changes to the marketing and consuming
> infrastructure. They constitute a product in high demand. Whereas,
> hydrogen for vehicles requires a change in infrastructure and hydrogen
> for use in oil refineries requires co-location at or near the refinery.
> The near-term hydrogen economy is limited, but the future demand for
> hydrogen is unlimited.
Where is the future unlimited need for hydrogen? What is to be the energy
source for producing hydrogen?
>
>
> Anything that's missing is in here is there to read in their summaries,
> documentation, FAQ, etc. When you can see how the process works, it is
> really not all that magical, nor is it worth the intense ridicule I've
> recieved. I'm just floored by the attitudes of some people here, it's
> madness.
Another possibility is that the IPFC process is somewhat mad. They seem to
be long on soft information, inviting the reader to accept the process on
faith and belief alone. Attempts at deriving some fundamental data, to form
a rational basis for supporting the concept always seem to be met with
dissapointment.
Kevin Chisholm
From arnt at c2i.net Thu Aug 19 17:25:43 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 00:25:43 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
In-Reply-To: <00b401c48633$cec2bf20$ec9a0a40@kevin>
References: <3.0.32.20040818195839.00a90100@pop.btl.net>
<41242016.4050709@renewableplanet.ca>
<41243529.1020805@renewableplanet.ca>
<41244B9B.6010209@renewableplanet.ca>
<003e01c485f3$809aeb00$ec9a0a40@kevin>
<4124D654.7010000@renewableplanet.ca>
<00b401c48633$cec2bf20$ec9a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <20040820002543.145f62d1.arnt@c2i.net>
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:29:42 -0300, Kevin wrote in message
<00b401c48633$cec2bf20$ec9a0a40 at kevin>:
> Dear Matt
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matt Pottinger" <mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca>
> To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> Cc: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 1:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
>
>
> > It's all in the FAQ. So I'll just cut and paste from there.
>
> I must have missed a lot when I read it. I could see a lot of soft
> information, but not uch hard data.
> >
> > I must say though, I am amazed by some people here (not you
> > included). I'm just fed up with it, quite frankly. Fortunately, I
> > have better discussion with a smaller number of people, which is
> > refreshing.
>
> > http://www.hceco.com/faqs.html
> >
> A lot of the questions in their FAQ's are somewhat self serving, have
> little technical relevance, and are suggestive of a promotion.
> >
> > Also, skim through the summary of their process first.
> >
> > http://www.hceco.com/summary.html
> >
> They seem to be long on concepts and short on specifics. Their
> promotion seems to be directed at those who actually believe their is
> potential for a Hydrogen Economy.
> >
> ...del...
..details on yet another American "Nigerian ?419 scheme",
with a wee dash of pump-n-dump flavor.
..these are products of corrupt law enforcement, which _allows_ these
schemes, in exactly the same way Nigerian Law lets Nigerians ?419
scamsters keep _all_ other African businesses, off Internet.
Both are Prime Products of Idiocy and Racism.
..we _could_ use a "Groklaw.net" to debunk these schemes.
--
..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 mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Thu Aug 19 17:54:23 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:54:23 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
In-Reply-To: <00b401c48633$cec2bf20$ec9a0a40@kevin>
References: <3.0.32.20040818195839.00a90100@pop.btl.net> <41242016.4050709@renewableplanet.ca><41243529.1020805@renewableplanet.ca>
<41244B9B.6010209@renewableplanet.ca>
<003e01c485f3$809aeb00$ec9a0a40@kevin>
<4124D654.7010000@renewableplanet.ca>
<00b401c48633$cec2bf20$ec9a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <41252F9F.9010909@renewableplanet.ca>
This is amazing. There is plenty of hard data.
I'd rather we all send these observations to the people who are
developing this technology, and see what they have to say, but first........
First of all, I'll start with the statement you made the I found to be
the most mistaken.
"Their thermochemistry seems flawed; Sodium Carbonate plus carbon at 1,500 C
would likely produce Na2O or metallic sodium vapor; someone with an
Ellingham Diagram could sort this one out quickly."
The direct carbon fuel cell operates at 750C, not 1,500 C.
I suppose all of the research being done on direct carbon fuel cells is just a lot of hot vapor, or you are mistaken.
So, nope, no problem there.
"
*Direct Carbon Fuel Cells*
This very new type of fuel cell is based on a process called direct
carbon conversion, in which carbon particles are joined in an
electrochemical process with oxygen molecules to produce CO2 and
electricity. The direct carbon fuel cell technology was developed at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The source of carbon fuel
can be any type of hydrocarbon, including coal, lignite, natural gas,
petroleum, petroleum, coke, and biomass. Because it is carbon, and not
hydrogen, that fuels this cell, hydrogen is released as a byproduct of
the cell reaction and could potentially be captured for use in a
separate hydrogen-powered fuel cell.
According to a recent LLNL newsletter, the technology uses aggregates of
extremely fine carbon particles, from 10 to 1,000 nanometers in
diameter, distributed in a mixture of molten lithium, sodium, or
potassium carbonate at 750-850?C.^16 Total cell efficiencies are
projected to be 70-80%, with power generation in the 1 kW/m2 range,
sufficient for practical applications. The carbon fuel particles can be
produced through pyrolysis of hydrocarbons, a thermal decomposition
method well-known as the source of carbon black for tires, ink, and
other applications in manufacturing industries. While the concept has
been successfully demonstrated with a 3 W cell, this technology is still
in the experimental phase of development. Because this is a
high-temperature cell, it would be best suited for stationary
applications, particularly in combination with CHP utilizing the waste
heat energy."
>They seem to be long on concepts and short on specifics. Their promotion
>seems to be directed at those who actually believe their is potential for a
>Hydrogen Economy.
>
>
There is potential for the hydrogen economy in the future, when the
capital cost of fuel cells becomes more affordable, and it will, and
when hydrogen can be produced cheaply enough in a distributed manner at
or near filling stations, which it will, especially with reforming
technologies like plasma assisted gasification. However, let's forget
about hydrogen, even without producing hydrogen, it is still a good concept.
>OK... here is their first "fatal flaw" that goes a long way to discrediting
>the site in my view. Assuming they use their own power for the plasma, the
>10% energy demand for the plasma would need about 15% of the fuel to meet
>its needs. Given that they would now be down to 85% of incoming fuel,
>
I think you may be wrong. The heat produced by the plasma is not simply
lost to space a significant amount of that heat energy remains in the
gas and is used for drying feedstock, recovered as steam, etc. So some
is lost, but not nearly as much as you think.
>>/Question:/ IPFC Efficiency. How do you get 92% efficiency with the IPFC
>>using coal?
>>
>>/Answer:/ Efficiency for the IPFC applications is maximized by the
>>co-production of electricity and hydrogen. For this co-product case, the
>>electrical energy obtained is 53% to 59% of that available from the
>>heating value of the feedstock coal, which is 1.47 times the 38%
>>efficiency of a steam plant. The hydrogen that is produced adds between
>>28% and 39% additional useful energy. Therefore, the total thermal
>>efficiency increases to between 87% and 92%.
>>
>>
>
>53% + 28% = 81%; 59% +39% = 99%. When the numbers are added in this manner,
>we get an efficiency range of 81% to 99%. This is not a believable figure.
>
>
Why? That is not the case with CHP systems, their efficiencies are
measured in such a way. This can be compared to that, there is no
mistake there.
>>The remaining 8% to 13% of the energy in the fuel is in high temperature
>>gases, which would be used to grind and dry the coal and keep the molten
>>salt hot. However, unlike the case described in the previous question
>>for only electricity production, it is possible that this residual
>>thermal energy may be insufficient to grind and dry the coal and keep
>>the molten salt hot. So, in that event, some of the hydrogen would be
>>burned to provide the additional energy required. This would diminish
>>the overall efficiency, but is not expected to be significant.
>>
>>
>
>Things are going downhill real bad.10% loss for conversion to for plasma
>energy, say 5% for grinding energy; total 15% electrical energy requirement,
>or say 22.5% of incoming coal energy is required to generate power to dry
>and crack it. If drying energy took 2.5%, then, in round numbers, 25% of
>energy is required for fuel preparation.
>
>
No, because waste heat from the fuel cell can be used to dry the
feedstock. There also is not a 10% loss from the plasma, that heat
energy produced by the plasma is not lost to space, it is in the hot
gas, and is recovered for drying the feedstock, steam power, etc.
>>The lower waste heat in the Direct Carbon Fuel Cell is also an advantage.
>>
>>Another important distinction is that the efficiency of a steam gasifier
>>is lower than the Hydrogen Plasma Black Reactor because the steam-carbon
>>reaction creating carbon monoxide and hydrogen is highly endothermic,
>>requiring part of the coal to be burned to produce the energy to drive
>>the steam gasification. In comparison, the Hydrogen Plasma Black Reactor
>>consumes only a small fraction of the energy in the form of electricity
>>from the Direct Carbon Fuel Cell to crack the coal. This is the reason
>>the Hydrogen Plasma Black Reactor is highly thermally efficient and
>>together with the Direct Carbon Fuel Cell makes the Integrated Plasma
>>Fuel Cell process highly efficient.
>>
>>
>
>This is a very confused explanation of their process. The "highly efficient
>black plasma process" is simply a way of getting the carbon dissolved or
>reacted with the molten salt. Plasma, as used here, has nothing to do with
>the generation of power; it is only used for fuel preparation. 25% parasitic
>energy load for fuel preparation is very significant.
>
>
The benefit of it is that there is no air or oxygen involved in the
"fuel preparation" or gasification step. A direct carbon fuel cell is
more efficient than a hydrogen fuel cell running on H2 from a
conventional gasifier with WGS.
I KNOW it has nothing to do with producing power, but not all of that
electrical energy to produce the plasma is lost through an endothermic
reaction, a lot of that heat remains in the gas to be used. So YOUR
calculations are flawed.
>Their thermochemistry seems flawed; Sodium Carbonate plus carbon at 1,500 C
>would likely produce Na2O or metallic sodium vapor; someone with an
>Ellingham Diagram could sort this one out quickly.
>
Direct Carbon Fuel Cells are a viable technology, I didn't invent it so
I won't waste time defending it, so this problem with molten salt being
used is a strange thing to bring up when it is already being done.
>
>
>
>>Hydrogen does not necessarily have to be sold. It can be sent through a
>>hydrogen fuel cell.
>>
>>
>
>Hydrogen fuel cells seem to be going nowhere.
>
>
>
They are improving on a continuous basis, and lowering in cost, and will
especially with mass production.
Direct carbon fuel cells are an even better innovation, because they
allow more efficient use of the carbon in fossil fuels.
>>
>>
>>
>If the object is petro fuels, then why not simply stay with FT only?
>
>
Sure, why not? It's profitable right now, I have nothing against liquid
fuels! It's a more economical way to produce electricity if you have a
co-product. It's more economical to produce fuels if they ARE the
co-product, I don't care what it is. Any argument there?
>
>
>
>
>
>>Once again, I quote:/ "The ICCP for electricity using hydrogen in a
>>Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) and carbon in the DCFC can reach into the
>>70 to 80% thermal efficiency which is double that of conventional steam
>>plants."/
>>
>>
>>
>Their numbers seem shaky.
>
>
>
Not when you have a real vision of what is trying to be achieved by this
process other than simply high electrical efficiency, and compare it to
other clean coal technologies, it does not seem to shaky. It seems like
a welcome improvement to the use of the one of the only significant
domestic energy resources which has the capability to supply our entire
energy needs for more than another 30 years. Coal is going to be really
important whether we like it or not, and if technologies like this can
make it clean and more efficient, I, for one, am willing to give it a
good, hard, look, and not dismiss it so quickly.
>
>Where is the future unlimited need for hydrogen? What is to be the energy
>source for producing hydrogen?
>
>
The energy source, inevitably in the short term will have to be fossil
fuels, I am quite convinced of that fact. Later on, who knows. The
problem is how to do it cleanly and efficiently, and at low enough cost
so that it doesn't become an environmental nightmare. This technology is
one of those solutions, better than IGCC with FT or H2 co-production,
because carbon sequestration is easier, and efficency is higher than a
gas-turbine fed by a gasifier with endothermic CO forming reactions or
expensive pure oxygen as the components I assure you make it less
attractive than this plasma technology. Plasma gasification is going to
be the future of gasification, to the disappointment probably of many of
the people who have allergic reactions to the mention of "plasma".
>Another possibility is that the IPFC process is somewhat mad. They seem to
>be long on soft information, inviting the reader to accept the process on
>faith and belief alone. Attempts at deriving some fundamental data, to form
>a rational basis for supporting the concept always seem to be met with
>dissapointment.
>
>Kevin Chisholm
>
>
Plasma gasification is not mad, direct carbon fuel cells are not mad.
This list needs to enter the 21st century. These technologies are not
"garbage", they will most definitely replace conventional gasification
technology as the technology advances, as the benefits to plasma
gasification are plentiful. The only obstacles in the way have been high
cost and low efficiency, this technology (along with some others) will
turn the tables a little. Plasma technology is compact, produces a
higher quality gas, and is evenually going to be available on the market
relatively cheap, enough to make a significant impact in both biomass &
fossil fuel energy.
If you wish, we can send these arguments against their technology to the
inventors themselves, and see what they have to say, I've said enough,
I'm simply interested in it so I can be up to date on the latest
developments, and know about technology of strategic significance, hey,
if it's a fraud, I'll thank you, because my strategies in business will
be based on fictional information!!!
>
>
>
From snkm at btl.net Thu Aug 19 18:26:09 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:26:09 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Integrated Plasma Fuel Cell
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20040819171830.0095ae30@pop.btl.net>
I curious about the carbon fuel cell -- not much info there -- have you
more details??
Peter
At 11:35 PM 8/18/2004 -0400, Matt Pottinger wrote:
>Peter, Peter, Peter, I know it is common policy for anything I post to
>be criticized and guffawed to the end, but before doing so, I wish
>people would learn the detals of the process I am referrring to. You are
>wrong.
>
>I know about molten metal gasification, you make many assumptions about
>what I am or am not aware of, I am aware of more than you think. You,
>however, are not aware of the specific details of this process you are
>criticizing. So before insulting me with sarcasm, this is not a
>"combustion" system. It uses Direct Carbon Fuel Cells, and a hydrogen
>fuel cell combined together. It is totally different from this "old"
>system you are referring to, it uses two different types of fuel cells.
>Read more, I am utterly disappointed in many people on here, I expected
>more open minds, and less ego. Just a hint..... read before
>dismissing. No reading.... no dismissing (at least not in an insulting
>manner)
>
>Sincerely,
>Matt
>
From snkm at btl.net Thu Aug 19 19:53:21 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:53:21 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20040819173834.00958650@pop.btl.net>
At 06:54 PM 8/19/2004 -0400, Matt Pottinger wrote:
>This is amazing. There is plenty of hard data.
>with power generation in the 1 kW/m2 range
That is kind of "huge"
>well-known as the source of carbon black for tires, ink, and
>other applications in manufacturing industries.
That is 99.99% pure crabon!! Check out the price of this "easily made"
carbon product!!
No mention if it can use unpure carbon -- just a song and dance routine!!
I suspect any impurity at all will contaminate the plates --
And on this list -- we have become usedto considering "efficiency" as how
much electric power out over how much heat/fuel energy in.
You can't throw thermal energy byproduct in!!
>Because this is a
>high-temperature cell, it would be best suited for stationary
>applications, particularly in combination with CHP utilizing the waste
>heat energy."
You mean they have to cool this cell to keep it at 750 C???
And you figure counting that as thermal energy and adding it to over all
efficiency is "cool"??
Sounds like a techno scam artist to me!!
Peter
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Thu Aug 19 20:39:00 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:39:00 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040819173834.00958650@pop.btl.net>
References: <3.0.32.20040819173834.00958650@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <41255634.6090503@renewableplanet.ca>
Peter Singfield wrote:
>>with power generation in the 1 kW/m2 range
>>
>>
>
>That is kind of "huge"
>
>
>
Looking at that now, I agree, but I think that those are for very early,
experimental fuel cells, I'll look into that more.
>That is 99.99% pure crabon!! Check out the price of this "easily made"
>carbon product!!
>
>
>
I know, carbon black is a valuable product, but the high temperatures
produced by thermal plasma are enough to produce it. Simple?
As simple as you can ask for, about as simple as making a plasma torch
(which nowadays actually can be done by anyone with a microwave
magnetron and a waveguide, creating a very decent high temperature plasma)
>No mention if it can use unpure carbon -- just a song and dance routine!!
>
>
>
It can't use unpure carbon, but pure carbon can be produced in a high
temperature plasma.
>I suspect any impurity at all will contaminate the plates --
>
>
I'll look into that.
>And on this list -- we have become usedto considering "efficiency" as how
>much electric power out over how much heat/fuel energy in.
>
>
Ok, well here's a very important piece of information:
The electrical efficiency is in the range of any combined cycle power
plant, 53% to 59%. That is not outrageous at all!!!
>You can't throw thermal energy byproduct in!!
>
>
>
I agree that it shouldn't be confused with electrical efficiency, but
the total efficiency of any process is VERY important if it's going to
be economical.
CHP systems make it more economical by using and somtimes selling heat
energy not converted to electricity
This IPFC system uses unburnt syngas produced from the volatiles to
produce liquid fuels or hydrogen, and uses only the carbon in the fuel
to produce electricity in a very efficient device without turning it
into syngas The additional energy in that *unburned* fuel produced as a
side product is important to consider and has value!! It isn't converted
to electricity, but the energy is there in the fuel that is going to be
sold and used for transportation ,etc. How can you not throw that in? In
that case, in a business where I will be producing one product from a
raw material, and there is a valuable byproduct, I should just "throw it
away"
Well, you don't have to believe me, but all efficiency issues aside,
there is not one thing bogus about this concept (forget the high
efficiency, there are other benefits), it would work quite well as a
power plant, with decent efficiency at least that of a combined cycle
power plant.
Believe me or not, we should clear this up with the owners of the
company if you wish.
>>Because this is a
>>high-temperature cell, it would be best suited for stationary
>>applications, particularly in combination with CHP utilizing the waste
>>heat energy."
>>
>>
>
>You mean they have to cool this cell to keep it at 750 C???
>
>And you figure counting that as thermal energy and adding it to over all
>efficiency is "cool"??
>
>Sounds like a techno scam artist to me!!
>
>
>
>
>Peter
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
>
From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Thu Aug 19 21:22:55 2004
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:22:55 -0300
Subject: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
References: <3.0.32.20040818195839.00a90100@pop.btl.net> <41242016.4050709@renewableplanet.ca><41243529.1020805@renewableplanet.ca>
<41244B9B.6010209@renewableplanet.ca>
<003e01c485f3$809aeb00$ec9a0a40@kevin>
<4124D654.7010000@renewableplanet.ca>
<00b401c48633$cec2bf20$ec9a0a40@kevin>
<41252F9F.9010909@renewableplanet.ca>
Message-ID: <010101c4865c$ba458d10$ec9a0a40@kevin>
Dear Matt
----- Original Message -----
Subject: Re: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
> This is amazing. There is plenty of hard data.
> I'd rather we all send these observations to the people who are
> developing this technology, and see what they have to say, but
first........
> First of all, I'll start with the statement you made the I found to be
> the most mistaken.
>
> "Their thermochemistry seems flawed; Sodium Carbonate plus carbon at 1,500
C
>
> would likely produce Na2O or metallic sodium vapor; someone with an
> Ellingham Diagram could sort this one out quickly."
>
> The direct carbon fuel cell operates at 750C, not 1,500 C.
> I suppose all of the research being done on direct carbon fuel cells is
just a lot of hot vapor, or you are mistaken.
> So, nope, no problem there.
>
Well, their elemental flow diagram states that their plasma regenerator
operates at 1,500 C. This is where the problem is.
> "
>
> *Direct Carbon Fuel Cells*
> This very new type of fuel cell is based on a process called direct
> carbon conversion, in which carbon particles are joined in an
> electrochemical process with oxygen molecules to produce CO2 and
> electricity. The direct carbon fuel cell technology was developed at
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The source of carbon fuel
> can be any type of hydrocarbon, including coal, lignite, natural gas,
> petroleum, petroleum, coke, and biomass. Because it is carbon, and not
> hydrogen, that fuels this cell, hydrogen is released as a byproduct of
> the cell reaction and could potentially be captured for use in a
> separate hydrogen-powered fuel cell.
>
> According to a recent LLNL newsletter, the technology uses aggregates of
> extremely fine carbon particles, from 10 to 1,000 nanometers in
> diameter, distributed in a mixture of molten lithium, sodium, or
> potassium carbonate at 750-850?C.^16 Total cell efficiencies are
> projected to be 70-80%, with power generation in the 1 kW/m2 range,
> sufficient for practical applications. The carbon fuel particles can be
> produced through pyrolysis of hydrocarbons, a thermal decomposition
> method well-known as the source of carbon black for tires, ink, and
> other applications in manufacturing industries. While the concept has
> been successfully demonstrated with a 3 W cell, this technology is still
> in the experimental phase of development. Because this is a
> high-temperature cell, it would be best suited for stationary
> applications, particularly in combination with CHP utilizing the waste
> heat energy."
>
There seems to be no question that the carbon fuel cell works. The only
question is one of efficiency.
> >They seem to be long on concepts and short on specifics. Their promotion
> >seems to be directed at those who actually believe their is potential for
a
> >Hydrogen Economy.
> >
> >
>
> There is potential for the hydrogen economy in the future, when the
> capital cost of fuel cells becomes more affordable, and it will,
Do you have any rational basis to support that belief?
and
> when hydrogen can be produced cheaply enough in a distributed manner at
> or near filling stations, which it will,
Do you have any rational basis to support this belief also?
especially with reforming
> technologies like plasma assisted gasification.
Simply because the plasma concept presented as being new and complex doesn't
mean it is good. Actually, there a number of disadvantages to it, in terms
of inherent inefficies because of unnecessarily high temperatures, and
electrical losses to make the arc work.
However, let's forget
> about hydrogen,
That is a good idea.
> even without producing hydrogen, it is still a good concept.
>
The process seems to work, but there is the question of efficiency and cost
effectiveness to be addressed.
> >OK... here is their first "fatal flaw" that goes a long way to
discrediting
> >the site in my view. Assuming they use their own power for the plasma,
the
> >10% energy demand for the plasma would need about 15% of the fuel to meet
> >its needs. Given that they would now be down to 85% of incoming fuel,
> >
> I think you may be wrong. The heat produced by the plasma is not simply
> lost to space a significant amount of that heat energy remains in the
> gas and is used for drying feedstock, recovered as steam, etc. So some
> is lost, but not nearly as much as you think.
>
I asked you how much energy was required for plasma, and you said 10%. Its
not what I think; its what you told me. The flow sheet does not show the
waste heat being used for drying, recovery of steam, etc.
> >>/Question:/ IPFC Efficiency. How do you get 92% efficiency with the IPFC
> >>using coal?
> >>
> >>/Answer:/ Efficiency for the IPFC applications is maximized by the
> >>co-production of electricity and hydrogen. For this co-product case, the
> >>electrical energy obtained is 53% to 59% of that available from the
> >>heating value of the feedstock coal, which is 1.47 times the 38%
> >>efficiency of a steam plant. The hydrogen that is produced adds between
> >>28% and 39% additional useful energy. Therefore, the total thermal
> >>efficiency increases to between 87% and 92%.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >53% + 28% = 81%; 59% +39% = 99%. When the numbers are added in this
manner,
> >we get an efficiency range of 81% to 99%. This is not a believable
figure.
> >
> >
>
> Why? That is not the case with CHP systems, their efficiencies are
> measured in such a way. This can be compared to that, there is no
> mistake there.
When I see a thermal machine with an indicated efficiency of 99%, I get
suspicious.
...del...
> >
> >Things are going downhill real bad.10% loss for conversion to for plasma
> >energy, say 5% for grinding energy; total 15% electrical energy
requirement,
> >or say 22.5% of incoming coal energy is required to generate power to dry
> >and crack it. If drying energy took 2.5%, then, in round numbers, 25% of
> >energy is required for fuel preparation.
> >
> >
> No, because waste heat from the fuel cell can be used to dry the
> feedstock. There also is not a 10% loss from the plasma, that heat
> energy produced by the plasma is not lost to space, it is in the hot
> gas, and is recovered for drying the feedstock, steam power, etc.
>
Does their flow sheet show the heat being recovered from the hot gas? If
not, then you are talking about a different process.
>
...del...
> >This is a very confused explanation of their process. The "highly
efficient
> >black plasma process" is simply a way of getting the carbon dissolved or
> >reacted with the molten salt. Plasma, as used here, has nothing to do
with
> >the generation of power; it is only used for fuel preparation. 25%
parasitic
> >energy load for fuel preparation is very significant.
> >
> >
> The benefit of it is that there is no air or oxygen involved in the
> "fuel preparation" or gasification step. A direct carbon fuel cell is
> more efficient than a hydrogen fuel cell running on H2 from a
> conventional gasifier with WGS.
> I KNOW it has nothing to do with producing power, but not all of that
> electrical energy to produce the plasma is lost through an endothermic
> reaction, a lot of that heat remains in the gas to be used. So YOUR
> calculations are flawed.
>
Well, I just worked with the data you forwarded from their site. Unless you
can show an error in my calculation procedure, then it is a case of "Garbage
in, garbage out."
>
> >Their thermochemistry seems flawed; Sodium Carbonate plus carbon at 1,500
C
> >would likely produce Na2O or metallic sodium vapor; someone with an
> >Ellingham Diagram could sort this one out quickly.
> >
> Direct Carbon Fuel Cells are a viable technology, I didn't invent it so
> I won't waste time defending it, so this problem with molten salt being
> used is a strange thing to bring up when it is already being done.
>
The 750 C operating temperature for their cell might be OK, but at 1500C
indicated as their regeneration temperature on tehir flow sheet, then I
would suggest there might be problems.
> >
> >Hydrogen fuel cells seem to be going nowhere.
> >
> >
> >
> They are improving on a continuous basis, and lowering in cost, and will
> especially with mass production.
The Hydrogen Economy Concept as a source of energy is as flawed as is the
concept of using storage batteries as a source of energy. Hydrogen is simply
a way of storing energy from another source. While ther4e are apparent
efficiency advantages with a hydrogen fuel cell, they mostly disappear when
the energy losses during the hydrogen manufacturing process are included.
> Direct carbon fuel cells are an even better innovation, because they
> allow more efficient use of the carbon in fossil fuels.
>
This is a project at the research level. Lots of stuff works in the lab, but
not in the real world. What about the required fuel quality? Catalysts
required for fuel cells are readily poisoned by impurities. Controlling
impurities in fuels is usually costly.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >If the object is petro fuels, then why not simply stay with FT only?
> >
> >
> Sure, why not? It's profitable right now, I have nothing against liquid
> fuels! It's a more economical way to produce electricity if you have a
> co-product. It's more economical to produce fuels if they ARE the
> co-product, I don't care what it is. Any argument there?
>
Not really... the only problem is one of sticking to a "base case" so that
the process can be evaluated.
> >
> >>Once again, I quote:/ "The ICCP for electricity using hydrogen in a
> >>Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) and carbon in the DCFC can reach into the
> >>70 to 80% thermal efficiency which is double that of conventional steam
> >>plants."/
> >>
They are being devious here... they don't say anything about gross energy
in, and net energy out.
> >>
> >>
> >Their numbers seem shaky.
> >
>
> Not when you have a real vision of what is trying to be achieved by this
> process other than simply high electrical efficiency, and compare it to
> other clean coal technologies, it does not seem to shaky. It seems like
> a welcome improvement to the use of the one of the only significant
> domestic energy resources which has the capability to supply our entire
> energy needs for more than another 30 years. Coal is going to be really
> important whether we like it or not, and if technologies like this can
> make it clean and more efficient, I, for one, am willing to give it a
> good, hard, look, and not dismiss it so quickly.
>
It might have a future, but it is at the research stage now. From what I can
see at this stage, NOBODY can say that the process is economically viable.
> >
> >Where is the future unlimited need for hydrogen? What is to be the energy
> >source for producing hydrogen?
> >
>
> The energy source, inevitably in the short term will have to be fossil
> fuels, I am quite convinced of that fact.
Why not biomass?
Later on, who knows. The
> problem is how to do it cleanly and efficiently, and at low enough cost
> so that it doesn't become an environmental nightmare. This technology is
> one of those solutions,
This technology is "interesting" but it appears to be some distance from
being a "solution."
..del...
> >Another possibility is that the IPFC process is somewhat mad. They seem
to
> >be long on soft information, inviting the reader to accept the process on
> >faith and belief alone. Attempts at deriving some fundamental data, to
form
> >a rational basis for supporting the concept always seem to be met with
> >dissapointment.
> >
> >Kevin Chisholm
> >
> >
>
> Plasma gasification is not mad, direct carbon fuel cells are not mad.
> This list needs to enter the 21st century. These technologies are not
> "garbage", they will most definitely replace conventional gasification
> technology as the technology advances, as the benefits to plasma
> gasification are plentiful. The only obstacles in the way have been high
> cost and low efficiency, this technology (along with some others) will
> turn the tables a little.
High cost and low efficiency are rather significant obstacles.
Plasma technology is compact, produces a
> higher quality gas, and is evenually going to be available on the market
> relatively cheap, enough to make a significant impact in both biomass &
> fossil fuel energy.
>
Plasma technology has been around for quite a while now. If significant
improvements are possible, we should have seen some by now.
> If you wish, we can send these arguments against their technology to the
> inventors themselves, and see what they have to say, I've said enough,
> I'm simply interested in it so I can be up to date on the latest
> developments, and know about technology of strategic significance, hey,
> if it's a fraud, I'll thank you, because my strategies in business will
> be based on fictional information!!!
>
Matt, do a Mass and Energy Balance on their process as they propose it, and
things should start to become a bit more apparent to you. If you want to ask
them anything, ask them for this.
Best wishes,
Kevin
>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
From a31ford at inetlink.ca Thu Aug 19 22:21:32 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:21:32 -0500
Subject: FW: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
Message-ID: <000c01c48664$cb58e9f0$1900a8c0@a31server>
Good Day Matt, Kevin, Peter & All....
For those of you that don't know, I post "latest first" (as in, my reply or
question is at the top of the message, not within, as others do).
Anyhow, with that aside, Matt, I gotta agree with Kevin on this, my brief
look at all of this, makes me think of when I first got into gasification
(not that I'm a pro or anything, I still class myself as a "newbie" at
this), but when I first got involved, my numbers looked very high on initial
view, but with others on this list taking note and asking me questions about
other facets of my gasifier, I realized that my efficiency wasn't as high as
I thought (the "true" efficiency is still better than what my initial "want"
was, but way lower than first tested, after accounting for all the aspects I
missed).
True Efficiency MUST take ALL energy & conversion into account, NOT just the
reformer section.
On that note, I bid a due, as there is still another 30 acres of hay that
has to be bailed....
Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Kevin
Chisholm
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 9:23 PM
To: Matt Pottinger
Cc: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Subject: Re: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
Dear Matt
----- Original Message -----
Subject: Re: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
> This is amazing. There is plenty of hard data.
> I'd rather we all send these observations to the people who are
> developing this technology, and see what they have to say, but
first........
> First of all, I'll start with the statement you made the I found to be
> the most mistaken.
>
> "Their thermochemistry seems flawed; Sodium Carbonate plus carbon at 1,500
C
>
> would likely produce Na2O or metallic sodium vapor; someone with an
> Ellingham Diagram could sort this one out quickly."
>
> The direct carbon fuel cell operates at 750C, not 1,500 C.
> I suppose all of the research being done on direct carbon fuel cells is
just a lot of hot vapor, or you are mistaken.
> So, nope, no problem there.
>
Well, their elemental flow diagram states that their plasma regenerator
operates at 1,500 C. This is where the problem is.
> "
>
> *Direct Carbon Fuel Cells*
> This very new type of fuel cell is based on a process called direct
> carbon conversion, in which carbon particles are joined in an
> electrochemical process with oxygen molecules to produce CO2 and
> electricity. The direct carbon fuel cell technology was developed at
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The source of carbon fuel
> can be any type of hydrocarbon, including coal, lignite, natural gas,
> petroleum, petroleum, coke, and biomass. Because it is carbon, and not
> hydrogen, that fuels this cell, hydrogen is released as a byproduct of
> the cell reaction and could potentially be captured for use in a
> separate hydrogen-powered fuel cell.
>
> According to a recent LLNL newsletter, the technology uses aggregates of
> extremely fine carbon particles, from 10 to 1,000 nanometers in
> diameter, distributed in a mixture of molten lithium, sodium, or
> potassium carbonate at 750-850?C.^16 Total cell efficiencies are
> projected to be 70-80%, with power generation in the 1 kW/m2 range,
> sufficient for practical applications. The carbon fuel particles can be
> produced through pyrolysis of hydrocarbons, a thermal decomposition
> method well-known as the source of carbon black for tires, ink, and
> other applications in manufacturing industries. While the concept has
> been successfully demonstrated with a 3 W cell, this technology is still
> in the experimental phase of development. Because this is a
> high-temperature cell, it would be best suited for stationary
> applications, particularly in combination with CHP utilizing the waste
> heat energy."
>
There seems to be no question that the carbon fuel cell works. The only
question is one of efficiency.
> >They seem to be long on concepts and short on specifics. Their promotion
> >seems to be directed at those who actually believe their is potential for
a
> >Hydrogen Economy.
> >
> >
>
> There is potential for the hydrogen economy in the future, when the
> capital cost of fuel cells becomes more affordable, and it will,
Do you have any rational basis to support that belief?
and
> when hydrogen can be produced cheaply enough in a distributed manner at
> or near filling stations, which it will,
Do you have any rational basis to support this belief also?
especially with reforming
> technologies like plasma assisted gasification.
Simply because the plasma concept presented as being new and complex doesn't
mean it is good. Actually, there a number of disadvantages to it, in terms
of inherent inefficies because of unnecessarily high temperatures, and
electrical losses to make the arc work.
However, let's forget
> about hydrogen,
That is a good idea.
> even without producing hydrogen, it is still a good concept.
>
The process seems to work, but there is the question of efficiency and cost
effectiveness to be addressed.
> >OK... here is their first "fatal flaw" that goes a long way to
discrediting
> >the site in my view. Assuming they use their own power for the plasma,
the
> >10% energy demand for the plasma would need about 15% of the fuel to meet
> >its needs. Given that they would now be down to 85% of incoming fuel,
> >
> I think you may be wrong. The heat produced by the plasma is not simply
> lost to space a significant amount of that heat energy remains in the
> gas and is used for drying feedstock, recovered as steam, etc. So some
> is lost, but not nearly as much as you think.
>
I asked you how much energy was required for plasma, and you said 10%. Its
not what I think; its what you told me. The flow sheet does not show the
waste heat being used for drying, recovery of steam, etc.
> >>/Question:/ IPFC Efficiency. How do you get 92% efficiency with the IPFC
> >>using coal?
> >>
> >>/Answer:/ Efficiency for the IPFC applications is maximized by the
> >>co-production of electricity and hydrogen. For this co-product case, the
> >>electrical energy obtained is 53% to 59% of that available from the
> >>heating value of the feedstock coal, which is 1.47 times the 38%
> >>efficiency of a steam plant. The hydrogen that is produced adds between
> >>28% and 39% additional useful energy. Therefore, the total thermal
> >>efficiency increases to between 87% and 92%.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >53% + 28% = 81%; 59% +39% = 99%. When the numbers are added in this
manner,
> >we get an efficiency range of 81% to 99%. This is not a believable
figure.
> >
> >
>
> Why? That is not the case with CHP systems, their efficiencies are
> measured in such a way. This can be compared to that, there is no
> mistake there.
When I see a thermal machine with an indicated efficiency of 99%, I get
suspicious.
...del...
> >
> >Things are going downhill real bad.10% loss for conversion to for plasma
> >energy, say 5% for grinding energy; total 15% electrical energy
requirement,
> >or say 22.5% of incoming coal energy is required to generate power to dry
> >and crack it. If drying energy took 2.5%, then, in round numbers, 25% of
> >energy is required for fuel preparation.
> >
> >
> No, because waste heat from the fuel cell can be used to dry the
> feedstock. There also is not a 10% loss from the plasma, that heat
> energy produced by the plasma is not lost to space, it is in the hot
> gas, and is recovered for drying the feedstock, steam power, etc.
>
Does their flow sheet show the heat being recovered from the hot gas? If
not, then you are talking about a different process.
>
...del...
> >This is a very confused explanation of their process. The "highly
efficient
> >black plasma process" is simply a way of getting the carbon dissolved or
> >reacted with the molten salt. Plasma, as used here, has nothing to do
with
> >the generation of power; it is only used for fuel preparation. 25%
parasitic
> >energy load for fuel preparation is very significant.
> >
> >
> The benefit of it is that there is no air or oxygen involved in the
> "fuel preparation" or gasification step. A direct carbon fuel cell is
> more efficient than a hydrogen fuel cell running on H2 from a
> conventional gasifier with WGS.
> I KNOW it has nothing to do with producing power, but not all of that
> electrical energy to produce the plasma is lost through an endothermic
> reaction, a lot of that heat remains in the gas to be used. So YOUR
> calculations are flawed.
>
Well, I just worked with the data you forwarded from their site. Unless you
can show an error in my calculation procedure, then it is a case of "Garbage
in, garbage out."
>
> >Their thermochemistry seems flawed; Sodium Carbonate plus carbon at 1,500
C
> >would likely produce Na2O or metallic sodium vapor; someone with an
> >Ellingham Diagram could sort this one out quickly.
> >
> Direct Carbon Fuel Cells are a viable technology, I didn't invent it so
> I won't waste time defending it, so this problem with molten salt being
> used is a strange thing to bring up when it is already being done.
>
The 750 C operating temperature for their cell might be OK, but at 1500C
indicated as their regeneration temperature on tehir flow sheet, then I
would suggest there might be problems.
> >
> >Hydrogen fuel cells seem to be going nowhere.
> >
> >
> >
> They are improving on a continuous basis, and lowering in cost, and will
> especially with mass production.
The Hydrogen Economy Concept as a source of energy is as flawed as is the
concept of using storage batteries as a source of energy. Hydrogen is simply
a way of storing energy from another source. While ther4e are apparent
efficiency advantages with a hydrogen fuel cell, they mostly disappear when
the energy losses during the hydrogen manufacturing process are included.
> Direct carbon fuel cells are an even better innovation, because they
> allow more efficient use of the carbon in fossil fuels.
>
This is a project at the research level. Lots of stuff works in the lab, but
not in the real world. What about the required fuel quality? Catalysts
required for fuel cells are readily poisoned by impurities. Controlling
impurities in fuels is usually costly.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >If the object is petro fuels, then why not simply stay with FT only?
> >
> >
> Sure, why not? It's profitable right now, I have nothing against liquid
> fuels! It's a more economical way to produce electricity if you have a
> co-product. It's more economical to produce fuels if they ARE the
> co-product, I don't care what it is. Any argument there?
>
Not really... the only problem is one of sticking to a "base case" so that
the process can be evaluated.
> >
> >>Once again, I quote:/ "The ICCP for electricity using hydrogen in a
> >>Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) and carbon in the DCFC can reach into the
> >>70 to 80% thermal efficiency which is double that of conventional steam
> >>plants."/
> >>
They are being devious here... they don't say anything about gross energy
in, and net energy out.
> >>
> >>
> >Their numbers seem shaky.
> >
>
> Not when you have a real vision of what is trying to be achieved by this
> process other than simply high electrical efficiency, and compare it to
> other clean coal technologies, it does not seem to shaky. It seems like
> a welcome improvement to the use of the one of the only significant
> domestic energy resources which has the capability to supply our entire
> energy needs for more than another 30 years. Coal is going to be really
> important whether we like it or not, and if technologies like this can
> make it clean and more efficient, I, for one, am willing to give it a
> good, hard, look, and not dismiss it so quickly.
>
It might have a future, but it is at the research stage now. From what I can
see at this stage, NOBODY can say that the process is economically viable.
> >
> >Where is the future unlimited need for hydrogen? What is to be the energy
> >source for producing hydrogen?
> >
>
> The energy source, inevitably in the short term will have to be fossil
> fuels, I am quite convinced of that fact.
Why not biomass?
Later on, who knows. The
> problem is how to do it cleanly and efficiently, and at low enough cost
> so that it doesn't become an environmental nightmare. This technology is
> one of those solutions,
This technology is "interesting" but it appears to be some distance from
being a "solution."
..del...
> >Another possibility is that the IPFC process is somewhat mad. They seem
to
> >be long on soft information, inviting the reader to accept the process on
> >faith and belief alone. Attempts at deriving some fundamental data, to
form
> >a rational basis for supporting the concept always seem to be met with
> >dissapointment.
> >
> >Kevin Chisholm
> >
> >
>
> Plasma gasification is not mad, direct carbon fuel cells are not mad.
> This list needs to enter the 21st century. These technologies are not
> "garbage", they will most definitely replace conventional gasification
> technology as the technology advances, as the benefits to plasma
> gasification are plentiful. The only obstacles in the way have been high
> cost and low efficiency, this technology (along with some others) will
> turn the tables a little.
High cost and low efficiency are rather significant obstacles.
Plasma technology is compact, produces a
> higher quality gas, and is evenually going to be available on the market
> relatively cheap, enough to make a significant impact in both biomass &
> fossil fuel energy.
>
Plasma technology has been around for quite a while now. If significant
improvements are possible, we should have seen some by now.
> If you wish, we can send these arguments against their technology to the
> inventors themselves, and see what they have to say, I've said enough,
> I'm simply interested in it so I can be up to date on the latest
> developments, and know about technology of strategic significance, hey,
> if it's a fraud, I'll thank you, because my strategies in business will
> be based on fictional information!!!
>
Matt, do a Mass and Energy Balance on their process as they propose it, and
things should start to become a bit more apparent to you. If you want to ask
them anything, ask them for this.
Best wishes,
Kevin
>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
From arnt at c2i.net Fri Aug 20 07:49:52 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:49:52 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
In-Reply-To: <41255634.6090503@renewableplanet.ca>
References: <3.0.32.20040819173834.00958650@pop.btl.net>
<41255634.6090503@renewableplanet.ca>
Message-ID: <20040820144952.7a69cb88.arnt@c2i.net>
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:39:00 -0400, Matt wrote in message
<41255634.6090503 at renewableplanet.ca>:
> Well, you don't have to believe me, but all efficiency issues aside,
> there is not one thing bogus about this concept (forget the high
> efficiency, there are other benefits), it would work quite well as a
> power plant, with decent efficiency at least that of a combined cycle
> power plant.
>
> Believe me or not, we should clear this up with the owners of the
> company if you wish.
..FWIW, I find someone with the spine to take clue whacks,
far more worthy of those than any scam artist, because you
_try_ to do the right thing. Education here helps. ;-)
--
..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 Aug 20 12:55:02 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:55:02 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20040820115446.00a70100@pop.btl.net>
Car tires are a large part pure carbon "black" -- and zillions of them
laying around to be recycled!!
So dump the plasma arc??
Pyrolysis of car tires is quite straight forward technology.
Peter
At 09:39 PM 8/19/2004 -0400, Matt Pottinger wrote:
>Peter Singfield wrote:
>
>>>with power generation in the 1 kW/m2 range
>>>
>>>
>>
>>That is kind of "huge"
>>
>>
>>
>Looking at that now, I agree, but I think that those are for very early,
>experimental fuel cells, I'll look into that more.
>
>>That is 99.99% pure crabon!! Check out the price of this "easily made"
>>carbon product!!
>>
>>
>>
>I know, carbon black is a valuable product, but the high temperatures
>produced by thermal plasma are enough to produce it. Simple?
>As simple as you can ask for, about as simple as making a plasma torch
>(which nowadays actually can be done by anyone with a microwave
>magnetron and a waveguide, creating a very decent high temperature plasma)
>
>>No mention if it can use unpure carbon -- just a song and dance routine!!
>>
>>
>>
>It can't use unpure carbon, but pure carbon can be produced in a high
>temperature plasma.
>
>>I suspect any impurity at all will contaminate the plates --
>>
>>
>I'll look into that.
>
>>And on this list -- we have become usedto considering "efficiency" as how
>>much electric power out over how much heat/fuel energy in.
>>
>>
>Ok, well here's a very important piece of information:
>The electrical efficiency is in the range of any combined cycle power
>plant, 53% to 59%. That is not outrageous at all!!!
>
>>You can't throw thermal energy byproduct in!!
>>
>>
>>
>I agree that it shouldn't be confused with electrical efficiency, but
>the total efficiency of any process is VERY important if it's going to
>be economical.
>CHP systems make it more economical by using and somtimes selling heat
>energy not converted to electricity
>
>This IPFC system uses unburnt syngas produced from the volatiles to
>produce liquid fuels or hydrogen, and uses only the carbon in the fuel
>to produce electricity in a very efficient device without turning it
>into syngas The additional energy in that *unburned* fuel produced as a
>side product is important to consider and has value!! It isn't converted
>to electricity, but the energy is there in the fuel that is going to be
>sold and used for transportation ,etc. How can you not throw that in? In
>that case, in a business where I will be producing one product from a
>raw material, and there is a valuable byproduct, I should just "throw it
>away"
>
>Well, you don't have to believe me, but all efficiency issues aside,
>there is not one thing bogus about this concept (forget the high
>efficiency, there are other benefits), it would work quite well as a
>power plant, with decent efficiency at least that of a combined cycle
>power plant.
>
>Believe me or not, we should clear this up with the owners of the
>company if you wish.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>Because this is a
>>>high-temperature cell, it would be best suited for stationary
>>>applications, particularly in combination with CHP utilizing the waste
>>>heat energy."
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You mean they have to cool this cell to keep it at 750 C???
>>
>>And you figure counting that as thermal energy and adding it to over all
>>efficiency is "cool"??
>>
>>Sounds like a techno scam artist to me!!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Gasification mailing list
>>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>
>>
>>
>
>
From luizmagri at yahoo.com Sun Aug 22 20:01:33 2004
From: luizmagri at yahoo.com (Luiz Alberto Magri)
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gasification] Breaking the laws of thermodynamics
In-Reply-To: <41243529.1020805@renewableplanet.ca>
Message-ID: <20040823010133.96185.qmail@web11704.mail.yahoo.com>
Matt,
We should note that talking about "efficiency" is
always misleading when the scenario is not properly
described.
See - converting the original fuel into electricity
and then adding some extra output as hydrogen cannot
be compared to a thermal cycle. In the latter, the
heat obtained from combustion is totally converted
into mechanical power. Then typical efficiecies will
range from 30 up to 55%.
In combined heat and power (not the same as a thermal
cycle, since part of the energy is recovered as heat
instead of mechanical power), yes, depending on how
hot you need the heat, maybe around 80 to 90%
effciency.
Now in the system you just described - there is
electricity plus energy bounded by-products
(hydrogen), but this is not to be compared neither to
thermal cycles, nor to CHP.
Different things.
Regards,
Luiz Magri
S?o Paulo
--- Matt Pottinger <mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca>
wrote:
> More insults my way via private e-mail. Wonderful.
> No, this is not a
> Zero-point energy device!!!
>
> *keep calm Matt, and explain*
>
> CHP Systems achieve efficiencies of greater than 80%
> regularly. They are
> *not* breaking the laws of thermodynamics.
> Some CHP systems achieve 90% efficiency providing
> heat and electrical power.
> Efficiency is high because the IPFC produces both
> hydrogen and electricity
> Somehow, in the world of gasification, this is
> breaking the laws of
> thermodynamics.
>
> Read the FAQ first thoroughly.
> You should at least know so much before sening
> insulting comments, that
> might be a little "unprofessional".
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Mon Aug 23 11:55:38 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 12:55:38 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Breaking the laws of thermodynamics
In-Reply-To: <20040823010133.96185.qmail@web11704.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040823010133.96185.qmail@web11704.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <412A218A.5080907@renewableplanet.ca>
Luiz,
That makes sense, I agree with you there, it is not the same as a
thermal cycle, so yes I see now that I had them confused.
However, I still believe that efficient use of raw materials including
fuels would have the same economic benefit as a high thermal efficiency,
so this power plant could still produce electricity and hydrogen (or
hydrocarbon fuels) at a lower cost. Well, regardless, it's an
interesting technology, though not practical at this moment since the
technology for DCFC is only in the research and development stages.
Approaches such as this, including CHP and IGCC with co-production of
clean fuels, etc. seem like a more prudent use of resources than simple
electric power production.
Another interesting idea, by the inventor of the IPFC is the hydrocarb
process, I found it in an article from 1992!! See this story: *The
*Clean **Fuel **Symphony**
From container ships on the ocean to cars on the highway, computers in
the office, and homes that are warm in the winter and cool in the
summer, modern society runs on energy extracted from fuels harvested
from inside the earth.
Humanity releases prodigious amounts of energy by burning coal,
oil, and natural gas. Yet in burning these fuels, we also release such
prodigious amounts of carbon dioxide gas that the delicate balance of
global temperature may be threatened. [See "The Science and Politics of
Global Warming," THE WORLD & I, July 1992].
Growing public concern that carbon dioxide emissions from burning
fossil fuels may be contributing to a global warming puts a spotlight on
the multitudinous ways in which fossil fuels are burned. The glare of
this spotlight sets the stage for a serious rethinking about fundamental
approaches to harvesting the rich energy contained in the fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels are composed primarily of hydrocarbon molecules
whose hydrogen and carbon atoms break apart and combine with oxygen if
they are exposed to heat and oxygen. The primary products of this
reaction are heat, which is the usable energy; water vapor; and carbon
dioxide gas.
Yet the three forms of fossil *fuel*--coal, oil, and natural
gas--each have distinctly different physical characteristics. Not only
do each of them look and feel different, but also burning each of them
produces different amounts of heat, water, carbon dioxide, residues, and
pollutants. Although coal is the most abundant of the three fossil
fuels, it also has been the least desirable from an environmental
viewpoint, because it produces the most carbon dioxide for unit of heat
released, and it also produces the most residues and pollutant gases.
Vast sums of money have been spent in devising better methods of
extracting energy from coal, and considerable progress has been made in
gaining control of the residues and gaseous pollutants from coal
combustion. [see "*Clean* Coal Technologies," THE WORLD & I, January
1989]. However, the concern about the amount of carbon dioxide produced
is a whole new dimension that has only recently been addressed
peripherally by the *clean* coal technologies.
The *fuel* behind the Industrial Revolution
Toward the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, coal was
mainly used to drive steam engines, which caused a great deal of
pollution in the large cities in Europe such as London. Shortly
thereafter, before the widespread use of oil and gas, coal was gasified
with air and water, in the form of steam, to produce a gas that was
called producer gas or town gas. This gas was much more convenient to
distribute and to use in home heating and gas lighting in the large
cities of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. So each city had
its famous "gas works" supplied by coal. This gas consisted mainly of
hydrogen, carbon monoxide, nitrogen, and hydrogen sulfide, which gave
the gas a characteristic rotten egg odor and was removed by using such
absorbent materials as scrap iron.
Although the coal gas plants removed ash and sulfur from coal in
centralized plants, coal gas leaked from distributing piping and
industrial and home burner appliances, causing deaths by gas poisoning
and by fires. A modern version of this so-caller coal gasification has
recently emerged for utilizing coal in centralized electrical power
generation facilities, pioneered by the Electrical Power Research
Institute (EPRI), the research arm of the electric power utility industry.
In this modern version, the coal is first gasified with steam and
oxygen to produce a high heating value *fuel* gas of hydrogen and carbon
monoxide. This *fuel* gas, after cleaning, is burned in a turbine that
turns a generator to produce the electrical power. Further heat energy
is extracted from the hot turbine exhaust gases by using it to generate
high-pressure steam that turns another electrical generator to produce
more electricity. In this manner, as much as 50 percent of the heat or
thermal energy in the coal can be converted to electrical energy. By
comparison, in a modern conventional steam power plant, not more than
about 38 percent of the thermal energy in coal can be converted to
electricity.
Coal-burning power plants have faced additional challenges since
the U.S. *Clean* Air Act of 1990 required conventional power plants to
remove sulfur dioxide from their flue gases, a *process* that reduces
the power plant efficiency to 37 percent or less. The modern version of
the gasification of coal to produce electrical power is called
integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC). However, this still
leaves each power plant to dispose of its ash and sulfur waste, because
it is supplied with dirty coal from the mines. Of course, the IGCC does
not serve the heating oil and transportation energy markets. If coal is
to service these markets, some different method for processing the coal
is needed.
The *Hydrocarb **Process*
Research conducted at Brookhaven National Laboratory has produced
a *process* called *Hydrocarb* that overcomes the limitations of other
coal-processing methods by introducing some novel approaches to the
fundamental problem of how best to harness the energy contained in coal.
The *Hydrocarb **process* introduces the idea of a coal refinery that
would be sited at the coal mine and would produce *clean **fuel*
products, returning the ash and the sulfur to the mine. *Clean*,
coal-derived *fuel* products at competitive prices would be distributed
to consumers who are presently being served by the oil and gas market.
The *Hydrocarb **process* consists of three steps.
The first step involves the gasification of coal at about 800 ? C
(1,472 ?F) and a pressure of about 50 atmospheres, not with steam but
with hydrogen. The *process*, called hydrogasification, or
hydropyrolysis, takes the carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen out of the coal
and forms a gas containing methane (CH4), water (H2O), and carbon
monoxide (CO), leaving the ash behind. The sulfur in the coal is made to
react with limestone, which is added to the coal in the
hydrogasification reactor and remains as calcium sulfide (CaS) with the
ash, which is removed from the reactor and put back in the mine.
The hot methane-containing gas is then sent to a methane
decomposition, or methane pyrolysis, reactor in which the temperature of
the gases is raised to about 1,000?C (1,832 F), while the pressure
remains about the same. Under these conditions, the methane is
decomposed into hydrogen and pure particulate carbon, called carbon
black. The carbon black is collected and removed from the reactor and
becomes one of the *clean **fuel* products from the *process*.
The remaining gas, containing mainly hydrogen and smaller amounts
of carbon monoxide, is cooled and cleaned of any remaining sulfur and
carbon. Then it is sent to a methanol synthesis reactor that
catalytically converts the hydrogen and carbon monoxide gas to methanol
gas (CH3OH), which is condensed and distilled to form *clean* liquid
methanol, the second product from the *Hydrocarb **process*.
After methanol synthesis, the remaining gas, consisting mainly of
hydrogen, is returned to the hydrogasifier at the beginning of the
*process* to complete and restart the *process* cycle. In this manner,
the coal is essentially converted to *clean* elemental carbon and
methanol, leaving the ash and sulfur behind for disposal in the depleted
mine.
The carbon and methanol can be distributed separately in a manner
similar to coal (in boxcars) and oil (in tank cars). Both fuels can be
used in combustors for boilers, as well as in turbines, diesel engines,
and gasoline engines, which now are served only by refined oil and gas.
In the near future these fuels will also used in very efficient *fuel*
cells for producing electrical power.
For even further convenience, the fine particles of *clean*,
solid carbon black can be mixed with liquid methanol to produce a
stable, pumpable liquid slurry that can be used as conveniently as
refined oil and gasoline. If required for use by the internal combustion
engine, the methanol can be converted in a catalytic *process*, for a
few cents more, to a form of reconstituted gasoline product that causes
much less polluting emissions, which is equivalent to reformulated
gasoline now being offered by the oil companies in highly polluted urban
areas.
The *Hydrocarb **process* has the economic potential of competing
with oil and gas at current market prices in the range of $20 per barrel
of oil. This perhaps unexpectedly low price is possible because of
economies intrinsic to the *Hydrocarb **process*: (1) No additional
hydrogen is needed beyond what already exists in the coal; (2) no steam
or oxygen is needed, in marked contrast with the conventional steam
oxygen gasification *process* mentioned earlier; (3) no carbon dioxide
removal is required; (4) the efficiency of conversion of coal to *clean
**fuel* is higher than for conventional processes. In comparison with
conventional plants producing synthetic hydrocarbon fuels from coal,
these factors permit lower capital investment, resulting in lower
production costs.
Meeting the global warming concern
One important feature of the *Hydrocarb **process* is the fact
that there can be no net emissions of carbon dioxide, and this is where
the *process* has significance for application in mitigating the global
greenhouse problem.
The *Hydrocarb **process* splits coal into a carbon-rich *fuel*
(carbon black) and a hydrogen-rich *fuel* (methanol). By converting coal
from one rather dirty, cumbersome *fuel* to two *clean* and convenient
fuels, the *Hydrocarb **process* opens new options for orchestrating the
use of coal as a *clean*, highly flexible *fuel* and for adapting to the
*fuel*-use constraints imposed by global warming concerns. The first
line for reducing carbon dioxide emissions is to use the carbon and
methanol in efficient combined cycle plants, which could reduce
emissions by as much as 25 percent below those presently generated in
coal-fired power plants.
If one is further concerned about the greenhouse problem and
wants to reduce carbon dioxide emissions even more, then one can store
the carbon in the excavated cavities from which the raw coal was taken
and use only the hydrogen-rich methanol as a product *fuel*. In so
doing, the carbon dioxide emission for heat and power production is
reduced by as much as 40 percent. However, a large penalty is incurred:
Since only about 40 percent of the energy in the original coal is
utilized, the cost of heat and power production would increase
significantly. On the other hand, if the cataclysmic effects of the
greenhouse are avoided, then the increased cost might be well
worthwhile. If the greenhouse effect does not materialize in the next
several decades, then the carbon recovered from mine mouth refineries
and stored in the mine cavities can be retrieved and used as *clean
**fuel*.
At present the alternate proposal for reducing carbon dioxide
emissions from coal-burning power plants is to scrub the carbon dioxide
from the power plant stack gases and pump the recovered carbon dioxide
into the ocean, which is thought to be an unlimited sink for carbon
dioxide. However, this *process* would also double the cost of producing
electrical power. Furthermore, it is unknown how long the carbon dioxide
would remain sequestered in the ocean, and there is also uncertainty
about the possible ecological effects of deep ocean disposal of carbon
dioxide on marine life. The distinct advantage of the *Hydrocarb
**process* is that solid, benign carbon is much easier to store than
reactive, gaseous carbon dioxide.
Combining fossil energy and solar energy
The basic *Hydrocarb **process* provides new options for flexible
integration of different types of hydrocarbon fuels, including fossil
fuels and biomass such as wood, into a comprehensive *fuel*
interconversion system. An examination of all methods of removing carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere leads to the conclusion that the only
economically reasonable method is by photosynthesis, which is driven by
solar energy. The growth of trees and all other land and marine flora
depends on the combination of atmosphere carbon dioxide and water in the
presence of sunlight to produce a carbohydrate such as wood
(lignocellulose) with the emission of oxygen.
A special synergism can exist between renewable solar
photosynthetic biomass and nonrenewable fossil *fuel* resources by means
of the *Hydrocarb **process*. For example, if the hydrogen-rich fuels,
natural gas, and oil are coprocessed with wood (biomass) by the
*Hydrocarb **process* to form carbon black and methanol, and it the
carbon is stored in the earth and only the methanol used as *fuel*, we
can realize a net reduction in atmospheric carbon dioxide while
utilizing all the energy in the fossil *fuel* gas or oil.
By this *process*, in essence, the solar energy captured in
carbohydrate molecules of the biomass is expended as the price for
extracting the energy from the fossil *fuel*. Through *Hydrocarb*
coprocessing of the biomass with oil and natural gas, a hydrogen rich
*fuel* (methanol) that contains all of the fossil energy and part of the
solar energy is produced. The remainder of the solar energy is extracted
from the biomass as carbon and is sequestered in the earth. In this way,
the *Hydrocarb **process* recovers up to 160 percent of the energy of
natural gas while reducing the amount of carbon dioxide generated during
the production of a unit amount of heat. This does not defy the laws of
conservation of energy, because we are not counting the energy it took
to grow the biomass--solar energy, which we can consider to be
essentially free.
This procedure works well for the hydrogen-rich fossil fuels,
natural gas, and oil. However, it does not work as well with coal. If
only coal is coprocessed with biomass (wood), then only 50 percent of
the energy of the coal can be utilized if the carbon is sequestered.
Furthermore, the net carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced to zero if
only the methanol produced is utilized. Although this is a significant
reduction, it would still leave half of the coal energy reserves in the
ground.
A final solution
We have developed a final solution in which we can utilize all of
the fossil *fuel* energy while not generating any additional carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere. This involved coprocessing the world's
natural gas and petroleum (crude oil) with coal and with biomass. We
propose that the use ratios between natural gas, coal, and oil should be
in the ratio of the recoverable reserves of each. Thus, if there is 50
to 100 years' worth of recoverable reserves of oil and gas in the world
and at least 300 to 500 years' worth of coal recoverable reserves, then
the gas and/or oil should be used at a rate ranging from 0.1 to 0.3 of
the rate of using the coal. In this range, and using biomass to make up
the carbon balance, all the energy from the fossil fuels can be used in
the form of the *clean **fuel* products methanol and carbon without
generating any additional carbon dioxide. What is happening here is that
we are suing the hydrogen-rich gas and oil to help the hydrogen-poor
fossil coal reserves, while using the biomass to remove the carbon
dioxide directly from the atmosphere.
If we burn up all the hydrogen-rich gas and oil reserves in the
next 50 or 100 years, as we are actually doing now, then we will not
have the ability to use all of our coal reserves in a way so as to
prevent an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This can all be
avoided with the assistance of the Hjydrocarb *process* technology link.
Coal is the most abundant fossil *fuel* carried within our
planet. If the energy of this vast resource can be extracted through
environmentally acceptable processes that integrate energy form the
other fossil fuels as well as from renewable resources, such as
solar-energy-derived biomass, the world's energy future will be much
more secure. The biomass can be derived not only from rapid-growing
crops such as popular trees on energy farms, but also from municipal and
agricultural wastes, which are produced at a rate of hundreds of
millions of tons per year in the United States alone.
In this way we could create an energy *symphony*, harmonizing the
*process* flow of our energy generation. Not only could we maximize the
efficiency of harvesting the energy of fossil fuels, but we could also
transform a waste product into a valuable energy resource. The task of
developing the instruments and infrastructure for playing this energy
*symphony* is great. Not only must the logistics of combining fossil
*fuel* with biomass be solved, but also plants that utilize conversion
technologies, such as *Hydrocarb*, to produce *clean*, economical, and
adaptable fuels must be constructed on a worldwide basis. To do anything
less is to reduce the capability of the world's growing population to
obtain increasing amounts of life sustaining energy.
Luiz Alberto Magri wrote:
>Matt,
>
>We should note that talking about "efficiency" is
>always misleading when the scenario is not properly
>described.
>
>See - converting the original fuel into electricity
>and then adding some extra output as hydrogen cannot
>be compared to a thermal cycle. In the latter, the
>heat obtained from combustion is totally converted
>into mechanical power. Then typical efficiecies will
>range from 30 up to 55%.
>
>In combined heat and power (not the same as a thermal
>cycle, since part of the energy is recovered as heat
>instead of mechanical power), yes, depending on how
>hot you need the heat, maybe around 80 to 90%
>effciency.
>
>Now in the system you just described - there is
>electricity plus energy bounded by-products
>(hydrogen), but this is not to be compared neither to
>thermal cycles, nor to CHP.
>
>Different things.
>
>Regards,
>
>Luiz Magri
>S?o Paulo
>
>
>--- Matt Pottinger <mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>More insults my way via private e-mail. Wonderful.
>>No, this is not a
>>Zero-point energy device!!!
>>
>>*keep calm Matt, and explain*
>>
>>CHP Systems achieve efficiencies of greater than 80%
>>regularly. They are
>>*not* breaking the laws of thermodynamics.
>>Some CHP systems achieve 90% efficiency providing
>>heat and electrical power.
>>Efficiency is high because the IPFC produces both
>>hydrogen and electricity
>>Somehow, in the world of gasification, this is
>>breaking the laws of
>>thermodynamics.
>>
>>Read the FAQ first thoroughly.
>>You should at least know so much before sening
>>insulting comments, that
>>might be a little "unprofessional".
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Gasification mailing list
>>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>
>>
>>
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
>http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
>
>
>
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Mon Aug 23 12:03:20 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 13:03:20 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040820115446.00a70100@pop.btl.net>
References: <3.0.32.20040820115446.00a70100@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <412A2358.8000803@renewableplanet.ca>
That is a good idea! I know of some companies right here in Ontario
marketing a "Reverse Polymerization" system for scrap tires. So yes, in
that case, scrap the plasma arc!
Carbon black is most definitely the product which is the key to
economically viable tire recycling. Now, the thing is would it be more
profitable to sell the carbon black, or to produce electricity using a
carbon fuel cell? The carbon black would probably be more valuable if it
were recycled.
Now, *low quality* carbon black produced from other sources, yet still
useful for use in a fuel cell, that is what is needed instead for
electric power production. The plasma arc would have a decent use there.
Peter Singfield wrote:
>Car tires are a large part pure carbon "black" -- and zillions of them
>laying around to be recycled!!
>
>So dump the plasma arc??
>
>Pyrolysis of car tires is quite straight forward technology.
>
>Peter
>
>At 09:39 PM 8/19/2004 -0400, Matt Pottinger wrote:
>
>
>>Peter Singfield wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>with power generation in the 1 kW/m2 range
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>That is kind of "huge"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Looking at that now, I agree, but I think that those are for very early,
>>experimental fuel cells, I'll look into that more.
>>
>>
>>
>>>That is 99.99% pure crabon!! Check out the price of this "easily made"
>>>carbon product!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I know, carbon black is a valuable product, but the high temperatures
>>produced by thermal plasma are enough to produce it. Simple?
>>As simple as you can ask for, about as simple as making a plasma torch
>>(which nowadays actually can be done by anyone with a microwave
>>magnetron and a waveguide, creating a very decent high temperature plasma)
>>
>>
>>
>>>No mention if it can use unpure carbon -- just a song and dance routine!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>It can't use unpure carbon, but pure carbon can be produced in a high
>>temperature plasma.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I suspect any impurity at all will contaminate the plates --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I'll look into that.
>>
>>
>>
>>>And on this list -- we have become usedto considering "efficiency" as how
>>>much electric power out over how much heat/fuel energy in.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Ok, well here's a very important piece of information:
>>The electrical efficiency is in the range of any combined cycle power
>>plant, 53% to 59%. That is not outrageous at all!!!
>>
>>
>>
>>>You can't throw thermal energy byproduct in!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I agree that it shouldn't be confused with electrical efficiency, but
>>the total efficiency of any process is VERY important if it's going to
>>be economical.
>>CHP systems make it more economical by using and somtimes selling heat
>>energy not converted to electricity
>>
>>This IPFC system uses unburnt syngas produced from the volatiles to
>>produce liquid fuels or hydrogen, and uses only the carbon in the fuel
>>to produce electricity in a very efficient device without turning it
>>into syngas The additional energy in that *unburned* fuel produced as a
>>side product is important to consider and has value!! It isn't converted
>>to electricity, but the energy is there in the fuel that is going to be
>>sold and used for transportation ,etc. How can you not throw that in? In
>>that case, in a business where I will be producing one product from a
>>raw material, and there is a valuable byproduct, I should just "throw it
>>away"
>>
>>Well, you don't have to believe me, but all efficiency issues aside,
>>there is not one thing bogus about this concept (forget the high
>>efficiency, there are other benefits), it would work quite well as a
>>power plant, with decent efficiency at least that of a combined cycle
>>power plant.
>>
>>Believe me or not, we should clear this up with the owners of the
>>company if you wish.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Because this is a
>>>>high-temperature cell, it would be best suited for stationary
>>>>applications, particularly in combination with CHP utilizing the waste
>>>>heat energy."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You mean they have to cool this cell to keep it at 750 C???
>>>
>>>And you figure counting that as thermal energy and adding it to over all
>>>efficiency is "cool"??
>>>
>>>Sounds like a techno scam artist to me!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Gasification mailing list
>>>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
>
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Mon Aug 23 12:37:24 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 13:37:24 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
In-Reply-To: <010101c4865c$ba458d10$ec9a0a40@kevin>
References: <3.0.32.20040818195839.00a90100@pop.btl.net> <41242016.4050709@renewableplanet.ca><41243529.1020805@renewableplanet.ca>
<41244B9B.6010209@renewableplanet.ca>
<003e01c485f3$809aeb00$ec9a0a40@kevin>
<4124D654.7010000@renewableplanet.ca>
<00b401c48633$cec2bf20$ec9a0a40@kevin>
<41252F9F.9010909@renewableplanet.ca>
<010101c4865c$ba458d10$ec9a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <412A2B54.2040407@renewableplanet.ca>
Kevin,
In response to your questions about my beliefs about the hydrogen
economy, well, I will respond, however I am also aware that this list is
geared towards technical issues involving gasification, and not such
issues as the hydrogen economy, however, hydrogen is a product of this
gasification process and is relevant to the viability of hydrogen
production using gasification, and the future economic viability of the
processs, here are my beliefs:
I agree with you in the fact that I am also not enthusiastic about the
hydrogen economy blossoming anytime soon, *however*, we DO need a
solution to the huge amounts of CO2 released into the atmosphere by
vehicles. The only practical ways of doing this would be:
1. Biomass fueled vehicles - This could significantly reduce CO2
emissions, however, I don't believe that we could produce enough liquid
biomass fuels for this purpose to replace ALL fossil fuels used, do you?
2. Elecric powered vehicles charged with nuclear or renewable energy -
Worse than the hydrogen solution I think!
3. Methanol produced through the hydrocarb process utilizing fossil
fuels and biomass to produce methanol, and sequestering carbon dioxide
in coal mines as carbon black (an interesting but not very well known
process, look up hydrocarb process on google)
4. Hydrogen fueled vehicles fueled by hydrogen produced from fossil
fuels and renewables - The main problems are transport of the hydrogen
and sequestration of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, and it is
possible to address both of these issues. Carbon can be sequestered as
carbon black, or as CO2 underground or in the ocean. Even if we can't
sequester the carbon dioxide now, produce the hydrogen now and develop
sequestration later.
Hydrogen produced by a carbon black producing process (pyrolysis), would
allow for easy sequestration of the carbon since it is in a stable,
solid form. Energy for this pyrolysis could come from any number of
sources including nuclear or renewables.
So why are you so pessimistic about hydrogen? What is a better solution?
Which do you think is the solution and why?
You also said:
"Plasma technology has been around for quite a while now. If significant
improvements are possible, we should have seen some by now."
That is quite contrary to what I have been reading!!!!! VERY much so.
In defense of plasma technology: MANY new developments in plasma are
occuring on a constant basis, I know of many, just because you haven't
heard of them doesn't mean they are not occuring. New plasma torches are
being developed with lower costs and MUCH higher efficiency, new uses
for plasma technology are being found including chemical synthesis such
as direct conversion of methane to chemicals, efficient low temperature
plasma processes also called COLD plasma, there a a LOT of exicitng
development in plasma technology, with some very recent developments...
so this OLD technology is finding new uses and improvements currently -
it is far from stagnant!!!!
Now as for this IPFC - It's an interesting technology to know about,
nothing more. I am not even currently interested in electric power
production so it would be of little use to me!! Yes, nothing more really
can be said of it, it's simply interesting. I won't bother about it
anymore. I have some really practical ideas that I wish to personally
put to use, the things I discuss on these message lists are usually only
curiosities to me and nothing more, I am not interested in using the
IPFC in a commercial venture, so don't get me wrong there! I do have
some practical ideas for a commercial venture, and it no longer involves
electric power production. You won't find me discussing those serious
issues in detail in PUBLIC though!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Mon Aug 23 13:24:02 2004
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:24:02 -0300
Subject: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
References: <3.0.32.20040818195839.00a90100@pop.btl.net> <41242016.4050709@renewableplanet.ca><41243529.1020805@renewableplanet.ca>
<41244B9B.6010209@renewableplanet.ca>
<003e01c485f3$809aeb00$ec9a0a40@kevin>
<4124D654.7010000@renewableplanet.ca>
<00b401c48633$cec2bf20$ec9a0a40@kevin>
<41252F9F.9010909@renewableplanet.ca>
<010101c4865c$ba458d10$ec9a0a40@kevin>
<412A2B54.2040407@renewableplanet.ca>
Message-ID: <004d01c48940$1cd9bb00$2a9a0a40@kevin>
Dear Matt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Pottinger" <mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca>
To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>;
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
...del...
I have some really practical ideas that I wish to personally
> put to use, the things I discuss on these message lists are usually only
> curiosities to me and nothing more, I am not interested in using the
> IPFC in a commercial venture, so don't get me wrong there! I do have
> some practical ideas for a commercial venture, and it no longer involves
> electric power production. You won't find me discussing those serious
> issues in detail in PUBLIC though!!!
>
I don't think it is appropriate that the Gasification List be directed at
addressing your mere curiosities.
Kevin
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Mon Aug 23 14:13:04 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:13:04 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
In-Reply-To: <004d01c48940$1cd9bb00$2a9a0a40@kevin>
References: <3.0.32.20040818195839.00a90100@pop.btl.net> <41242016.4050709@renewableplanet.ca><41243529.1020805@renewableplanet.ca>
<41244B9B.6010209@renewableplanet.ca>
<003e01c485f3$809aeb00$ec9a0a40@kevin>
<4124D654.7010000@renewableplanet.ca>
<00b401c48633$cec2bf20$ec9a0a40@kevin>
<41252F9F.9010909@renewableplanet.ca>
<010101c4865c$ba458d10$ec9a0a40@kevin>
<412A2B54.2040407@renewableplanet.ca>
<004d01c48940$1cd9bb00$2a9a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <412A41C0.4080903@renewableplanet.ca>
Many interesting and innovative ideas are discussed on these message
lists. There have been many other discussions here about topics for
which the people involved were simply discussing for the sake of
discussion and not for commcercial projects, R&D, etc. I am not the only
one here guilty of that! :) There has been lots of discussion here which
has been based on exploration and novel ideas, and not only serious
commercial ideas, so, why do you say this now? However, if such things
are not welcome, then I have no complaints.
Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>>
>>
>I don't think it is appropriate that the Gasification List be directed at
>addressing your mere curiosities.
>
>Kevin
>
>
>
>
From arnt at c2i.net Mon Aug 23 22:17:35 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 05:17:35 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
In-Reply-To: <412A2358.8000803@renewableplanet.ca>
References: <3.0.32.20040820115446.00a70100@pop.btl.net>
<412A2358.8000803@renewableplanet.ca>
Message-ID: <20040824051735.79753675.arnt@c2i.net>
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 13:03:20 -0400, Matt wrote in message
<412A2358.8000803 at renewableplanet.ca>:
> That is a good idea! I know of some companies right here in Ontario
> marketing a "Reverse Polymerization" system for scrap tires. So yes,
> in that case, scrap the plasma arc!
>
> Carbon black is most definitely the product which is the key to
> economically viable tire recycling. Now, the thing is would it be more
> profitable to sell the carbon black, or to produce electricity using a
> carbon fuel cell? The carbon black would probably be more valuable if
> it were recycled.
..shredded tires fed into a gasifier and a W?rtsila type gen set, can
feed a good third of the tire energy into the grid, and another third
to a half, into district heat piping.
..can those carbon black firms beat that kinda business?
--
..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 mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Mon Aug 23 19:56:20 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 20:56:20 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] A VERY cheap source of carbon
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040820115446.00a70100@pop.btl.net>
References: <3.0.32.20040820115446.00a70100@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <412A9234.4070202@renewableplanet.ca>
Hey Peter since you brought up easy and cheap non-biomass sources of
pure carbon here's an interesting tidbit that you may or may not know :)
Another cheap source of carbon which would not need the plasma arc to be
used in a fuel cell would be petroleum coke! There are absolutely huge
quantities of this byproduct of the petroleum industry, and it is the
only fossil fuel which is produced regardless of demand, thus it's low
price, and will always be cheaper than coal because coal is a more
desirable fuel for conventional power plants. Firing coke alone causes
problems and mixing it makes emissions worse.
Petroleum coke is being produced each year in increasing quanitities,
and sold for less than $10 US per tonne at the refinery and a higher
BTU value than coal with a very low ash content of ~1%, and little moisture.
That is almost pure carbon. Most new power plants which use petroleum
coke use gasification to achieve efficiencies in the 50% range, and
while nearly as clean as natural gas, enough emissions are there for
the environmentalists to complain about!
As our light crude supplies dwindle and more heavy crude is used, more
coking capacity will have to be installed to recover the valuable light
fuels, which means more coke! Prices will plummet assuming demand
doesn't shoot too high, but will NEVER go higher than coal because coal
is the preferred fuel over coke,
However, in contrast to coal, petroleum coke can be used in a direct
carbon fuel cell with little or no processing required, as there are
sulfur tolerant carbon fuel cells. Electric efficiency with a pure
carbon fuel in a fuel cell is 70-80%. Imagine that kind of efficiency
and emissions performance with such a cheap fuel! I wonder if anyone
would find that attractive
huh? hehehe. Well, not non-business people I suppose since they don't
get these kinds of things! ;)
Petcoke use via gasification still has a bad image despite it's OK
emissions performance. There is one power plant north of me here that is
being proposed and there is a lot of uproar over it, people see it as
worse than coal.
People just don't like the idea of BURNING (which
gasification still pretty much is) such a dirty fuel, no matter what
emissions controls are on it. Meanwhile, fuel cells have such a good
public image, a petcoke fueled fuel cell power plant would have no
emissions issues, and CO2 performance would be ok because of high
efficiency!
Maybe the plasma system isn't as efficient as they say, but in this
case, that is not used, and the fuel cell IS that efficient! Any sane
person can't dispute that fact, unless they want to say direct carbon
fuel cells are still under development! 70-80% efficiency, without heat
recovery or combined cycle, and zero smog emissions, only CO2.
I sure wouldn't mind being one of the first to purchase a commercial
carbon fuel cell when they appear on the market in 10 years.
(Just as petcoke becomes super cheap and supplies are overflowing!!!!)
So, want to make some money? Go with petcoke in 10-15 years or whenever
DCFC's capable of using it arrive. There is more than enough petcoke to
go around, at least for the next 15 years.
Matt
Peter Singfield wrote:
>Car tires are a large part pure carbon "black" -- and zillions of them
>laying around to be recycled!!
>
>So dump the plasma arc??
>
>Pyrolysis of car tires is quite straight forward technology.
>
>Peter
>
>At 09:39 PM 8/19/2004 -0400, Matt Pottinger wrote:
>
>
>>Peter Singfield wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>with power generation in the 1 kW/m2 range
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>That is kind of "huge"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Looking at that now, I agree, but I think that those are for very early,
>>experimental fuel cells, I'll look into that more.
>>
>>
>>
>>>That is 99.99% pure crabon!! Check out the price of this "easily made"
>>>carbon product!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I know, carbon black is a valuable product, but the high temperatures
>>produced by thermal plasma are enough to produce it. Simple?
>>As simple as you can ask for, about as simple as making a plasma torch
>>(which nowadays actually can be done by anyone with a microwave
>>magnetron and a waveguide, creating a very decent high temperature plasma)
>>
>>
>>
>>>No mention if it can use unpure carbon -- just a song and dance routine!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>It can't use unpure carbon, but pure carbon can be produced in a high
>>temperature plasma.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I suspect any impurity at all will contaminate the plates --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I'll look into that.
>>
>>
>>
>>>And on this list -- we have become usedto considering "efficiency" as how
>>>much electric power out over how much heat/fuel energy in.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Ok, well here's a very important piece of information:
>>The electrical efficiency is in the range of any combined cycle power
>>plant, 53% to 59%. That is not outrageous at all!!!
>>
>>
>>
>>>You can't throw thermal energy byproduct in!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I agree that it shouldn't be confused with electrical efficiency, but
>>the total efficiency of any process is VERY important if it's going to
>>be economical.
>>CHP systems make it more economical by using and somtimes selling heat
>>energy not converted to electricity
>>
>>This IPFC system uses unburnt syngas produced from the volatiles to
>>produce liquid fuels or hydrogen, and uses only the carbon in the fuel
>>to produce electricity in a very efficient device without turning it
>>into syngas The additional energy in that *unburned* fuel produced as a
>>side product is important to consider and has value!! It isn't converted
>>to electricity, but the energy is there in the fuel that is going to be
>>sold and used for transportation ,etc. How can you not throw that in? In
>>that case, in a business where I will be producing one product from a
>>raw material, and there is a valuable byproduct, I should just "throw it
>>away"
>>
>>Well, you don't have to believe me, but all efficiency issues aside,
>>there is not one thing bogus about this concept (forget the high
>>efficiency, there are other benefits), it would work quite well as a
>>power plant, with decent efficiency at least that of a combined cycle
>>power plant.
>>
>>Believe me or not, we should clear this up with the owners of the
>>company if you wish.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Because this is a
>>>>high-temperature cell, it would be best suited for stationary
>>>>applications, particularly in combination with CHP utilizing the waste
>>>>heat energy."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You mean they have to cool this cell to keep it at 750 C???
>>>
>>>And you figure counting that as thermal energy and adding it to over all
>>>efficiency is "cool"??
>>>
>>>Sounds like a techno scam artist to me!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Gasification mailing list
>>>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
>
From jerry5335 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 23 23:10:05 2004
From: jerry5335 at yahoo.com (jerry dycus)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 21:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gasification] H2 and the future was DCFC Experience
In-Reply-To: <412A2B54.2040407@renewableplanet.ca>
Message-ID: <20040824041005.24643.qmail@web41013.mail.yahoo.com>
Hi Matt and All,
--- Matt Pottinger <mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca>
wrote:
> Kevin,
>
> I agree with you in the fact that I am also not
> enthusiastic about the
> hydrogen economy blossoming anytime soon, *however*,
> we DO need a
> solution to the huge amounts of CO2 released into
> the atmosphere by
> vehicles. The only practical ways of doing this
> would be:
Hydrogen is easily made from gasifying biomass,
just heat it up to about 1500deg F and use a nickel
catalyst and you get plenty of it with CO and lessor
anounts of water vapor, methane, ect.
But what do you do with it? If you try to use it
in an ICE it will melt the engine!!!
Fool cells are not available at a reasonable price
and won't be for many, many yrs. And they are very
ineff when taking into account making it from a base
fuel. An ICE is as or more eff.
You can't store it as it will leak out thru 2"
steel!!!
It's low density means you can't store enough to
drive a Fool cell car 50 miles!
Coal has little H2 in it. The H2 in most coal
processes comes from splitting water as water gas!!
The only thing is to use it as a feedstock with CO
to make methane or other fuel.
>
> 1. Biomass fueled vehicles - This could
> significantly reduce CO2
> emissions, however, I don't believe that we could
> produce enough liquid
> biomass fuels for this purpose to replace ALL fossil
> fuels used, do you?
You don't have too. Conservation can supply 50%
to start with. We did it in the 70's and can do it
again.
You can use solar thermal energy to add energy
gasifying biomass into fuels .
You can use oil seed for probably 10% and it's
stalks for gasification.
Ethanol from corn for another 25% with
gasification of it's stalks and the leftover mash is a
higher quality animal feed than the corn was.
Gasify yard and trash waste into fuels.
>
> 2. Elecric powered vehicles charged with nuclear or
> renewable energy -
> Worse than the hydrogen solution I think!
Apparently you don't think much or well.
I've been driving EV for 10 yrs and only EV since
9-11. I get equivilent to 100-125 mpg energy use and
electricity is now on par with gasoline in cost!! My
fuel costs per mile is $.01 !!! What's yours?
I get 100watts/mile energy use. Do the math.
And from tidal, river current and wind power
could easily power 50% of the vehicles out there once
installed. Lots of untapped potential out there.
EV's with lead batts can get 100 mile range and
with a RE fueled generator get over 100 mpg.
Li-ions are this yr coming into wider use and with
them get 300 mile range. Within 2 yrs will be low cost
as production ramps up. All this has been done
already.
>
> 3. Methanol produced through the hydrocarb process
> utilizing fossil
> fuels and biomass to produce methanol, and
> sequestering carbon dioxide
> in coal mines as carbon black (an interesting but
> not very well known
> process, look up hydrocarb process on google)
Use the carbon, 80%? of the energy of coal to make
hydrocarbons with water into natural gas, other
fuels!!! You can't make hydrocarbons without carbon.
Otherwise why mine coal!!! Not for only 20% of it's
energy. That's foolish.
>
> 4. Hydrogen fueled vehicles fueled by hydrogen
> produced from fossil
> fuels and renewables - The main problems are
> transport of the hydrogen
> and sequestration of carbon dioxide from fossil
> fuels, and it is
> possible to address both of these issues. Carbon can
> be sequestered as
> carbon black, or as CO2 underground or in the ocean.
> Even if we can't
> sequester the carbon dioxide now, produce the
> hydrogen now and develop
> sequestration later.
It amazes me that people are so worried about
CO2. Water vapor is a much greater greenhouse gas by
many times!!! Look it up!!!!
Check out the temp changes in the US when planes
stopped flying during 9-11 for 3 days and stopped
pumping water vapor crystals into the upper
atmostphere. It changed 3 deg F!!!!
With Eff, conservation you can keep the CO2 load
below the present rate easily worldwide. Fossil fuel
costs rises will do the rest.
> So why are you so pessimistic about hydrogen? What
> is a better solution?
> Which do you think is the solution and why?
Almost any solution is better than H2. It takes 2
to 4 times the energy of the base fuel to go the same
distance as electricity and 2x as much as most liquid
fuels.
And if the H2 comes from coal while storing it's
C, probably 2X's again farther. H2 is a bad joke!
You need to learn a lot before making such
statements.
HTH's,
jerry dycus
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Mon Aug 23 23:17:57 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:17:57 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
In-Reply-To: <20040824051735.79753675.arnt@c2i.net>
References: <3.0.32.20040820115446.00a70100@pop.btl.net> <412A2358.8000803@renewableplanet.ca>
<20040824051735.79753675.arnt@c2i.net>
Message-ID: <412AC175.7010109@renewableplanet.ca>
Arnt, this is getting really interesting now! ;)
OK, we can look at this one of two ways: Do you want cheap energy? Or do
you want to make MONEY?
Carbon black for tires is worth $900 per ton and rising because of the
rising costs of natural gas. Arnt, $900 per ton man, you do the math on
whether it is worth more
as a fuel or as a commodity in itself. Now, there are different grades
of carbon black also, so maybe carbon black from tires isn't worth all
that much, if it isn't worth much, BURN it, but all indications are that
you would be BURNING MONEY!! lol hahaha ;-)
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>
>..shredded tires fed into a gasifier and a W?rtsila type gen set, can
>feed a good third of the tire energy into the grid, and another third
>to a half, into district heat piping.
>
>..can those carbon black firms beat that kinda business?
>
>
>
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Mon Aug 23 23:31:39 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:31:39 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] H2 and the future was DCFC Experience
In-Reply-To: <20040824041005.24643.qmail@web41013.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040824041005.24643.qmail@web41013.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <412AC4AB.3050405@renewableplanet.ca>
Interesting, I agree with you on all points, except I don't know very
much about EV's making significant inroads (no pun intended).
Fine, hydrogen is a dead end, I agree, and maybe CO2 isn't going to kill
us all, but why keep dumping it ito the atmosphere when we don't know if
it can handle it in the long run? Your experience with an EV is
interesting, I would like to learn more. However if the EV is charged
using fossil fuels that is very inefficient. Now an EV charged by
non-polluting energy would be worth it I suppose! I think a lot!! hahaha
so don't go insulting me, I just did not hear much about EV's lately, if
they are getting better, good stuff! :)
The methanol process that I mentioned, is a little confusing, but the
fossil fuels are co-gasified with biomass and some of the carbon is
sequestered, that is why it reduces CO2 emissions, probably not going to
become a major part of the future though.
Now, hydrogen through pyrolysis of fossil fuels, (Leaving the carbon as
a solid material) and using solar or nuclear or whatever renewable
energy would work well in my opinion, not a dumb idea at all
But yes, fuel cells are expensive, no doubt! Don't get me wrong! I yawn
when I hear about the hydrogen economy!!!!! Just offering some solutions
to using the atmosphere as an infinite dump! :) (whatever the effect may
be, we don't know)
jerry dycus wrote
> Hi Matt and All,
>--- Matt Pottinger <mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Kevin,
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>I agree with you in the fact that I am also not
>>enthusiastic about the
>>hydrogen economy blossoming anytime soon, *however*,
>>we DO need a
>>solution to the huge amounts of CO2 released into
>>the atmosphere by
>>vehicles. The only practical ways of doing this
>>would be:
>>
>>
>
> Hydrogen is easily made from gasifying biomass,
>just heat it up to about 1500deg F and use a nickel
>catalyst and you get plenty of it with CO and lessor
>anounts of water vapor, methane, ect.
> But what do you do with it? If you try to use it
>in an ICE it will melt the engine!!!
> Fool cells are not available at a reasonable price
>and won't be for many, many yrs. And they are very
>ineff when taking into account making it from a base
>fuel. An ICE is as or more eff.
> You can't store it as it will leak out thru 2"
>steel!!!
> It's low density means you can't store enough to
>drive a Fool cell car 50 miles!
> Coal has little H2 in it. The H2 in most coal
>processes comes from splitting water as water gas!!
> The only thing is to use it as a feedstock with CO
>to make methane or other fuel.
>
>
>
>
>
>>1. Biomass fueled vehicles - This could
>>significantly reduce CO2
>>emissions, however, I don't believe that we could
>>produce enough liquid
>>biomass fuels for this purpose to replace ALL fossil
>>fuels used, do you?
>>
>>
>
> You don't have too. Conservation can supply 50%
>to start with. We did it in the 70's and can do it
>again.
> You can use solar thermal energy to add energy
>gasifying biomass into fuels .
> You can use oil seed for probably 10% and it's
>stalks for gasification.
> Ethanol from corn for another 25% with
>gasification of it's stalks and the leftover mash is a
>higher quality animal feed than the corn was.
> Gasify yard and trash waste into fuels.
>
>
>
>>2. Elecric powered vehicles charged with nuclear or
>>renewable energy -
>>Worse than the hydrogen solution I think!
>>
>>
>
> Apparently you don't think much or well.
>
> I've been driving EV for 10 yrs and only EV since
>9-11. I get equivilent to 100-125 mpg energy use and
>electricity is now on par with gasoline in cost!! My
>fuel costs per mile is $.01 !!! What's yours?
> I get 100watts/mile energy use. Do the math.
> And from tidal, river current and wind power
>could easily power 50% of the vehicles out there once
>installed. Lots of untapped potential out there.
> EV's with lead batts can get 100 mile range and
>with a RE fueled generator get over 100 mpg.
> Li-ions are this yr coming into wider use and with
>them get 300 mile range. Within 2 yrs will be low cost
>as production ramps up. All this has been done
>already.
>
>
>
>
>>3. Methanol produced through the hydrocarb process
>>utilizing fossil
>>fuels and biomass to produce methanol, and
>>sequestering carbon dioxide
>>in coal mines as carbon black (an interesting but
>>not very well known
>>process, look up hydrocarb process on google)
>>
>>
>
> Use the carbon, 80%? of the energy of coal to make
>hydrocarbons with water into natural gas, other
>fuels!!! You can't make hydrocarbons without carbon.
>Otherwise why mine coal!!! Not for only 20% of it's
>energy. That's foolish.
>
>
>
>
>>4. Hydrogen fueled vehicles fueled by hydrogen
>>produced from fossil
>>fuels and renewables - The main problems are
>>transport of the hydrogen
>>and sequestration of carbon dioxide from fossil
>>fuels, and it is
>>possible to address both of these issues. Carbon can
>>be sequestered as
>>carbon black, or as CO2 underground or in the ocean.
>>Even if we can't
>>sequester the carbon dioxide now, produce the
>>hydrogen now and develop
>>sequestration later.
>>
>>
>
> It amazes me that people are so worried about
>CO2. Water vapor is a much greater greenhouse gas by
>many times!!! Look it up!!!!
> Check out the temp changes in the US when planes
>stopped flying during 9-11 for 3 days and stopped
>pumping water vapor crystals into the upper
>atmostphere. It changed 3 deg F!!!!
> With Eff, conservation you can keep the CO2 load
>below the present rate easily worldwide. Fossil fuel
>costs rises will do the rest.
>
>
>
>
>>So why are you so pessimistic about hydrogen? What
>>is a better solution?
>>Which do you think is the solution and why?
>>
>>
>
> Almost any solution is better than H2. It takes 2
>to 4 times the energy of the base fuel to go the same
>distance as electricity and 2x as much as most liquid
>fuels.
> And if the H2 comes from coal while storing it's
>C, probably 2X's again farther. H2 is a bad joke!
> You need to learn a lot before making such
>statements.
>
> HTH's,
> jerry dycus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
>http://messenger.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
>
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Tue Aug 24 00:00:36 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 01:00:36 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
In-Reply-To: <412AC175.7010109@renewableplanet.ca>
References: <3.0.32.20040820115446.00a70100@pop.btl.net> <412A2358.8000803@renewableplanet.ca> <20040824051735.79753675.arnt@c2i.net>
<412AC175.7010109@renewableplanet.ca>
Message-ID: <412ACB74.3070107@renewableplanet.ca>
Also don't forget that gasification of tires could produce dioxins and
furans, whereas microwave pyrolysis would not.
The energy input is low and the off gases and oil produced can be burned
to produce electricity.
Also, the use of recycled carbon black reduces the need for production
of new material, which is an emission intensive process!!
Not to mention energy intensive!
The $900 per ton for carbon black is in US dollars.
I don't know about where you live, but out electricity prices here
aren't high enough to warrant the conversion of tires to electricity vs
recycling!!!
Coal power is expensive enough, and coal costs about $40 US per ton.
So in some cases with gasification, you might not realize what you're
throwing away!
> Arnt, this is getting really interesting now! ;)
>
> OK, we can look at this one of two ways: Do you want cheap energy? Or
> do you want to make MONEY?
> Carbon black for tires is worth $900 per ton and rising because of the
> rising costs of natural gas. Arnt, $900 per ton man, you do the math
> on whether it is worth more
> as a fuel or as a commodity in itself. Now, there are different grades
> of carbon black also, so maybe carbon black from tires isn't worth all
> that much, if it isn't worth much, BURN it, but all indications are
> that you would be BURNING MONEY!! lol hahaha ;-)
>
> Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>
>>
>> ..shredded tires fed into a gasifier and a W?rtsila type gen set, can
>> feed a good third of the tire energy into the grid, and another third
>> to a half, into district heat piping.
>> ..can those carbon black firms beat that kinda business?
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
From LINVENT at aol.com Tue Aug 24 04:50:47 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 05:50:47 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
Message-ID: <1ee.28ae026b.2e5c6977@aol.com>
In a message dated 8/24/04 6:01:16 AM, mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca writes:
<< Also don't forget that gasification of tires could produce dioxins and
furans, whereas microwave pyrolysis would not.
The energy input is low and the off gases and oil produced can be burned
to produce electricity.
Also, the use of recycled carbon black reduces the need for production
of new material, which is an emission intensive process!!
Not to mention energy intensive!
The $900 per ton for carbon black is in US dollars.
I don't know about where you live, but out electricity prices here
aren't high enough to warrant the conversion of tires to electricity vs
recycling!!!
Coal power is expensive enough, and coal costs about $40 US per ton.
So in some cases with gasification, you might not realize what you're
throwing away! >>
Please explain the chemistry of gasification producing dioxins? Sorry, but it
doesn't happen.
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 mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Tue Aug 24 06:37:11 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 07:37:11 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
In-Reply-To: <1ee.28ae026b.2e5c6977@aol.com>
References: <1ee.28ae026b.2e5c6977@aol.com>
Message-ID: <412B2867.6080200@renewableplanet.ca>
Leland,
Maybe it is anti-gasification propaganda, but I have read many times
that gasification of certain wastes can and does produce dioxins,
depending on the temperatures involved. Mostly anti-incineration groups.
I understand that there is a 400 to 700 degree window for optimum dioxin
formation, but I am sure some dioxins must be formed outside of this
window, and if so, why not? You don't have to answer that, I will look
it up myself.
Formation of dioxins were not the primary concern I had there, I was
more specifically addressing the optimal use of a waste resource taking
into consideration all factors including economic benefits,
environmental benefits, achieved via recycling vs gasification and
incineration.
Instead of seeing my point, you have to nitpick! Well, that is all too
common here. Dissapointing! Oh well! It really feels like I am in a
forum of grumpy old men who simply wish to chastize the younger guy ;)
>
>Please explain the chemistry of gasification producing dioxins? Sorry, but it
>doesn't happen.
>
>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 tombreed at comcast.net Tue Aug 24 07:08:53 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 06:08:53 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Fw: [STOVES] Manually powered forced air: The
"Ejector effect" and the "Coanda effect"; FIREPIPES
Message-ID: <014101c489d3$22c5f540$9401a8c0@OFFICE>
Dear Gasification list and Ray:
Starting gasifiers with no source of power can be difficult. Here's a novel
solution.
My friend Ray Wijewardene in Sri-Lanka has sent the attached, confirming my
opinion that India is the most advanced country in Biomass gasification
because:
They have the Brains
They have the Need
They have the Money
I know Dr. Jain and he is indeed innovative...
TOM REED LIST MODERATOR
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Wijewardene" <raywijewardene at yahoo.com>
To: "TBReed" <tombreed at COMCAST.NET>
Cc: <adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>; <ascent03 at sancharnet.in>;
<aspirals at sltnet.lk>; <eforum at sltnet.lk>; <josephpg at sltnet.lk>;
<lpj at haycarbgrp.com>; <thusitha at lankatransformers.com>
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 7:54 AM
Subject: RE: [STOVES] Manually powered forced air: The "Ejector effect" and
the "Coanda effect"; FIREPIPES
> Dear Tom and AD,....(with copies to Dr. Jain of ANKUR and Lalith
Seneviratne
> and colleagues of BEASL in Sri Lanka.)
>
> You will be most interested, I am sure, to know how Dr.B.C.Jain (head of
> ANKUR, the remarkably efficient gasifier manufacturer in Baroda, India)
has
> made very innovative use of the ejector/venturi principles in the
> stand-alone fuel-wood gasifier- generator he built for us in Sri Lanka.
You
> will know that gasifiers usually require a 'blower' to initially blow the
> air through the gasifier amd then into the engine.... This usually
requires
> an externally powered blower. The very innovative Dr. Jain designed for us
a
> 'stand-alone' gasifier-generator system which utilised a little 1" pump
> which produces the water spray (for cooling and scrubbing the gas) also to
> act as an ejector - just as described by you - and thus develop the blow
of
> air required to to pull air through the gasifier and propell it into the
> gas-engine.
>
> Initially the (230V) pump ran off an inverter from a 12-volt battery (The
> battery was kept on charge during the operation of the 230V
> gasifier-generator).... and the battery (like the starter-motor on the
> engine) was only needed to cause the initial 'blow' through the gasifier
and
> for scrubbing the evolved gas. Now Dr Jain has come up with another piece
> of genius in having us install a 500 litre water tank at 15ft above the
> engine to provide the initial flow of water through the scrubber and
venturi
> to suck the air through the gasifier....Now there is no need for the
12Volt
> battery and 230:/12 V inverter (a trouble-some beast!) as once the
> gasifier-engine gets started, (takes about 2 to 4 minutes) there is 230V
> current available to run the 'auxiliaries' ... the 230V 1" water-pump for
> 'blowing' the air through the gasifier and scrubbing the gas evolved in
the
> gasifier, as well as charge up the 12-volt starter motor battery. ...
Neat,
> In'it?.. I thought that you, Tom, and you AD would just love to know of
that
> superb bit of AT (Appropriate-Technology) in action.
>
> There is yet another such 3.5 kW gasifier on its way to Colombo (for my
> colleague Lalith Seneviratne) for his most recent (self-financed!) rural
> electricity-generating installation, and my own 3.5 kW system is soon to
be
> upgraded to 9 kW.. with the expansion of our own
> drip-irrigation-cum-cottage-electrification system. AD will be pleased to
> hear about this as it is just as he has proposed for the development of
> regions such as ours with no grid supply, and no hydro-power resources
near
> by. Lalith is very dedicated to the rural-electrification idea... for
areas
> remote from the grid... and had already installed a PV-panel-powered rural
> electrification scheme... but the costs have been out-rageous despite the
> endeavours of the US-AID here to subsidise the VERY high costs for the
> panels (That was in NO WAY a 'sustainable' system)...even 'though they
> economised on power needed by using white LED lights. Lalith has already
> forwarded to AD the economics of the various schemes he has already put
into
> action...and is thus very aware of the slender economics which goes into
> such rural-electricity schemes. India has been far more advanced in its
> rural eletrification schemes... for much of Sri Lanka it is still
darkness!
>
> Please pardon me for this incursion into the STOVES network with this
> description of our rural-electricification efforts... But the principles
are
> the same.... and - in the end - relates to our prime endeavour to 'GROW
OUR
> OWN ENERGY'....now also renamed 'REGREENING SRI LANKA'
>
> Sincerely yours... RAY W.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Stoves Discussion List [mailto:STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On
> Behalf Of TBReed
> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 7:43 PM
> To: STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [STOVES] Manually powered forced air: The "Ejector effect"
> and the "Coanda effect"; FIREPIPES
>
>
> Dear All:
>
> Ain't Physics grand, especially the ejector effect and the Coanda effect!
> It's amazing how a simple demonstration of an effect plus understanding
the
> physics can lead to new inventions.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~
> Here's a simple test for the ejector effect, ie
> "a jet of air from a nozzle entrains its own weight of air approximately
> every 5 diameters. Momentum is conserved, so that a jet of a small amount
> (m1) of high velocity (V1) air can move a large quantity (m1+m2) of low
> velocity (V2) air.
>
> m1V1 = (m1+m2) V2
>
> Pucker up like to whistle (~1/8" nozzle)and blow a strong jet of air at
your
> hand. You can feel/see the force at an inch or two; you can feel the
> cooling at 4-6 inches. At 1 ft you feel nothing because more and more air
> is moving slower and slower.
>
> Now roll up a piece of 8 1/2 X 11 paper into an 8 1/2" "pipe", 1 1/2" in
> diameter, secure with rubber band or scotch tape. Keeping the pipe
against
> your mouth and your hand 2 inches from the end of the pipe, blow a strong
> jet of air into the pipe. Your hand feels nothing! (The quantity of air
is
> very small and the velocity has been attenuated by entrainment of air
inside
> the pipe). Now gradually move hand and pipe away from mouth. When the
pipe
> is ~1" from your mouth you will feel a cooling effect comparable to that
at
> 3" without the pipe. As you increase mouth to pipe distance the cooling
> diminishes.
>
> All firemakers should use a piece of PVC pipe as a "firepipe" for fanning
> the fire and avoid smoke inhalation. I wonder if cavemen knew about this
> and used hollow bones. I wonder if distributing firepipes to village
> cookers could decrease lung disease. I once damaged my lungs and coughed
for
> a year by trying to light a fire with wet wood plus blowing on it close.
> Wish I had known about the firemaker pipe.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~`
> For the Coanda effect (a flowing fluid follows a curved and preferably
bumpy
> surface), see
>
> http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/coanda.htm
> http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/coanda.shtml
> and many more.
>
> You can amaze your friends at dinner parties by blowing out a candle
behind
> a glass or by blowing at right angles to the flame around a glass.
>
> Thanks to Pete, Paul and all for bringing this up. Incidentally, when you
> increase the volume of air by tenfold in blowing on a fire, the small
> (<50%?) depletion of the oxygen by your lungs in your jet is
insignificant.
> Your wondering friend,
>
> TOM REED
>
From LINVENT at aol.com Tue Aug 24 08:50:12 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:50:12 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
Message-ID: <78.5f137970.2e5ca194@aol.com>
In a message dated 8/24/04 12:37:25 PM, mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca writes:
<< Leland,
Maybe it is anti-gasification propaganda, but I have read many times
that gasification of certain wastes can and does produce dioxins,
depending on the temperatures involved. Mostly anti-incineration groups.
I understand that there is a 400 to 700 degree window for optimum dioxin
formation, but I am sure some dioxins must be formed outside of this
window, and if so, why not? You don't have to answer that, I will look
it up myself.
Formation of dioxins were not the primary concern I had there, I was
more specifically addressing the optimal use of a waste resource taking
into consideration all factors including economic benefits,
environmental benefits, achieved via recycling vs gasification and
incineration.
Instead of seeing my point, you have to nitpick! Well, that is all too
common here. Dissapointing! Oh well! It really feels like I am in a
forum of grumpy old men who simply wish to chastize the younger guy ;) >>
Dear Mr. Pottinger,
Unfortunately for science, it is nitpicking and details which separate
science from wishful thinking. It is of vital importance to the field of
gasification that these details are well understood it it is to move forward as an
alternative to standard combustion processes. Being mis-informed and attempting
to represent oneself as a gasification interest is counter-productive to the
field and damaging to the field.
Dioxins are actually destroyed in the gaseous environment of the
gasifier. I suggest that you find out the balance of the reasons why gasifiers offer
the most significant stp forward in thermal conversion because they do not
produce toxic emissions. In fact, their emissions of standard pollutants are less
than natural gas because of the hydrogen present. Considering that the process
of dioxin formation is a complex process and requires substantial study, that
you return to this chat room when you can adequately explain the process.
Diligence of this type is good for the soul.
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 Tue Aug 24 09:43:20 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:43:20 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
In-Reply-To: <412AC175.7010109@renewableplanet.ca>
References: <3.0.32.20040820115446.00a70100@pop.btl.net>
<412A2358.8000803@renewableplanet.ca>
<20040824051735.79753675.arnt@c2i.net>
<412AC175.7010109@renewableplanet.ca>
Message-ID: <20040824164320.0d66e5fb.arnt@c2i.net>
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:17:57 -0400, Matt wrote in message
<412AC175.7010109 at renewableplanet.ca>:
> Arnt, this is getting really interesting now! ;)
>
> OK, we can look at this one of two ways: Do you want cheap energy? Or
> do you want to make MONEY?
.. ;-)
> Carbon black for tires is worth $900 per ton and rising because of the
> rising costs of natural gas. Arnt, $900 per ton man, you do the math
> on whether it is worth more as a fuel or as a commodity in itself.
..need math input: Cost of commercial scale process train to
produce that $900 carbon black? ;-)
> Now, there are different grades of carbon black also, so maybe carbon
> black from tires isn't worth all that much, if it isn't worth much,
> BURN it, but all indications are that you would be BURNING MONEY!! lol
> hahaha ;-)
..try do the math. ;-)
> Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>
> >
> >..shredded tires fed into a gasifier and a W?rtsila type gen set, can
> >feed a good third of the tire energy into the grid, and another third
> >to a half, into district heat piping.
> >
> >..can those carbon black firms beat that kinda business?
> >
> >
> >
>
--
..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 Tue Aug 24 10:22:47 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:22:47 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] DCFC Experience
In-Reply-To: <412ACB74.3070107@renewableplanet.ca>
References: <3.0.32.20040820115446.00a70100@pop.btl.net>
<412A2358.8000803@renewableplanet.ca>
<20040824051735.79753675.arnt@c2i.net>
<412AC175.7010109@renewableplanet.ca>
<412ACB74.3070107@renewableplanet.ca>
Message-ID: <20040824172247.7b3be53e.arnt@c2i.net>
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 01:00:36 -0400, Matt wrote in message
<412ACB74.3070107 at renewableplanet.ca>:
> > Arnt, this is getting really interesting now! ;)
> >
> > OK, we can look at this one of two ways: Do you want cheap energy?
> > Or do you want to make MONEY?
> > Carbon black for tires is worth $900 per ton and rising because of
> > the rising costs of natural gas. Arnt, $900 per ton man, you do the
> > math on whether it is worth more
> > as a fuel or as a commodity in itself. Now, there are different
> > grades of carbon black also, so maybe carbon black from tires isn't
> > worth all that much, if it isn't worth much, BURN it, but all
> > indications are that you would be BURNING MONEY!! lol hahaha ;-)
> >
> > Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > ..shredded tires fed into a gasifier and a W?rtsila type gen set,
> > > can feed a good third of the tire energy into the grid, and
> > > another third to a half, into district heat piping.
> > > ..can those carbon black firms beat that kinda business?
>
> Also don't forget that gasification of tires could produce dioxins and
> furans, whereas microwave pyrolysis would not.
..url? ;-)
..dioxin etc "can do" horror stories commonly ignores the presence
and not of oxygen in the carbon bed. ;-)
> The energy input is low and the off gases and oil produced can be
> burned to produce electricity.
.."low" is hardly a viable math input? ;-)
..in thermochemical gasification of biomass, contrary to common
belief, the main fuel is tar vapors. Miss that, and you're in for a
repeat of its 400 year history of failure. ;-)
> Also, the use of recycled carbon black reduces the need for production
> of new material, which is an emission intensive process!!
> Not to mention energy intensive!
>
> The $900 per ton for carbon black is in US dollars.
> I don't know about where you live, but out electricity prices here
> aren't high enough to warrant the conversion of tires to electricity
> vs recycling!!!
> Coal power is expensive enough, and coal costs about $40 US per ton.
..and per kWh? (Just to verify your math. ;-))
> So in some cases with gasification, you might not realize what you're
> throwing away!
..as the first guy on planet Earth to run an IC engine on "fireproof"
pelletized sewer, I agree sewer pellets fired alone is a silly gimmick
showoff ;-), to make money, you wanna mix MSW and coal to sell
power and district heat. Oh, and the urls: ;-)
http://solstice.crest.org/discussion/gasification/199903/msg00055.html
http://www.ivar.rl.no/hoved.cfm?id=3617 is the stuff that needs oxygen
from a welding torch to burn. ;-) Look up "wastewater and "RWTP
Northern J?ren" in http://www.ivar.rl.no/ to learn why money alone
aint ever been enough. ;-)
--
..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 jerry5335 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 24 12:20:51 2004
From: jerry5335 at yahoo.com (jerry dycus)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: OT Re: [Gasification] H2 and the future was DCFC Experience
Message-ID: <20040824172051.70481.qmail@web41013.mail.yahoo.com>
Hi Matt and All,
> --- Matt Pottinger <mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Interesting, I agree with you on all points,
> except
> > I don't know very
> > much about EV's making significant inroads (no pun
>
For someone who seems to think themself an
expert, you really don't know much about real life
energy production, enviroment.
Tout DCFC's once they are actually being made
and
used. Until then they are just vaporware and no
business here.
They have little business on this gasification
list anyway.
> > intended).
> > Fine, hydrogen is a dead end, I agree, and maybe
> CO2
> > isn't going to kill
>
>
> > us all, but why keep dumping it ito the atmosphere
> > when we don't know if
> > it can handle it in the long run? Your experience
>
Cost, I'd think that would be obvious.
There is little or no evidence CO2 is causing
problems it is blamed for and has risen only from
.0024 to .0036 in the atmostphere over the 100 yrs
we
have data. Compared to water vapor as a green house
gas, it is inconsinquintial.
The 9-11 study below proved that in a big way.
The temp of the earth is a lot less now than it
was 1,000 yrs ago. Greenland use to be green and
civilization really got going again because of that
warming period bringing the earth out of the little
Ice age. No?
The earths temp can and has changed 5 deg F in
a
yr or 2 quite a lot in it's history before without
humans causing it. Sometime in the future we will
snap
back into an Ice age or cooler, warmer periods at
any
time like the 1830's amoung others. These are well
known facts by anyone who bothers to look at
pre-more
recent history.
Notice fake eviro's always say that the temp is
the highest in 1,000 yrs. They never mention it was
higher then. That would ruin their fear mongering,
cash flow.
If you want to be a true enviromentlist, learn
the real facts instead of the propaganda put out by
people, groups with little understanding of science
and are more about their power, money, ego's .
The real enviromental problems are pollution,
land destruction, population, not CO2. Coal is a,
maybe the major source of those problems.
>
> > with an EV is
> > interesting, I would like to learn more. However
> if
>
I doubt it, otherwise you would have long ago.
Maybe this post will make you think instead of
spewing
misinformation like you do.
> > the EV is charged
> > using fossil fuels that is very inefficient. Now
> an
>
Again your lack of knowleage comes through. How
can I get 100 mpg energy equivilent, $.01/mile fuel
cost, from the base fuel if it was ineff? Do the
math!
And using wind, non dam tidal, river current
gens
I have made and used, it becomes the best by far
energy eff, enviromentally sound transport
available.
And I have over 4 billion AC outlets I can
refuel
from.
Most EV'ers buy green energy for charging. Many
make their own by solar, wind.
> > EV charged by
> > non-polluting energy would be worth it I suppose!
> I
> > think a lot!! hahaha
>
Again, you do no real research on the subject.
It's a lot easier to clean 1 electric plant's
emissions than 50,000 cars. No? Even if it's from
coal
plants!!
And in comparison with ICE cars, EV's get about
21% of the base fuel to the road VS ICE's that get
about 7% to the road. Do the math!!!
All this is on the US EPA website and many other
places. Try EV Clubs, mags online and follow their
links for the real facts.
> > so don't go insulting me, I just did not hear much
>
You've insulted us enough? I just said the
facts,
you have little real knowleage, big ego.
> > about EV's lately, if
> > they are getting better, good stuff! :)
>
While they are getting better range wise, they
are
already a great way to go. With a small, 10-20 hp RE
powered gen, range is unlimited at very high mpg
rates.
EV's are a disruptive technology to those
running
our energy, transport systems now.
I get all the news reports about EV's and GM,
Ford,
DC pay many PR firms to fake like enviro groups, ect
to put out the propagana you seem to be parroting.
Do
some research!
Now they are crushing the best EV's ever built
instead of letting the leasee's buy them. The EV-1
got
140 mile range and accelerated faster than most cars
to 80 mph. And did it at 100 mpg energy equivilent.
They always had customer lists many times longer
than what they produced. They only leased a few
because that's all they were forced to make, the
market is there.
Check out the NHRA drag race records, you'll
find
out that EV's are not slow either.
There are over 10,000 EV's, mostly ICE
conversions on the road in the US now as daily
drivers. We have to build our own because Detroit
won't.
Your misinformation will cause the very
enviromental problems you say you are against. You
are
as bad, maybe worse as Detroit, big oil and coal!!!
So now lets get back to how to gasification
that
this list is about. And not coal gasification which
is
already well known.
Reply off list if you want as most of your
stuff
is off topic. Please keep it on topic from now on or
don't post to the list.
Do it on wastewatts or other forums where it's
on
topic. Your keep doing it here many times is rude.
HTH's
> jerry dycus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter
> now.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
From arnt at c2i.net Tue Aug 24 14:31:25 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:31:25 +0200
Subject: OT Re: [Gasification] H2 and the future was DCFC Experience
In-Reply-To: <20040824172051.70481.qmail@web41013.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040824172051.70481.qmail@web41013.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20040824213125.325913f6.arnt@c2i.net>
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:20:51 -0700 (PDT), jerry wrote in message
<20040824172051.70481.qmail at web41013.mail.yahoo.com>:
>
> Hi Matt and All,
> > --- Matt Pottinger <mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca>
> > wrote:
> Cost, I'd think that would be obvious.
> There is little or no evidence CO2 is causing
> problems it is blamed for and has risen only from
> .0024 to .0036 in the atmostphere over the 100 yrs
..still a 50% raise. Good or bad, we'll face the consequences.
> The temp of the earth is a lot less now than it
> was 1,000 yrs ago. Greenland use to be green and
..ahem; Iceland also got it's name around that time.
Another case of Old Norse Marketeering? ;-)
> If you want to be a true enviromentlist, learn
> the real facts instead of the propaganda put out by
> people, groups with little understanding of science
> and are more about their power, money, ego's .
> The real enviromental problems are pollution,
> land destruction, population, not CO2. Coal is a,
> maybe the major source of those problems.
> >
> > > with an EV is
> > > interesting, I would like to learn more. However
> > if
> >
> I doubt it, otherwise you would have long ago.
> Maybe this post will make you think instead of
> spewing
> misinformation like you do.
>
> > > the EV is charged
> > > using fossil fuels that is very inefficient. Now
> > an
> >
> Again your lack of knowleage comes through. How
> can I get 100 mpg energy equivilent, $.01/mile fuel
> cost, from the base fuel if it was ineff? Do the
> math!
> And using wind, non dam tidal, river current
> gens I have made and used, it becomes the best by far
> energy eff, enviromentally sound transport available.
> And I have over 4 billion AC outlets I can
> refuel from.
> Most EV'ers buy green energy for charging. Many
> make their own by solar, wind.
> > > EV charged by
> > > non-polluting energy would be worth it I suppose!
> > I
> > > think a lot!! hahaha
> >
> Again, you do no real research on the subject.
> It's a lot easier to clean 1 electric plant's
> emissions than 50,000 cars. No? Even if it's from
> coal plants!!
>
> And in comparison with ICE cars, EV's get about
> 21% of the base fuel to the road VS ICE's that get
> about 7% to the road. Do the math!!!
> All this is on the US EPA website and many other
> places. Try EV Clubs, mags online and follow their
> links for the real facts.
> > > so don't go insulting me, I just did not hear much
> >
> You've insulted us enough? I just said the
> facts, you have little real knowleage, big ego.
>
> > > about EV's lately, if
> > > they are getting better, good stuff! :)
> >
> While they are getting better range wise, they
> are already a great way to go. With a small, 10-20 hp RE
> powered gen, range is unlimited at very high mpg rates.
> EV's are a disruptive technology to those
> running our energy, transport systems now.
> I get all the news reports about EV's and GM,
> Ford, DC pay many PR firms to fake like enviro groups, ect
> to put out the propagana you seem to be parroting.
> Do some research!
> Now they are crushing the best EV's ever built
> instead of letting the leasee's buy them. The EV-1
> got 140 mile range and accelerated faster than most cars
> to 80 mph. And did it at 100 mpg energy equivilent.
> They always had customer lists many times longer
> than what they produced. They only leased a few
> because that's all they were forced to make, the
> market is there.
> Check out the NHRA drag race records, you'll
> find out that EV's are not slow either.
> There are over 10,000 EV's, mostly ICE
> conversions on the road in the US now as daily
> drivers. We have to build our own because Detroit
> won't.
> Your misinformation will cause the very
> enviromental problems you say you are against. You
> are as bad, maybe worse as Detroit, big oil and coal!!!
> So now lets get back to how to gasification
> that this list is about. And not coal gasification which
> is already well known.
> Reply off list if you want as most of your
> stuff is off topic. Please keep it on topic from now on or
> don't post to the list.
> Do it on wastewatts or other forums where it's
> on topic. Your keep doing it here many times is rude.
> HTH's
> > jerry dycus
> >
> >
--
..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 Tue Aug 24 15:47:06 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:47:06 -0600
Subject: OT Re: [Gasification] H2 and the future was DCFC Experience
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20040824144459.00aa0740@pop.btl.net>
At 10:20 AM 8/24/2004 -0700, you wrote:
***********snipped*************
> There are over 10,000 EV's, mostly ICE
> conversions on the road in the US now as daily
> drivers. We have to build our own because Detroit
> won't.
China produces every kind of EV you can imagine -- from large busses --
trucks -- tractors -- all kinds of "cars" -- mini-busses -- small vans --
and the one I was recently interested in electric bicycles (the wave of the
future for us here in 3rd world!!)
The amount of choice is astounding!! I found over 200 different models of
electric bicycles in just a short search period!!
Even some that have a small inverter built in so at night the same Electric
bike and supply 120 volt power for a rural household!! Plus they sell
matching solar or wind systems for charging.
America is so far behind in the science of energy conservation -- I believe
it is totally hopeless -- short of massive "DIE-OFF" to ever catch up!!
That is dies -- off of all the citizens that figure they can't live on less
than 20 kwh per day -- counting transport energy costs -- food -- and
household!!
Yet that same figure is luxurious amounts of energy for all the rest of us
sharing this planet!!
>And not coal gasification which
> is already well known.
It all started with coal gasification more than 150 years ago now!!
Partial combustion gasification suffers from to much N2 in the product when
accomplished using atmospheric air. The Europeans have got around this by
using pure O2 as the gasification atmosphere.
The alternative is to use H2O as the atmosphere -- "steam-reformation" --
Though in real terms it can be liquid H2O -- as in super critical water
reformation.
There is much less energy losses in using H2O as atmosphere than having to
produce pure O2!!
So Matt -- if you really want to tweak these guy's behinds -- ask them why
they "only" consider partial combustion gasification rather than steam
reformation!!
Remembering -- that was at that beginning -- gasifying coal -- they used
both!! That is steam and partial combustion using "air" for gas making!
Super critical water reformation is very attractive -- as it does not
matter how wet the biomass (or fossil fuel waste product -- eg tires -- pet
coke) is.
so your sewage slurry could go straight in -- no fuel conditioning required
-- which is the other huge problem with partial combustion gasification --
fuel conditioning to exactly one level of fuel moisture levels is a
nightmare!!
One wonders how these people got so lost -- but then -- when you see how
lost they are over even minor things such as good EV's -- where to find
them -- I guess one could say -- they got to smart -- stopped thinking --
figured everything that had to be known was found -- and stopped looking
for more.
I stated this on this same list years back -- the industrialized nations
are in a rut -- for new innovation in energy -- look to 3rd world -- where
necessity is still there -- ergo -- the mother for invention still functions.
The modern nations are far to fat -- to lazy -- to out of it generally to
innovate -- but they sure are good at spinning around in circles -- just
like you do now -- eh??
The most ridiculous part is that most of the hard science was done in the
US -- and just sits there -- totally ignored.
Probably because it is no politically correct.
H2 is politically correct due to GWB's endorsement of it as the real
solution to America's energy crisis!!
So thus -- only people applying for scientific grants to investigate the H2
"economy" get excepted.
If you write for a grant to investigate using super critical water for
reforming raw swage sludge to high quality synthesis gas -- well tough
titties -- that is not on anyone's political agenda!
I'll leave you with an old paper (relatively speaking) in regards to
scientific investigation "once upon a time when american scientists were
"BRAVE" on super critical water reformation of biomass!!
Bottom line -- research in the US -- as example -- but applies equally to
all industrialized nation -- is limited to what the politicians want -- not
to what the human race needs!!
As politically -- you can keep the real cost of energy hidden -- there is
no mother beating your ass to get things going.
Mother?? Her name is "NECESSITY"
and Matt -- you might realize that your pushing H2 economy so you can get
rich (because your being so politically correct!!) is not going over so
well on this list -- eh??
And oh -- from good synthesis gas you can make any number of good portable
liquid fuels easily. But not from just H2!!!
Now -- absorb this line -- from appended below:
"Carbon-based catalysts promote complete conversion (>99%) of
high-concentration glucose (up to 22% by weight) to a hydrogen-rich
synthesis gas."
it goes with this process:
"This project is investigating the use of water as the medium for
converting biomass to gas."
But super critcal water -- re:
"supercritical water at 600C and 34.5 MPa (5,000 psi)"
To bad no one is interested -- cause it aint about fuel cells using H2 --
right Matt??
Peter -- in Belize -- laughing at how backwards the industrialized people
are becoming.
***************Super critical reforming of biomass example*******
Hydrogen Production/Recovery/Storage
DOE (Government) Funded
--------------------------------------------------------------------
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION FROM HIGH-MOISTURE CONTENT BIOMASS IN
SUPERCRITICAL WATER
[IMAGE]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is investigating the use of water as the medium for
converting biomass to gas. Previous work showed that low
concentrations of a model compound (glucose) and various wet biomass
species could be completely gasified in supercritical water at 600C
and 34.5 MPa (5,000 psi) after 30 seconds. But higher concentrations
of glucose resulted in incomplete conversion. For this reason, flow
reactors have been constructed that accommodate packed beds of
catalyst. The goal is to identify active catalysts for steam
reforming biomass slurries in supercritical water. Carbon-based
catalysts promote complete conversion (>99%) of high-concentration
glucose (up to 22% by weight) to a hydrogen-rich synthesis gas. The
catalyst is stable over a period of several hours, is inexpensive,
and exists in a wide variety of forms. The gaseous products
(primarily hydrogen, CO2, and methane) separate from the water upon
cooling at the reactor exit and are then available for storage or
further processing at a pressure of 34.5 MPa.
PARTICIPANT
University of Hawaii
STATUS
Project is ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------------
FUNDING PROFILE
Funding Source: DOE/Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy-Office of
Utility Technologies
Funding Mechanism: Grant
Funding Level (in thousands):Funding Level (in thousands):
------------------------------------------------
FY94 FY95 FY96 TOTAL
________________________________________________
U of Hawaii $140 $150 $200 $490
------------------------------------------------
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/
POINT OF CONTACT
U. OF HAWAII
M. Antal
Phone: 808-956-8346
Fax : 808-956-2335
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Tue Aug 24 16:00:13 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:00:13 -0400
Subject: OT Re: [Gasification] H2 and the future was DCFC Experience
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040824144459.00aa0740@pop.btl.net>
References: <3.0.32.20040824144459.00aa0740@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <412BAC5D.7060207@renewableplanet.ca>
Peter, you both have me interested in electric vehicles/bicycles. VERY
interested. SOME people seem to have gotten upset that I did not know
much about them, well, I'll learn about it.
Steam gasification and Supercritical water gasification.
Those are two things which I am quite excited about Peter! I read your
stuff of steam reformation to methane. I want to know how I could get a
working model of one of these, without having to build it myself. Since
your messages about it that I found in the archives, I've been
interested in it.
I've also seen sub-critical water gasification, using a catalyst to
produce methane at lower pressures and temperatues than supercritical,
which would translate into lower equipment costs due to milder conditions.
Peter, I'm with you there on steam gasification and aqueous phase
gasification systems!!!! Lower temps, wet biomass, etc. Wonderful stuff!
I want one of these within the next few years, and I am serious about it!
Any gasifier which will produce methane instead of syngas is fine by me.
I would have some good use for it. If you can give me any info on what
is available to do that, I would be grateful.
Matt
Peter Singfield wrote:
>At 10:20 AM 8/24/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>
>***********snipped*************
>
>
>
>> There are over 10,000 EV's, mostly ICE
>>conversions on the road in the US now as daily
>>drivers. We have to build our own because Detroit
>>won't.
>>
>>
>
>China produces every kind of EV you can imagine -- from large busses --
>trucks -- tractors -- all kinds of "cars" -- mini-busses -- small vans --
>and the one I was recently interested in electric bicycles (the wave of the
>future for us here in 3rd world!!)
>
>The amount of choice is astounding!! I found over 200 different models of
>electric bicycles in just a short search period!!
>
>Even some that have a small inverter built in so at night the same Electric
>bike and supply 120 volt power for a rural household!! Plus they sell
>matching solar or wind systems for charging.
>
>America is so far behind in the science of energy conservation -- I believe
>it is totally hopeless -- short of massive "DIE-OFF" to ever catch up!!
>
>That is dies -- off of all the citizens that figure they can't live on less
>than 20 kwh per day -- counting transport energy costs -- food -- and
>household!!
>
>Yet that same figure is luxurious amounts of energy for all the rest of us
>sharing this planet!!
>
>
>
>>And not coal gasification which
>>is already well known.
>>
>>
>
>It all started with coal gasification more than 150 years ago now!!
>
>Partial combustion gasification suffers from to much N2 in the product when
>accomplished using atmospheric air. The Europeans have got around this by
>using pure O2 as the gasification atmosphere.
>
>The alternative is to use H2O as the atmosphere -- "steam-reformation" --
>
>Though in real terms it can be liquid H2O -- as in super critical water
>reformation.
>
>There is much less energy losses in using H2O as atmosphere than having to
>produce pure O2!!
>
>So Matt -- if you really want to tweak these guy's behinds -- ask them why
>they "only" consider partial combustion gasification rather than steam
>reformation!!
>
>Remembering -- that was at that beginning -- gasifying coal -- they used
>both!! That is steam and partial combustion using "air" for gas making!
>
>Super critical water reformation is very attractive -- as it does not
>matter how wet the biomass (or fossil fuel waste product -- eg tires -- pet
>coke) is.
>
>so your sewage slurry could go straight in -- no fuel conditioning required
>-- which is the other huge problem with partial combustion gasification --
>fuel conditioning to exactly one level of fuel moisture levels is a
>nightmare!!
>
>One wonders how these people got so lost -- but then -- when you see how
>lost they are over even minor things such as good EV's -- where to find
>them -- I guess one could say -- they got to smart -- stopped thinking --
>figured everything that had to be known was found -- and stopped looking
>for more.
>
>I stated this on this same list years back -- the industrialized nations
>are in a rut -- for new innovation in energy -- look to 3rd world -- where
>necessity is still there -- ergo -- the mother for invention still functions.
>
>The modern nations are far to fat -- to lazy -- to out of it generally to
>innovate -- but they sure are good at spinning around in circles -- just
>like you do now -- eh??
>
>The most ridiculous part is that most of the hard science was done in the
>US -- and just sits there -- totally ignored.
>
>Probably because it is no politically correct.
>
>H2 is politically correct due to GWB's endorsement of it as the real
>solution to America's energy crisis!!
>
>So thus -- only people applying for scientific grants to investigate the H2
>"economy" get excepted.
>
>If you write for a grant to investigate using super critical water for
>reforming raw swage sludge to high quality synthesis gas -- well tough
>titties -- that is not on anyone's political agenda!
>
>I'll leave you with an old paper (relatively speaking) in regards to
>scientific investigation "once upon a time when american scientists were
>"BRAVE" on super critical water reformation of biomass!!
>
>Bottom line -- research in the US -- as example -- but applies equally to
>all industrialized nation -- is limited to what the politicians want -- not
>to what the human race needs!!
>
>As politically -- you can keep the real cost of energy hidden -- there is
>no mother beating your ass to get things going.
>
>Mother?? Her name is "NECESSITY"
>
>and Matt -- you might realize that your pushing H2 economy so you can get
>rich (because your being so politically correct!!) is not going over so
>well on this list -- eh??
>
>And oh -- from good synthesis gas you can make any number of good portable
>liquid fuels easily. But not from just H2!!!
>
>Now -- absorb this line -- from appended below:
>
>"Carbon-based catalysts promote complete conversion (>99%) of
>high-concentration glucose (up to 22% by weight) to a hydrogen-rich
>synthesis gas."
>
>it goes with this process:
>
>"This project is investigating the use of water as the medium for
>converting biomass to gas."
>
>But super critcal water -- re:
>
>"supercritical water at 600C and 34.5 MPa (5,000 psi)"
>
>To bad no one is interested -- cause it aint about fuel cells using H2 --
>right Matt??
>
>Peter -- in Belize -- laughing at how backwards the industrialized people
>are becoming.
>
>***************Super critical reforming of biomass example*******
>
>
>Hydrogen Production/Recovery/Storage
>
>
>DOE (Government) Funded
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>HYDROGEN PRODUCTION FROM HIGH-MOISTURE CONTENT BIOMASS IN
>SUPERCRITICAL WATER
>[IMAGE]
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>PROJECT DESCRIPTION
>This project is investigating the use of water as the medium for
>converting biomass to gas. Previous work showed that low
>concentrations of a model compound (glucose) and various wet biomass
>species could be completely gasified in supercritical water at 600C
>and 34.5 MPa (5,000 psi) after 30 seconds. But higher concentrations
>of glucose resulted in incomplete conversion. For this reason, flow
>reactors have been constructed that accommodate packed beds of
>catalyst. The goal is to identify active catalysts for steam
>reforming biomass slurries in supercritical water. Carbon-based
>catalysts promote complete conversion (>99%) of high-concentration
>glucose (up to 22% by weight) to a hydrogen-rich synthesis gas. The
>catalyst is stable over a period of several hours, is inexpensive,
>and exists in a wide variety of forms. The gaseous products
>(primarily hydrogen, CO2, and methane) separate from the water upon
>cooling at the reactor exit and are then available for storage or
>further processing at a pressure of 34.5 MPa.
>PARTICIPANT
>
> University of Hawaii
>
>STATUS
>Project is ongoing
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>FUNDING PROFILE
>
> Funding Source: DOE/Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
>Energy-Office of
> Utility Technologies
>
>Funding Mechanism: Grant
>Funding Level (in thousands):Funding Level (in thousands):
>------------------------------------------------
> FY94 FY95 FY96 TOTAL
>________________________________________________
>U of Hawaii $140 $150 $200 $490
>------------------------------------------------
>
>
>PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/
>POINT OF CONTACT
>
>U. OF HAWAII
>M. Antal
>Phone: 808-956-8346
>Fax : 808-956-2335
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
>
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Tue Aug 24 16:14:17 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:14:17 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Steam & High pressure water gasification
In-Reply-To: <412BAC5D.7060207@renewableplanet.ca>
References: <3.0.32.20040824144459.00aa0740@pop.btl.net>
<412BAC5D.7060207@renewableplanet.ca>
Message-ID: <412BAFA9.7080408@renewableplanet.ca>
Peter, I wish to inform you, in a very positive way of course, that I
have already been VERY much interested in the potential of these two
gasification technologies. I agree with you on all points. I can see how
you would think that I am ignorant of them, since I did not mention
them much on this list, but they do deserve a lot of mention, and I
would like to talk about it more. Capital cost is a consideration,
however I see that gasification is always capital intensive, so this
would not be so different! Methane producing systems instead of syngas
should be cheaper would they not? Since less extreme conditions are
required to produce it. I agree, I am also disappointed that more
attention isn't being placed on it, because I could use one of those
reactors, so I wish they were available commercially. I have seen some
that are under development, but not sure if they are for sale!
Matt
Matt Pottinger wrote:
>
> Peter, you both have me interested in electric vehicles/bicycles. VERY
> interested. SOME people seem to have gotten upset that I did not know
> much about them, well, I'll learn about it.
>
> Steam gasification and Supercritical water gasification.
> Those are two things which I am quite excited about Peter! I read your
> stuff of steam reformation to methane. I want to know how I could get
> a working model of one of these, without having to build it myself.
> Since your messages about it that I found in the archives, I've been
> interested in it.
>
> I've also seen sub-critical water gasification, using a catalyst to
> produce methane at lower pressures and temperatues than supercritical,
> which would translate into lower equipment costs due to milder
> conditions.
>
> Peter, I'm with you there on steam gasification and aqueous phase
> gasification systems!!!! Lower temps, wet biomass, etc. Wonderful stuff!
>
> I want one of these within the next few years, and I am serious about it!
> Any gasifier which will produce methane instead of syngas is fine by
> me. I would have some good use for it. If you can give me any info on
> what is available to do that, I would be grateful.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> Peter Singfield wrote:
>
>> At 10:20 AM 8/24/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>> ***********snipped*************
>>
>>
>>
>>> There are over 10,000 EV's, mostly ICE
>>> conversions on the road in the US now as daily
>>> drivers. We have to build our own because Detroit
>>> won't.
>>>
>>
>>
>> China produces every kind of EV you can imagine -- from large busses --
>> trucks -- tractors -- all kinds of "cars" -- mini-busses -- small
>> vans --
>> and the one I was recently interested in electric bicycles (the wave
>> of the
>> future for us here in 3rd world!!)
>>
>> The amount of choice is astounding!! I found over 200 different
>> models of
>> electric bicycles in just a short search period!!
>>
>> Even some that have a small inverter built in so at night the same
>> Electric
>> bike and supply 120 volt power for a rural household!! Plus they sell
>> matching solar or wind systems for charging.
>>
>> America is so far behind in the science of energy conservation -- I
>> believe
>> it is totally hopeless -- short of massive "DIE-OFF" to ever catch up!!
>>
>> That is dies -- off of all the citizens that figure they can't live
>> on less
>> than 20 kwh per day -- counting transport energy costs -- food -- and
>> household!!
>>
>> Yet that same figure is luxurious amounts of energy for all the rest
>> of us
>> sharing this planet!!
>>
>>
>>
>>> And not coal gasification which
>>> is already well known.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It all started with coal gasification more than 150 years ago now!!
>>
>> Partial combustion gasification suffers from to much N2 in the
>> product when
>> accomplished using atmospheric air. The Europeans have got around
>> this by
>> using pure O2 as the gasification atmosphere.
>> The alternative is to use H2O as the atmosphere --
>> "steam-reformation" --
>>
>> Though in real terms it can be liquid H2O -- as in super critical water
>> reformation.
>>
>> There is much less energy losses in using H2O as atmosphere than
>> having to
>> produce pure O2!!
>>
>> So Matt -- if you really want to tweak these guy's behinds -- ask
>> them why
>> they "only" consider partial combustion gasification rather than steam
>> reformation!!
>>
>> Remembering -- that was at that beginning -- gasifying coal -- they used
>> both!! That is steam and partial combustion using "air" for gas making!
>>
>> Super critical water reformation is very attractive -- as it does not
>> matter how wet the biomass (or fossil fuel waste product -- eg tires
>> -- pet
>> coke) is.
>>
>> so your sewage slurry could go straight in -- no fuel conditioning
>> required
>> -- which is the other huge problem with partial combustion
>> gasification --
>> fuel conditioning to exactly one level of fuel moisture levels is a
>> nightmare!!
>>
>> One wonders how these people got so lost -- but then -- when you see how
>> lost they are over even minor things such as good EV's -- where to find
>> them -- I guess one could say -- they got to smart -- stopped
>> thinking --
>> figured everything that had to be known was found -- and stopped looking
>> for more.
>>
>> I stated this on this same list years back -- the industrialized nations
>> are in a rut -- for new innovation in energy -- look to 3rd world --
>> where
>> necessity is still there -- ergo -- the mother for invention still
>> functions.
>>
>> The modern nations are far to fat -- to lazy -- to out of it
>> generally to
>> innovate -- but they sure are good at spinning around in circles -- just
>> like you do now -- eh??
>>
>> The most ridiculous part is that most of the hard science was done in
>> the
>> US -- and just sits there -- totally ignored.
>>
>> Probably because it is no politically correct.
>>
>> H2 is politically correct due to GWB's endorsement of it as the real
>> solution to America's energy crisis!!
>>
>> So thus -- only people applying for scientific grants to investigate
>> the H2
>> "economy" get excepted.
>>
>> If you write for a grant to investigate using super critical water for
>> reforming raw swage sludge to high quality synthesis gas -- well tough
>> titties -- that is not on anyone's political agenda!
>>
>> I'll leave you with an old paper (relatively speaking) in regards to
>> scientific investigation "once upon a time when american scientists were
>> "BRAVE" on super critical water reformation of biomass!!
>>
>> Bottom line -- research in the US -- as example -- but applies
>> equally to
>> all industrialized nation -- is limited to what the politicians want
>> -- not
>> to what the human race needs!!
>>
>> As politically -- you can keep the real cost of energy hidden --
>> there is
>> no mother beating your ass to get things going.
>>
>> Mother?? Her name is "NECESSITY"
>>
>> and Matt -- you might realize that your pushing H2 economy so you can
>> get
>> rich (because your being so politically correct!!) is not going over so
>> well on this list -- eh??
>>
>> And oh -- from good synthesis gas you can make any number of good
>> portable
>> liquid fuels easily. But not from just H2!!!
>>
>> Now -- absorb this line -- from appended below:
>>
>> "Carbon-based catalysts promote complete conversion (>99%) of
>> high-concentration glucose (up to 22% by weight) to a hydrogen-rich
>> synthesis gas."
>>
>> it goes with this process:
>>
>> "This project is investigating the use of water as the medium for
>> converting biomass to gas."
>>
>> But super critcal water -- re:
>>
>> "supercritical water at 600C and 34.5 MPa (5,000 psi)"
>>
>> To bad no one is interested -- cause it aint about fuel cells using
>> H2 --
>> right Matt??
>>
>> Peter -- in Belize -- laughing at how backwards the industrialized
>> people
>> are becoming.
>>
>> ***************Super critical reforming of biomass example*******
>>
>>
>> Hydrogen Production/Recovery/Storage
>>
>>
>> DOE (Government) Funded
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> HYDROGEN PRODUCTION FROM HIGH-MOISTURE CONTENT BIOMASS IN
>> SUPERCRITICAL WATER
>> [IMAGE]
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> PROJECT DESCRIPTION
>> This project is investigating the use of water as the medium for
>> converting biomass to gas. Previous work showed that low
>> concentrations of a model compound (glucose) and various wet biomass
>> species could be completely gasified in supercritical water at 600C
>> and 34.5 MPa (5,000 psi) after 30 seconds. But higher concentrations
>> of glucose resulted in incomplete conversion. For this reason, flow
>> reactors have been constructed that accommodate packed beds of
>> catalyst. The goal is to identify active catalysts for steam
>> reforming biomass slurries in supercritical water. Carbon-based
>> catalysts promote complete conversion (>99%) of high-concentration
>> glucose (up to 22% by weight) to a hydrogen-rich synthesis gas. The
>> catalyst is stable over a period of several hours, is inexpensive,
>> and exists in a wide variety of forms. The gaseous products
>> (primarily hydrogen, CO2, and methane) separate from the water upon
>> cooling at the reactor exit and are then available for storage or
>> further processing at a pressure of 34.5 MPa.
>> PARTICIPANT
>>
>> University of Hawaii
>>
>> STATUS
>> Project is ongoing
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> FUNDING PROFILE
>>
>> Funding Source: DOE/Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
>> Energy-Office of
>> Utility Technologies
>> Funding Mechanism: Grant Funding Level (in thousands):Funding
>> Level (in thousands):
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> FY94 FY95 FY96 TOTAL
>> ________________________________________________
>> U of Hawaii $140 $150 $200 $490
>> ------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/
>> POINT OF CONTACT
>>
>> U. OF HAWAII M. Antal Phone: 808-956-8346 Fax : 808-956-2335
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gasification mailing list
>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
From jerry5335 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 24 20:01:22 2004
From: jerry5335 at yahoo.com (jerry dycus)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 18:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: OT Re: [Gasification] H2 and the future was DCFC Experience
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040824144459.00aa0740@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <20040825010122.12768.qmail@web41006.mail.yahoo.com>
Hi Peter and All,
--- Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net> wrote:
> At 10:20 AM 8/24/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>
> ***********snipped*************
>
> > There are over 10,000 EV's, mostly ICE
> > conversions on the road in the US now as daily
> > drivers. We have to build our own because Detroit
> > won't.
>
> China produces every kind of EV you can imagine --
> from large busses --
> trucks -- tractors -- all kinds of "cars" --
> mini-busses -- small vans --
> and the one I was recently interested in electric
> bicycles (the wave of the
> future for us here in 3rd world!!)
>
> The amount of choice is astounding!! I found over
> 200 different models of
> electric bicycles in just a short search period!!
Beware, most of these are cheap crap and not
worth the money.
Much better would be to build your own from local
parts like a motorcycle chassis and add your own
motor, batteries, controller.
Batteries are a big problem as few are made for
traction use. You must use true deep cycle traction
rated batts or they will have a short life pissing you
off and your money away.
Luckily there are several good EV lists like the
EVDL list for EV cars, trucks and electric bike,
scooter lists for them to guide you to a great, long
lasting EV. Use them.
A great one can be made by using a golfcart
transaxle by welding up a frame to a motorcycle front
end. Using higher voltage batt pack and larger rear
wheels gives you a 45-50 mph trike that will last for
yrs at a very low cost. I built mine for under $200.
This is not the enclosed sportwagon of the previous
posts.
Electric motors can be hopped up easily for lots
of power.
But join an EV list before you build will save
you much time, money or lead you to the few good
production EV bikes, ect.
BTW EV tractors were produced in the US by GE for
a while and regularly beat modified gas tractors in
tractor pulls though stock.
One can be made from a golf cart or GC transaxle.
>
> Even some that have a small inverter built in so at
> night the same Electric
> bike and supply 120 volt power for a rural
> household!! Plus they sell
> matching solar or wind systems for charging.
Hurricane Charlie just missed me here in Tampa but
I was ready to run mine and several neighbor's refrig
and lights, TV's from my 5 EV's for several days.
>
> America is so far behind in the science of energy
> conservation -- I believe
> it is totally hopeless -- short of massive "DIE-OFF"
> to ever catch up!!
It amazes me that few look to Eff and conservation
which can eliminate 50% of our energy needs without
really changing our lifestyle.
>
> That is dies -- off of all the citizens that figure
> they can't live on less
> than 20 kwh per day -- counting transport energy
> costs -- food -- and
> household!!
That's only equivilent to 1.3 gal gasoline but I
do it easily so don't say we all can't.
>
> Yet that same figure is luxurious amounts of energy
> for all the rest of us
> sharing this planet!!
How many KW of wood energy do they use?
>
> >And not coal gasification which
> > is already well known.
>
> It all started with coal gasification more than 150
> years ago now!!
>
> Partial combustion gasification suffers from to much
> N2 in the product when
> accomplished using atmospheric air. The Europeans
> have got around this by
> using pure O2 as the gasification atmosphere.
>
> The alternative is to use H2O as the atmosphere --
> "steam-reformation" --
I agree but that way is capital intensive for the
little guy.
Destructive distillation can do the same thing
without so much costs.
>
> Though in real terms it can be liquid H2O -- as in
> super critical water
> reformation.
They are doing that here. The new turkey butt oil
producer gasifies then produces usable fuel oil,
methane, ect in one process this way so don't say we
are not doing any gov funded research.
And it works for any biomass and uses moisture
instead of having to dry it first.
They put the biomass into a pressure vessel with
catalyst and some water if needed then 30 minutes
later oil, methane, ect comes out as the pressure is
released quickly.
>
> There is much less energy losses in using H2O as
> atmosphere than having to
> produce pure O2!!
>
> So Matt -- if you really want to tweak these guy's
> behinds -- ask them why
> they "only" consider partial combustion gasification
> rather than steam
> reformation!!
I came here to find out more about DD for this
reason, to make a richer biogas than producer gas.
>
> Remembering -- that was at that beginning --
> gasifying coal -- they used
> both!! That is steam and partial combustion using
> "air" for gas making!
But in combo with water gas it was fairly rich in
energy. Much better than straight producer gas.
>
> Super critical water reformation is very attractive
> -- as it does not
> matter how wet the biomass (or fossil fuel waste
> product -- eg tires -- pet
> coke) is.
DD tires puts out a lot more diesel type oil than
carbon black.
And water in DD biomass is transformed into H2-CO or
syn gas at 1500 deg F with a catalyst. Lower temps,
more methane, tars which are valuable chemical if
seperated.
I wish more info on these processes could be
discussed here. It's a process that the little guy
could do if the info from the 30's was available to
us.
In Fla many yrs ago pine tree stumps were DD into
these chemicals but the info has not been found by me
yet. It should be here I'd think and was one of our
biggest industries but killed by $2 bbl oil!
>
> so your sewage slurry could go straight in -- no
> fuel conditioning required
> -- which is the other huge problem with partial
> combustion gasification --
> fuel conditioning to exactly one level of fuel
> moisture levels is a
> nightmare!!
That's the same as the turkey butt processor.
>
> One wonders how these people got so lost -- but then
> -- when you see how
> lost they are over even minor things such as good
Why do it the hard way when you can pump it
straight from the ground! That's why.
> EV's -- where to find
> them -- I guess one could say -- they got to smart
> -- stopped thinking --
> figured everything that had to be known was found --
> and stopped looking
> for more.
Until now when oil prices are going high enough to
make them profitable again. I cheer every time the oil
price goes up so all the other sources of energy can
come back supplying jobs, better economies and energy
independance, less wars for us and third world
countries.
There are plenty of energy sources we can use once
the price of oil reflects it's true cost.
>
> I stated this on this same list years back -- the
> industrialized nations
> are in a rut -- for new innovation in energy -- look
> to 3rd world -- where
> necessity is still there -- ergo -- the mother for
> invention still functions.
Not likely as the oil price rises we will do whats
needed. Matt is right about the light oil supplies are
almost gone and then only heavy, sour crude is left
which raises the cost of processing oil will drive
other energy sources to the forefront.
>
> The modern nations are far to fat -- to lazy -- to
> out of it generally to
> innovate -- but they sure are good at spinning
> around in circles -- just
> like you do now -- eh??
Envious?
>
> The most ridiculous part is that most of the hard
> science was done in the
> US -- and just sits there -- totally ignored.
Yes you are right. But why are other countries not
using it? Cheap oil.
>
> Probably because it is no politically correct.
Cheap oil!
>
> H2 is politically correct due to GWB's endorsement
> of it as the real
> solution to America's energy crisis!!
>
> So thus -- only people applying for scientific
> grants to investigate the H2
> "economy" get excepted.
Crap! while H2 gets some, other tech are funded as
much or more.
>
> If you write for a grant to investigate using super
> critical water for
> reforming raw swage sludge to high quality synthesis
> gas -- well tough
> titties -- that is not on anyone's political agenda!
What about turkey butt reactors? They are gov
funded amoung other projects.
>>
> and Matt -- you might realize that your pushing H2
> economy so you can get
> rich (because your being so politically correct!!)
> is not going over so
> well on this list -- eh??
I wonder what Matts agenda is as it doesn't make
sense. of course he has changed it several times over
the last week. First he says one thing then the
opposite.
>
> And oh -- from good synthesis gas you can make any
> number of good portable
> liquid fuels easily. But not from just H2!!!
Yet syn gas is the easiest to make for us from
biomass. The problem is what to do with it that the
little guy like us can use. That's what I'm here for
but it has never been answered.
>
> Now -- absorb this line -- from appended below:
>
> "Carbon-based catalysts promote complete conversion
> (>99%) of
> high-concentration glucose (up to 22% by weight) to
> a hydrogen-rich
> synthesis gas."
Nickel based catalysts with 1500F temps make syn
gas easily from most any biomass at close to those
eff. What's hard about that? And you don't need high
pressure vessels to do it unlike your supercritical
process..
What to do with the syn gas is our problem.
>
> it goes with this process:
>
> "This project is investigating the use of water as
> the medium for
> converting biomass to gas."
>
> But super critcal water -- re:
>
> "supercritical water at 600C and 34.5 MPa (5,000
> psi)"
>
> To bad no one is interested -- cause it aint about
> fuel cells using H2 --
> right Matt??
I'm interested but still need a process to make
something with the syn gas.
Any suggestions?
Jerry, still asking the same question.
>
> Peter -- in Belize -- laughing at how backwards the
> industrialized people
> are becoming.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
From tmiles at trmiles.com Tue Aug 24 20:57:10 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 18:57:10 -0700
Subject: OT Re: [Gasification] H2 and the future was DCFC Experience
References: <20040825010122.12768.qmail@web41006.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <001001c48a46$d848ccd0$6601a8c0@Yellow>
Point of Information:
Several members of this list have spent years working on gasification
processes to make syngas. Some of us have worked on hydrogen production
projects at the pilot scale using different processes. So don't assume that
there is no interest in these areas. Much of the development is publically
available and some is private. Often it takes significant research (or
licenses) to find it. You won't find it all on the internet.
The enthusiasm for these processes is welcome but we should recognize that
the information and technologies are not all public. List members will be
cautious. They are not likely to spend a lot of time educating newcomers.
They are more likely to discuss specific aspects and experiences of
processing in detail, and that sometimes in separate discussions off the
list.
Kind regards,
Tom Miles
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Tue Aug 24 21:55:07 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matt Pottinger)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 22:55:07 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
In-Reply-To: <001001c48a46$d848ccd0$6601a8c0@Yellow>
References: <20040825010122.12768.qmail@web41006.mail.yahoo.com>
<001001c48a46$d848ccd0$6601a8c0@Yellow>
Message-ID: <412BFF8B.1050105@renewableplanet.ca>
That is easy to understand, thank you. Now as for my motivation for
being here, well, I am not really interested in engineering or design to
personally build a gasifier. I am prospective customer of some of the
other list members or their employers. I am not looking to spend years
of research and development on particular gasifier designs. I wish to
purchase a gasifier as a piece of equipment for a business, and I am in
search of the best available equipment to do the job right.
This means informing myself a little about the technical side of things,
but when it comes down to it, I am an entrepreneur, not an engineer.
To learn a what I need to as an entrepreneur, about the equipment I will
be buying before I invest any money into it.
That is my "agenda". ;-)
People will say that all entrepreneurs only care about money. Well, that
is true to a certain extent, but I also would like to TRY to be
environmentally responsible while I am at it. I am NOT an
environmentalist, contrary to what many people seem to think.
Tom Miles wrote:
>Point of Information:
>
>Several members of this list have spent years working on gasification
>processes to make syngas. Some of us have worked on hydrogen production
>projects at the pilot scale using different processes. So don't assume that
>there is no interest in these areas. Much of the development is publically
>available and some is private. Often it takes significant research (or
>licenses) to find it. You won't find it all on the internet.
>
>The enthusiasm for these processes is welcome but we should recognize that
>the information and technologies are not all public. List members will be
>cautious. They are not likely to spend a lot of time educating newcomers.
>They are more likely to discuss specific aspects and experiences of
>processing in detail, and that sometimes in separate discussions off the
>list.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Tom Miles
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
>
From Paul.Harris at adelaide.edu.au Tue Aug 24 22:48:29 2004
From: Paul.Harris at adelaide.edu.au (Paul Harris)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:18:29 +0930
Subject: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
References: <20040825010122.12768.qmail@web41006.mail.yahoo.com>
<001001c48a46$d848ccd0$6601a8c0@Yellow>
<412BFF8B.1050105@renewableplanet.ca>
Message-ID: <412C0C0D.7E447066@adelaide.edu.au>
G'day All,
I have been watching this list for a little while now, as I give a
session on "renewable energy" to our agriculture and natural resource
students decided to see what was going on in gasification (I have been
involved in anaerobic digestion for a number of years at work and have
solar hot water and grid connect PV at home).
Are any members (other than Matt) interested in the smaller/simpler end
of things - I had in mind the units used on cars during WWII. One of my
bugbears is that "we" tend to make everything very complicated and very
big, but there are other markets - Albert Einstein said "Things should
be as simple as possible, but no simpler.".
All the best,
HOOROO
Matt Pottinger wrote:
SNIP
>
> To learn a what I need to as an entrepreneur, about the equipment I will
> be buying before I invest any money into it.
> That is my "agenda". ;-)
>
> People will say that all entrepreneurs only care about money. Well, that
> is true to a certain extent, but I also would like to TRY to be
> environmentally responsible while I am at it. I am NOT an
> environmentalist, contrary to what many people seem to think.
>
--
Mr. Paul Harris
Faculty of Sciences, DP710
The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy Campus, AUSTRALIA 5371
Ph : +61 8 8303 7880
Fax : +61 8 8303 7979
mailto:paul.harris at adelaide.edu.au
I now use "Spam Assassin" - if you do not get a reply please make
contact again (by fax?)
http://www.ees.adelaide.edu.au/people/soil/pharri01.html
Member IOBB http://www.biotech.kth.se/iobb
CRICOS Provider Number 00123M
-----------------------------------------------------------
This email message is intended only for the addressee(s)
and contains information that may be confidential and/or
copyright. If you are not the intended recipient please
notify the sender by reply email and immediately delete
this email. Use, disclosure or reproduction of this email
by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly
prohibited. No representation is made that this email or
any attachments are free of viruses. Virus scanning is
recommended and is the responsibility of the recipient.
From robdeutsch at online.com.kh Tue Aug 24 12:57:59 2004
From: robdeutsch at online.com.kh (Robert Deutsch)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:57:59 +0700
Subject: [Gasification] Interested in simpler things
Message-ID: <02c601c48a04$64331c70$7a0cc13f@SFKC.GOV.KH>
Dear Paul,
I'm with you, all the big industrial talk is interesting, but I joined to learn if there were some practical ideas for small-scale application. Peter always has something practical to say cuz he's doing it, and several months ago there was good info on using AC motors as generators. I haven't made the leap yet and built something, but I'm saving up ideas.
Best regards,
Robert in Phnom Penh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040825/5e7acdf1/attachment.html
From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Wed Aug 25 04:07:30 2004
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:07:30 +1200
Subject: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
References: <20040825010122.12768.qmail@web41006.mail.yahoo.com><001001c48a46$d848ccd0$6601a8c0@Yellow><412BFF8B.1050105@renewableplanet.ca>
<412C0C0D.7E447066@adelaide.edu.au>
Message-ID: <001101c48a84$14dd9a80$c38f58db@newpc>
Dear Paul
I am sure we all have an interest in simple gasification, but the rules of
gasification are the same today as they were in WW11. It is true that the
gasifiers used in Australia and New Zealand were simple compared to those
used in Europe, but then ours were more likely to be home made, but they
were built to a fairly common design. I should mention that Australia had a
lot of very old ringbarked dead wood and this was often used instead of the
charcoal, so you find some confusion in how people thought their gasifiers
worked!
Most cars had charcoal or precarbonised coal/coke, so condensate and tar as
experienced with wood gasifiers was less of a problem to the engines. Most
simple to build were cross draught with one rather large air nozzle that had
a water jacket round it to generate steam. This was introduced into the
nozzle where it reacted with the incandescent char to produce the hydrogen.
Some had a small control valve that dripped the water directly into the hot
nozzle, while others had circulating water through the nozzle jacket to
prevent it from melting. The nozzle could be moved in or out through a
sleeve in the side wall to obtain the correct distance from the grate on the
opposite wall.
Cooling and cleaning usually relied on long connecting pipes with a sawdust
or cloth filter with many variations introduced by individual circumstances
and availability of materials.
Manufactured gas/air mixers became quite elaborate and were cast in bronze
(I have one) but these were for only one model of car I believe, here in New
Zealand.
While travelling in Queensland I actually found a charcoal gasifier at a
kiosk park in the Bunya mountains west of Kingaroy. It still had charcoal
in the bottom, but was complete in every way although a bit battered. I do
have some pictures of this somewhere and will endeavour to find them to post
on the Fluidyne Archive. www.fluidynenz.250x.com
If you haven't looked at our archive, then you should find it quite
informative, as there is a section there on European WW11 gasifiers that I
had the opportunity to inspect in Germany. Most are for cars, but in the
main are for wood chips, and a bit more elaborate than needed for charcoal.
Will dig out some more information over the next few days, and see what more
I can offer you.
Regards
Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Harris" <Paul.Harris at adelaide.edu.au>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
> G'day All,
>
> I have been watching this list for a little while now, as I give a
> session on "renewable energy" to our agriculture and natural resource
> students decided to see what was going on in gasification (I have been
> involved in anaerobic digestion for a number of years at work and have
> solar hot water and grid connect PV at home).
>
> Are any members (other than Matt) interested in the smaller/simpler end
> of things - I had in mind the units used on cars during WWII. One of my
> bugbears is that "we" tend to make everything very complicated and very
> big, but there are other markets - Albert Einstein said "Things should
> be as simple as possible, but no simpler.".
>
> All the best,
> HOOROO
>
> Matt Pottinger wrote:
> SNIP
> >
> > To learn a what I need to as an entrepreneur, about the equipment I will
> > be buying before I invest any money into it.
> > That is my "agenda". ;-)
> >
> > People will say that all entrepreneurs only care about money. Well, that
> > is true to a certain extent, but I also would like to TRY to be
> > environmentally responsible while I am at it. I am NOT an
> > environmentalist, contrary to what many people seem to think.
> >
> --
> Mr. Paul Harris
> Faculty of Sciences, DP710
> The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy Campus, AUSTRALIA 5371
> Ph : +61 8 8303 7880
> Fax : +61 8 8303 7979
> mailto:paul.harris at adelaide.edu.au
> I now use "Spam Assassin" - if you do not get a reply please make
> contact again (by fax?)
> http://www.ees.adelaide.edu.au/people/soil/pharri01.html
> Member IOBB http://www.biotech.kth.se/iobb
>
> CRICOS Provider Number 00123M
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This email message is intended only for the addressee(s)
> and contains information that may be confidential and/or
> copyright. If you are not the intended recipient please
> notify the sender by reply email and immediately delete
> this email. Use, disclosure or reproduction of this email
> by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly
> prohibited. No representation is made that this email or
> any attachments are free of viruses. Virus scanning is
> recommended and is the responsibility of the recipient.
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
From a31ford at inetlink.ca Wed Aug 25 13:34:18 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:34:18 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
In-Reply-To: <412BFF8B.1050105@renewableplanet.ca>
Message-ID: <000801c48ad2$2215b630$1900a8c0@a31server>
Good day all,
All I can say is, I'm somewhat flabbergasted!
Matt Came the list, and I welcomed him, just as others did, I chastised him
once, when I thought his wording was "out of line", BUT, all the time I was
of the understanding that he was a student attempting to learn, I now find
out that we all have been "Duped", yes, I guess he is still learning, but at
what cost to ourselves ??
Yes, you are reading correctly..
I feel Matt's "Train of thought" or "poking and prodding" has cost myself
and may have cost other list members money, REAL money! In the fact that
Matt's almost "off topic" approach and bouncing around, have caused myself
and others to really wonder what is going on, therefore, slowing my/our
progress on other things that DO matter, and not simply speculation.
I feel that Matt has somewhat "Abused" us, even IF he looked my way for the
purchase of a unit, I would NOT sell him one, simply because of his
tactics....
One feeling very "Abused" person
Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Matt
Pottinger
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 9:55 PM
To: Tom Miles
Cc: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Subject: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
That is easy to understand, thank you. Now as for my motivation for
being here, well, I am not really interested in engineering or design to
personally build a gasifier. I am prospective customer of some of the
other list members or their employers. I am not looking to spend years
of research and development on particular gasifier designs. I wish to
purchase a gasifier as a piece of equipment for a business, and I am in
search of the best available equipment to do the job right.
This means informing myself a little about the technical side of things,
but when it comes down to it, I am an entrepreneur, not an engineer.
To learn a what I need to as an entrepreneur, about the equipment I will
be buying before I invest any money into it.
That is my "agenda". ;-)
People will say that all entrepreneurs only care about money. Well, that
is true to a certain extent, but I also would like to TRY to be
environmentally responsible while I am at it. I am NOT an
environmentalist, contrary to what many people seem to think.
Tom Miles wrote:
>Point of Information:
>
>Several members of this list have spent years working on gasification
>processes to make syngas. Some of us have worked on hydrogen production
>projects at the pilot scale using different processes. So don't assume
that
>there is no interest in these areas. Much of the development is publically
>available and some is private. Often it takes significant research (or
>licenses) to find it. You won't find it all on the internet.
>
>The enthusiasm for these processes is welcome but we should recognize that
>the information and technologies are not all public. List members will be
>cautious. They are not likely to spend a lot of time educating newcomers.
>They are more likely to discuss specific aspects and experiences of
>processing in detail, and that sometimes in separate discussions off the
>list.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Tom Miles
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
From Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk Wed Aug 25 16:11:42 2004
From: Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:11:42 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
In-Reply-To: <000801c48ad2$2215b630$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGAEGIDNAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
I rather agree with Greg,
I have wondered on Matts challenging and at times na?ve approach,
particularly as he seemed to be jumping from idea to idea.
I am disappointed that he was not polite enough to openly and honestly make
clear his position when he first joined the list.
Now I realise why the TV ads in the UK warn us about internet chatrooms... "
I am a bubbly blue eyed blonde 46, ;-)
I rather enjoy our occasional socio-political discussions OT as well as
technical sharing of experience and conjecture
cheers
Gavin
Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
3G Energi Ltd.,
Tel +44 (0)1835 824201
Fax +44 (0)870 8314098
Mob +44 (0)7773 781498
E mail Gavin at 3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin at 3genergi.co.uk>
The contents of this email and any attachments are the property of 3G Energi
Ltd. and are intended for the confidential use of the named recipient(s)
only. They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to or
relied upon by any person without our express written consent. If you are
not an addressee please notify us immediately at the address above or by
email at admin at 3genergi.co.uk <mailto:admin at 3genergi.co.uk>. Any files
attached to this email will have been checked with virus detection software
before transmission. However, you should carry out your own virus check
before opening any attachment. 3G Energi Ltd. accepts no liability for any
loss or damage that may be caused by software viruses.
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of a31ford
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 19:34
To: 'Matt Pottinger'; A Gasification List (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
Good day all,
All I can say is, I'm somewhat flabbergasted!
Matt Came the list, and I welcomed him, just as others did, I chastised him
once, when I thought his wording was "out of line", BUT, all the time I was
of the understanding that he was a student attempting to learn, I now find
out that we all have been "Duped", yes, I guess he is still learning, but at
what cost to ourselves ??
Yes, you are reading correctly..
I feel Matt's "Train of thought" or "poking and prodding" has cost myself
and may have cost other list members money, REAL money! In the fact that
Matt's almost "off topic" approach and bouncing around, have caused myself
and others to really wonder what is going on, therefore, slowing my/our
progress on other things that DO matter, and not simply speculation.
I feel that Matt has somewhat "Abused" us, even IF he looked my way for the
purchase of a unit, I would NOT sell him one, simply because of his
tactics....
One feeling very "Abused" person
Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Matt
Pottinger
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 9:55 PM
To: Tom Miles
Cc: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Subject: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
That is easy to understand, thank you. Now as for my motivation for
being here, well, I am not really interested in engineering or design to
personally build a gasifier. I am prospective customer of some of the
other list members or their employers. I am not looking to spend years
of research and development on particular gasifier designs. I wish to
purchase a gasifier as a piece of equipment for a business, and I am in
search of the best available equipment to do the job right.
This means informing myself a little about the technical side of things,
but when it comes down to it, I am an entrepreneur, not an engineer.
To learn a what I need to as an entrepreneur, about the equipment I will
be buying before I invest any money into it.
That is my "agenda". ;-)
People will say that all entrepreneurs only care about money. Well, that
is true to a certain extent, but I also would like to TRY to be
environmentally responsible while I am at it. I am NOT an
environmentalist, contrary to what many people seem to think.
Tom Miles wrote:
>Point of Information:
>
>Several members of this list have spent years working on gasification
>processes to make syngas. Some of us have worked on hydrogen production
>projects at the pilot scale using different processes. So don't assume
that
>there is no interest in these areas. Much of the development is publically
>available and some is private. Often it takes significant research (or
>licenses) to find it. You won't find it all on the internet.
>
>The enthusiasm for these processes is welcome but we should recognize that
>the information and technologies are not all public. List members will be
>cautious. They are not likely to spend a lot of time educating newcomers.
>They are more likely to discuss specific aspects and experiences of
>processing in detail, and that sometimes in separate discussions off the
>list.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Tom Miles
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Wed Aug 25 17:40:12 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:40:12 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
In-Reply-To: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGAEGIDNAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
References: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGAEGIDNAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
Message-ID: <412D154C.5090403@renewableplanet.ca>
Funny, most non-business people such as engineers especially, seem to
have some sort of resentment towards me, and "don't like my attitude".
I am VERY used to that, I encounter it in real life all the time outside
of this list.
*However*, I get along with other business owners just FINE! They have a
MUCH more positive attitude towards me and the way I work. They are on
the same "wavelength" as I am and we can have much more constructive
discussions. Some of my best friends are successful entrepreneurs with
companies worth millions.
Some of my more "academic" friends, well, I can have quarrels with
sometimes, hey, I guess it's only natural, we have different views
entirely!!! Different types of people, we can have "conflicting"
positions. ;)
My aerospace engineer friend (who I don't get along with very well
anymore), thinks I have a bad attitude because he thinks I have this
"I'll show you!!!" attitude. What you engineers don't understand is that
this supposed BAD attitude you percieve is something called "ambition".
Greg, I have several very capable and respectable equipment suppliers
who are more than happy to assist me in my project, they are quite
enthusiastic in fact. What they offer is more attractive than anything I
have seen offered here.They will supply me what I need for the dry and
organic liquid wastes. All that is left is an equipment supplier for
"wet biomass" and slurries like liquid manure and biosolids.
Supercritical water oxidation would do the job there, and Peter
Singfield is an expert there. I may not need this "wet biomass" gasifier
at first, but once I've conquered all the dry waste around here, my next
plan of attack is on the wet stuff ;) hhehehe.
Not all people have such negative views towards ambition as you guys do,
and I am VERY thankful for that too!!!!
Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:
>I rather agree with Greg,
>
>I have wondered on Matts challenging and at times na?ve approach,
>particularly as he seemed to be jumping from idea to idea.
>
>I am disappointed that he was not polite enough to openly and honestly make
>clear his position when he first joined the list.
>
>Now I realise why the TV ads in the UK warn us about internet chatrooms... "
>I am a bubbly blue eyed blonde 46, ;-)
>
>I rather enjoy our occasional socio-political discussions OT as well as
>technical sharing of experience and conjecture
>cheers
>
>Gavin
>Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
>3G Energi Ltd.,
>
>Tel +44 (0)1835 824201
>Fax +44 (0)870 8314098
>Mob +44 (0)7773 781498
>E mail Gavin at 3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin at 3genergi.co.uk>
>
>The contents of this email and any attachments are the property of 3G Energi
>Ltd. and are intended for the confidential use of the named recipient(s)
>only. They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to or
>relied upon by any person without our express written consent. If you are
>not an addressee please notify us immediately at the address above or by
>email at admin at 3genergi.co.uk <mailto:admin at 3genergi.co.uk>. Any files
>attached to this email will have been checked with virus detection software
>before transmission. However, you should carry out your own virus check
>before opening any attachment. 3G Energi Ltd. accepts no liability for any
>loss or damage that may be caused by software viruses.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
>[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of a31ford
>Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 19:34
>To: 'Matt Pottinger'; A Gasification List (E-mail)
>Subject: RE: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
>
>Good day all,
>
>All I can say is, I'm somewhat flabbergasted!
>
>Matt Came the list, and I welcomed him, just as others did, I chastised him
>once, when I thought his wording was "out of line", BUT, all the time I was
>of the understanding that he was a student attempting to learn, I now find
>out that we all have been "Duped", yes, I guess he is still learning, but at
>what cost to ourselves ??
>
>Yes, you are reading correctly..
>
>I feel Matt's "Train of thought" or "poking and prodding" has cost myself
>and may have cost other list members money, REAL money! In the fact that
>Matt's almost "off topic" approach and bouncing around, have caused myself
>and others to really wonder what is going on, therefore, slowing my/our
>progress on other things that DO matter, and not simply speculation.
>
>I feel that Matt has somewhat "Abused" us, even IF he looked my way for the
>purchase of a unit, I would NOT sell him one, simply because of his
>tactics....
>
>One feeling very "Abused" person
>
>Greg Manning,
>
>Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
>[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Matt
>Pottinger
>Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 9:55 PM
>To: Tom Miles
>Cc: gasification at listserv.repp.org
>Subject: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
>
>
>That is easy to understand, thank you. Now as for my motivation for
>being here, well, I am not really interested in engineering or design to
>personally build a gasifier. I am prospective customer of some of the
>other list members or their employers. I am not looking to spend years
>of research and development on particular gasifier designs. I wish to
>purchase a gasifier as a piece of equipment for a business, and I am in
>search of the best available equipment to do the job right.
>This means informing myself a little about the technical side of things,
>but when it comes down to it, I am an entrepreneur, not an engineer.
>
>To learn a what I need to as an entrepreneur, about the equipment I will
>be buying before I invest any money into it.
>That is my "agenda". ;-)
>
>People will say that all entrepreneurs only care about money. Well, that
>is true to a certain extent, but I also would like to TRY to be
>environmentally responsible while I am at it. I am NOT an
>environmentalist, contrary to what many people seem to think.
>
>Tom Miles wrote:
>
>
>
>>Point of Information:
>>
>>Several members of this list have spent years working on gasification
>>processes to make syngas. Some of us have worked on hydrogen production
>>projects at the pilot scale using different processes. So don't assume
>>
>>
>that
>
>
>>there is no interest in these areas. Much of the development is publically
>>available and some is private. Often it takes significant research (or
>>licenses) to find it. You won't find it all on the internet.
>>
>>The enthusiasm for these processes is welcome but we should recognize that
>>the information and technologies are not all public. List members will be
>>cautious. They are not likely to spend a lot of time educating newcomers.
>>They are more likely to discuss specific aspects and experiences of
>>processing in detail, and that sometimes in separate discussions off the
>>list.
>>
>>Kind regards,
>>
>>Tom Miles
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Gasification mailing list
>>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
>
From solar1 at zuper.net Wed Aug 25 19:09:16 2004
From: solar1 at zuper.net (Fundacion Centro de Desarrollol en Energia Solar)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:09:16 -0400
Subject: [Gasification]was- What am I doing on this list? is what are
you doing on the list?
In-Reply-To: <412D154C.5090403@renewableplanet.ca>
References: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGAEGIDNAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
<412D154C.5090403@renewableplanet.ca>
Message-ID: <412D2A2C.9040600@zuper.net>
Matt,
I am a business person and an entrepreneur, and I suggest you do more
listening until you can contribute something more substantial.
As a business person, I respect that many of us have to pay per byte for
Internet information and you have been adding a lot with little substance.
Consider that abrasiveness isn't conducive to good communication and
good entrepreneurs must communicate well to sell their ideas. If I had
a choice, I would strive to be a good entrepreneur rather than just an
entrepreneur. Hope you do too.
God speed in your endeavors, and think about treating others as you
would have them treat you.
David Whitfield
oBlivia South America
Matthew Pottinger wrote:
>
> Funny, most non-business people such as engineers especially, seem to
> have some sort of resentment towards me, and "don't like my attitude".
>
> I am VERY used to that, I encounter it in real life all the time
> outside of this list.
>
> *However*, I get along with other business owners just FINE! They have
> a MUCH more positive attitude towards me and the way I work. They are
> on the same "wavelength" as I am and we can have much more
> constructive discussions. Some of my best friends are successful
> entrepreneurs with companies worth millions.
>
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Wed Aug 25 20:09:30 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:09:30 -0400
Subject: [Gasification]was- What am I doing on this list? is what are
you doing on the list?
In-Reply-To: <412D2A2C.9040600@zuper.net>
References: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGAEGIDNAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
<412D154C.5090403@renewableplanet.ca> <412D2A2C.9040600@zuper.net>
Message-ID: <412D384A.3000305@renewableplanet.ca>
You are right, abrasiveness isn't conducive to good communication. I
have not been anymore abrasive towards anyone on this list than they
have been to myself. I do not attack others unless they attack me, and
many times I am attacked, I simply do not respond! David, you don't
understand my position here. I can't believe you are backing them up.
THEY came on me, and I defended my points of view.
I DO treat others how I would have them treat me, but when others give
me an attitude, I fight back sometimes.
Fundacion Centro de Desarrollol en Energia Solar wrote:
> Matt,
> I am a business person and an entrepreneur, and I suggest you do more
> listening until you can contribute something more substantial.
> As a business person, I respect that many of us have to pay per byte
> for Internet information and you have been adding a lot with little
> substance.
> Consider that abrasiveness isn't conducive to good communication and
> good entrepreneurs must communicate well to sell their ideas. If I
> had a choice, I would strive to be a good entrepreneur rather than
> just an entrepreneur. Hope you do too.
>
> God speed in your endeavors, and think about treating others as you
> would have them treat you.
>
> David Whitfield
> oBlivia South America
> Matthew Pottinger wrote:
>
>>
>> Funny, most non-business people such as engineers especially, seem to
>> have some sort of resentment towards me, and "don't like my attitude".
>>
>> I am VERY used to that, I encounter it in real life all the time
>> outside of this list.
>>
>> *However*, I get along with other business owners just FINE! They
>> have a MUCH more positive attitude towards me and the way I work.
>> They are on the same "wavelength" as I am and we can have much more
>> constructive discussions. Some of my best friends are successful
>> entrepreneurs with companies worth millions.
>>
>
>
From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Wed Aug 25 20:37:32 2004
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:37:32 -0300
Subject: [Gasification]was- What am I doing on this list? is what areyou
doing on the list?
References: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGAEGIDNAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk><412D154C.5090403@renewableplanet.ca>
<412D2A2C.9040600@zuper.net> <412D384A.3000305@renewableplanet.ca>
Message-ID: <00f201c48b0d$452b7c50$799a0a40@kevin>
Dear Matt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Pottinger" <mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca>
Subject: Re: [Gasification]was- What am I doing on this list? is what areyou
doing on the list?
del...
> David, you don't
> understand my position here. I can't believe you are backing them up.
> THEY came on me, and I defended my points of view.
>
Is it perhaps possible that David does understand your position, and that
THEY are right and you are wrong?
It is just a possibility that you might wish to consider.
Kevin Chisholm
From LINVENT at aol.com Wed Aug 25 20:47:19 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:47:19 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
Message-ID: <19f.28e04752.2e5e9b27@aol.com>
In a message dated 8/26/04 12:42:09 AM, mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca writes:
<< *However*, I get along with other business owners just FINE! >>
what business do you own? Do you get in their faces about their operations or
tell them how much better you can do what they are doing?
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 jerry5335 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 25 20:54:33 2004
From: jerry5335 at yahoo.com (jerry dycus)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:54:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gasification]was- What am I doing on this list? Matt ,
Matthew Pottinger
In-Reply-To: <412D384A.3000305@renewableplanet.ca>
Message-ID: <20040826015433.20797.qmail@web41001.mail.yahoo.com>
Hi Tom and All,
Could Matt be removed from the list. He
doesn't seem to know what manners are.
Matt, I'm an business person too and you give
us a bad name.
Why couldn't you be honest and straight
forward instead of abusing those of us who are here to
help people. We do it for free to make the world a
better place.
The correct way would have been to say what
you wanted to do and the materials you have to do it
with.
People detected crap from you at the start and
that's why people here reacted to you that way. I
wouldn't want to do business with you and I doubt
anyone here would. No one would be able to trust you
and that's what makes business work.
Keep going that way and you'll die a lonely
old man if you make it that far.
I can imagine what kind of friends you have!
Don't turn your back on them! And you'll alway have to
look over your shoulder from the way you treat people.
And the business people who will deal with you
will screw you as fast a they can.
And remember this is all on record so anyone
can put your name in google and these posts will pop
up and will see exactly what you are.
Bye,
jerry dycus
--- Matthew Pottinger <mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca>
wrote:
> You are right, abrasiveness isn't conducive to good
> communication. I
> have not been anymore abrasive towards anyone on
> this list than they
> have been to myself. I do not attack others unless
> they attack me, and
> many times I am attacked, I simply do not respond!
> David, you don't
> understand my position here. I can't believe you are
> backing them up.
> THEY came on me, and I defended my points of view.
>
> I DO treat others how I would have them treat me,
> but when others give
> me an attitude, I fight back sometimes.
>
>
> Fundacion Centro de Desarrollol en Energia Solar
> wrote:
>
> > Matt,
> > I am a business person and an entrepreneur, and I
> suggest you do more
> > listening until you can contribute something more
> substantial.
> > As a business person, I respect that many of us
> have to pay per byte
> > for Internet information and you have been adding
> a lot with little
> > substance.
> > Consider that abrasiveness isn't conducive to good
> communication and
> > good entrepreneurs must communicate well to sell
> their ideas. If I
> > had a choice, I would strive to be a good
> entrepreneur rather than
> > just an entrepreneur. Hope you do too.
> >
> > God speed in your endeavors, and think about
> treating others as you
> > would have them treat you.
> >
> > David Whitfield
> > oBlivia South America
> > Matthew Pottinger wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Funny, most non-business people such as engineers
> especially, seem to
> >> have some sort of resentment towards me, and
> "don't like my attitude".
> >>
> >> I am VERY used to that, I encounter it in real
> life all the time
> >> outside of this list.
> >>
> >> *However*, I get along with other business owners
> just FINE! They
> >> have a MUCH more positive attitude towards me and
> the way I work.
> >> They are on the same "wavelength" as I am and we
> can have much more
> >> constructive discussions. Some of my best friends
> are successful
> >> entrepreneurs with companies worth millions.
> >>
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
From arnt at c2i.net Wed Aug 25 21:02:43 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 04:02:43 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] ..plonk
In-Reply-To: <412D154C.5090403@renewableplanet.ca>
References: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGAEGIDNAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
<412D154C.5090403@renewableplanet.ca>
Message-ID: <20040826040243.2f9d68ed.arnt@c2i.net>
--
..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 MMBTUPR at aol.com Wed Aug 25 21:13:29 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:13:29 EDT
Subject: [Gasification]was- What am I doing on this list? is what areyou
doing on the list?
Message-ID: <1c5.1d06d91e.2e5ea149@aol.com>
to Gasification list from Lewis L.
Smith
As one who has a radical goal ? the replacement of all fossil sources of
energy by renewable sources ? but is unsure of the best path to get there, I
am appalled that we have wasted so much time and $ on the above subject. It is
my perception of reality that we have other, more important "fish to fry".
For example ?
One of the reasons gasification is important is that it enables us to
convert biomass to energy without getting hung up on problems of water supply
and quality, whether for boiler makeup or for condensation of the spent steam
exhausted from turbines. This is especially important for dispersed
[distributed, decentralized] generation where generating units must be spotted thither and
yon, often to solve local problems, and may not be near an adequate water
supply.
One of the big problems with gasification is gas cleanup. There has been
much progress, but there is still a lot of confusion as to where we stand in
this matter, except almost nobody believes that we have invented the "silver
bullet" as yet.
Another problem is scaleup. For example, Community Power has some neat
processes but so far they have only been developed for units of one MW or less.
They tell me scaleup to 5 MW [which is what interests me] is going to cost
some serious $$$. As we know, scaleup is not simple when we are dealing with
cylindrical pressure vessels and rapidly circulating gases !
Over in the Bioenergy list, we have to come to some kind of judgment
about the newer processes for the combustion of coal. If they are not
environmentally acceptable as "transition processes", then we must expand biomass energy
a lot faster than what people are now contemplating. And this is going to get
us into to some fierce arguments with agricultural types over "food versus
fuel". What is our strategic situation in this matter, and how do we handle the
latter issue ?
This is not to disparage anybody's concerns, but rather to express a
preference as regards priorities.
So can we get back on the track ?
Thank you for your attention.
Cordially.
End.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040825/21337101/attachment.html
From tombreed at comcast.net Wed Aug 25 21:44:52 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:44:52 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Charcoal vs Wood Gasification
References: <20040825010122.12768.qmail@web41006.mail.yahoo.com><001001c48a46$d848ccd0$6601a8c0@Yellow><412BFF8B.1050105@renewableplanet.ca><412C0C0D.7E447066@adelaide.edu.au>
<001101c48a84$14dd9a80$c38f58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <023f01c48b16$aa379fd0$9401a8c0@OFFICE>
Dear Paul, Doug and All:
Glad to see Graeme's knowledgeable comments from NZ here. I have long been a student and promoter of improved WWII gasifiers, and consider that to be the "Golden Age" of biomass gasification. Over a million cars/buses/trucks/boats used them successfully and the urban civilian population of Europe would have mostly died if the gasifiers hadn't worked as well as they did to run the tractors and bring the food in from the farms. What a miracle that so many vehicles built to use gasoline could be converted to wood by the civilians while most of the male population was off fighting WWII.
I believe WWII would have been much shorter without wood gasifiers supporting the civilian population. The first time the soldiers came home on leave and found everyone dead of starvation, they wouldn't have returned to fight for the fatherland (or Stalin or ....) .
~~~~~~~
I have just visited Doug's FLUIDYNE site and was very impressed by the size and number of gasifiers built and tested. The MK 2 Mega Class 2 MW gasifier is very impressive and may be the best in the world. I get all kinds of inquiries about gasifiers in these larger size ranges and will certainly send them to this site.
~~~~~~~
Doug is certainly correct that charcoal gasification is much easier than biomass because the tars have already been driven off. However, those tars and gases took away 70% of the energy in the wood, and there would have been no trees left in Europe if they had continued to rely on charcoal (also no sunlight, since the charcoal processes then dumped the tar into the atmosphere). In Sweden and Europe they then developed the Imbert (nozzle) type gasifier which gave relatively low (1000 ppm) tars from wood and had > 70% conversion efficiency.
By 1944 there were 48,000 charcoal gasifiers in Sweden, mostly on private cars and motorcycles where fuel consumption was low. There were 40,000 Wood gasifiers, mostly on large trucks (20,000) buses, (3000) and tractors (15,000).
This is all outlined in detail in GENGAS, published by the Swedish Academy of Engineering in 1950 and translated for me and the Solar Energy Research Institute in 1979. (I call it the "Old Testament of Gasification") Agua Das later made a pocket edition and added an index. It is currently available from the Biomass Energy Foundation Press (www.woodgas.com) .
The Imbert downdraft gasifier is the granddaddy of all the fixed bed gasifiers now being improved. At NREL in the 1980s we developed a "stratified downdraft" gasifier in which the gas enters the top of the fuel bed so that air reaches all the fuel equally. (The nozzles can't distribute air equally). Then the (IISC Bangalore) Combustion, Gasification and Pyrolysis Lab of Prof. Mukunda and Community Power Corporation have added additional air to consume any excess char and tars down to < 100 ppm.
Others are developing alternate ways to make improved gasifiers. We hope a new age of gasification will be ready when the oil supplies peak and the prices go exponentially up for the remaining supplies.
Yours truly,
TOM REED BEF LIST MODERATOR
----- Original Message -----
From: "Graeme Williams" <graeme at powerlink.co.nz>
To: "Paul Harris" <Paul.Harris at adelaide.edu.au>
Cc: <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 3:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
>
> Dear Paul
>
> I am sure we all have an interest in simple gasification, but the rules of
> gasification are the same today as they were in WW11. It is true that the
> gasifiers used in Australia and New Zealand were simple compared to those
> used in Europe, but then ours were more likely to be home made, but they
> were built to a fairly common design. I should mention that Australia had a
> lot of very old ringbarked dead wood and this was often used instead of the
> charcoal, so you find some confusion in how people thought their gasifiers
> worked!
>
> Most cars had charcoal or precarbonised coal/coke, so condensate and tar as
> experienced with wood gasifiers was less of a problem to the engines. Most
> simple to build were cross draught with one rather large air nozzle that had
> a water jacket round it to generate steam. This was introduced into the
> nozzle where it reacted with the incandescent char to produce the hydrogen.
> Some had a small control valve that dripped the water directly into the hot
> nozzle, while others had circulating water through the nozzle jacket to
> prevent it from melting. The nozzle could be moved in or out through a
> sleeve in the side wall to obtain the correct distance from the grate on the
> opposite wall.
>
> Cooling and cleaning usually relied on long connecting pipes with a sawdust
> or cloth filter with many variations introduced by individual circumstances
> and availability of materials.
>
> Manufactured gas/air mixers became quite elaborate and were cast in bronze
> (I have one) but these were for only one model of car I believe, here in New
> Zealand.
>
> While travelling in Queensland I actually found a charcoal gasifier at a
> kiosk park in the Bunya mountains west of Kingaroy. It still had charcoal
> in the bottom, but was complete in every way although a bit battered. I do
> have some pictures of this somewhere and will endeavour to find them to post
> on the Fluidyne Archive. www.fluidynenz.250x.com
>
> If you haven't looked at our archive, then you should find it quite
> informative, as there is a section there on European WW11 gasifiers that I
> had the opportunity to inspect in Germany. Most are for cars, but in the
> main are for wood chips, and a bit more elaborate than needed for charcoal.
>
> Will dig out some more information over the next few days, and see what more
> I can offer you.
>
> Regards
>
> Doug Williams
> Fluidyne Gasification.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Harris" <Paul.Harris at adelaide.edu.au>
> To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 3:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
>
>
> > G'day All,
> >
> > I have been watching this list for a little while now, as I give a
> > session on "renewable energy" to our agriculture and natural resource
> > students decided to see what was going on in gasification (I have been
> > involved in anaerobic digestion for a number of years at work and have
> > solar hot water and grid connect PV at home).
> >
> > Are any members (other than Matt) interested in the smaller/simpler end
> > of things - I had in mind the units used on cars during WWII. One of my
> > bugbears is that "we" tend to make everything very complicated and very
> > big, but there are other markets - Albert Einstein said "Things should
> > be as simple as possible, but no simpler.".
> >
> > All the best,
> > HOOROO
> >
> > Matt Pottinger wrote:
> > SNIP
> > >
> > > To learn a what I need to as an entrepreneur, about the equipment I will
> > > be buying before I invest any money into it.
> > > That is my "agenda". ;-)
> > >
> > > People will say that all entrepreneurs only care about money. Well, that
> > > is true to a certain extent, but I also would like to TRY to be
> > > environmentally responsible while I am at it. I am NOT an
> > > environmentalist, contrary to what many people seem to think.
> > >
> > --
> > Mr. Paul Harris
> > Faculty of Sciences, DP710
> > The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy Campus, AUSTRALIA 5371
> > Ph : +61 8 8303 7880
> > Fax : +61 8 8303 7979
> > mailto:paul.harris at adelaide.edu.au
> > I now use "Spam Assassin" - if you do not get a reply please make
> > contact again (by fax?)
> > http://www.ees.adelaide.edu.au/people/soil/pharri01.html
> > Member IOBB http://www.biotech.kth.se/iobb
> >
> > CRICOS Provider Number 00123M
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > This email message is intended only for the addressee(s)
> > and contains information that may be confidential and/or
> > copyright. If you are not the intended recipient please
> > notify the sender by reply email and immediately delete
> > this email. Use, disclosure or reproduction of this email
> > by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly
> > prohibited. No representation is made that this email or
> > any attachments are free of viruses. Virus scanning is
> > recommended and is the responsibility of the recipient.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gasification mailing list
> > Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> > http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040825/647b4637/attachment.html
From robdeutsch at online.com.kh Wed Aug 25 07:45:08 2004
From: robdeutsch at online.com.kh (Robert Deutsch)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:45:08 +0700
Subject: [Gasification] Dear Mr. Moderator - Help!
Message-ID: <014e01c48aa1$7b6ec040$da0cc13f@SFKC.GOV.KH>
Dear Gasification List Moderator,
Can you please step in and filter what makes it on to the listserv? Open dialogue is great, but seems that much of the content lately is off topic and personal in nature.
I for one would be interested to hear up-dates on what people are doing hand-on, such as:
1.. did anything come from the discussion several months ago on the optimum IC engine for gas burning, is someone going to build us an engine?
2.. Has anyone come up with a good solution for feeding chipped wood feed stock? It was stated that motor vehicle gasifiers didn't have the bridging problem because of the vibration, wouldn't it be possible to simulate the same with a vibrator on the feed hopper?
3.. Photos... is it possible to see more photos of working gasifiers?
4.. Is there any more info on horse sh*t gas scrubbers? How do they really work??
5.. Has anyone done some independent testing of Dr.A.D.Karve's starch based bio-gas? Can I really just get some plastic barrels, cut the lids and pour some flour and water inside and get burnable gas out??
Just a few things I would be interested in hearing about.
Very best,
Robert in Phnom Penh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040825/e91ccbca/attachment.html
From solar1 at zuper.net Wed Aug 25 22:42:33 2004
From: solar1 at zuper.net (Fundacion Centro de Desarrollol en Energia Solar)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:42:33 -0400
Subject: [Gasification]was- What am I doing on this list? is what areyou
doing on the list?
In-Reply-To: <1c5.1d06d91e.2e5ea149@aol.com>
References: <1c5.1d06d91e.2e5ea149@aol.com>
Message-ID: <412D5C29.5030206@zuper.net>
MMBTUPR at aol.com
> Lewis L. Smith wrote:
>
> Another problem is scaleup. For example, Community Power has some
> neat processes but so far they have only been developed for units of
> one MW or less. They tell me scaleup to 5 MW [which is what interests
> me] is going to cost some serious $$$. As we know, scaleup is not
> simple when we are dealing with /cylindrical/ pressure vessels and
> /rapidly/ circulating gases !
>
Lewis - thank you - nicely put
Concerning Community Power. Please tune me in to where I can learn more.
(although I have some basic knowledge, I thought they had something like
15 kilowatt multi stations that also produced thermal energy useful for
drying or low process heat)
Concerning scale up, in this particular circumstance, would it practice
to build in series instead of larger systems? Of course in my
cosmovision, where small communities in unaccessible terrain are the
norm, reducing distribution system sizes makes sense. (ok I agree thats
not always the case, but may be a viable alternative in many areas ?)
Can "scaling up" also to come mean faster and more numerous integration
of small systems?
> Over in the Bioenergy list, we have to come to some kind of
> judgment about the newer processes for the combustion of coal. If they
> are not environmentally acceptable as "transition processes", then we
> must expand biomass energy a lot faster than what people are now
> contemplating.
Over on the stove and solar cooking lists, I've observed the last
couple of years that progress, team work, sharing and other forms of
cooperation seem to be accelerating, translating into more replicable
alternatives implemented in developing countries. I suspect that the
argument for expanding biomass energy faster is appropriate.
> And this is going to get us into to some fierce arguments with
> agricultural types over "food versus fuel".
In my circles, I keep running into the term "integrated systems" could
this include growing some biomass, like bamboo parralle to food crops?
> What is our strategic situation in this matter, and how do we handle
> the latter issue ?
The dialouge you have opened interests me, and is low tech enough that I
may participate. Thanks
David
>
> This is not to disparage anybody's concerns, but rather to
> express a preference as regards priorities.
>
> So can we get back on the track ?
>
> Thank you for your attention.
>
> Cordially.
>
> End.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040825/40f03959/attachment.html
From mark at ludlow.com Wed Aug 25 23:01:23 2004
From: mark at ludlow.com (Mark Ludlow)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:01:23 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
In-Reply-To: <412BFF8B.1050105@renewableplanet.ca>
Message-ID: <009c01c48b21$5cee01a0$7d56a1d8@brutus>
Dear List:
As a long time practicing engineer and follower of this list, I'd like
to give my 2-cents worth: Personally, I find Mr. Pottinger's unbridled
enthusiasm refreshing, (even though it's easy to see why others may
interpret it as hubris). The fact that he is unabashedly entrepreneurial
seemed evident to me from the beginning of the thread. Unless the list
consists only of a cabal of holders of secret knowledge, we should be
happy that someone approaches this topic with the utilitarian outlook of
a capitalist.
I have read interchanges on the List for weeks at a time, only to see it
often consisting almost completely of "clubby" posts by the "regulars".
To be sure, I have enormous respect for those who have spent,
collectively, many lifetimes gaining knowledge, understanding and
experience in the field of gasification. But sometimes it is difficult
to understand why, if there's so much collective knowledge, that there
exists such a paucity of successful commercial enterprises. (My
apologies to those who have taken their know-how, successfully, to
market!).
Sadly, secrecy and intellectual property protection most often serve
only the purpose of firewalling good ideas from commercialization and
subsequent benefit to mankind. If there are seminal, transformational
ideas in gasification technology in a list member's intellectual
portfolio--technology that promises to be of widespread benefit on the
near horizon, then I salute those who intently hold these ideas close to
their chest and wish you the best of luck. The real
challenge-commercialization-begins when the grants run out, development
needs to make the next quantum jump and the marketplace becomes the
primary arbiter of what rises to the top and what will languish only as
curious preoccupations of intelligent and well-intentioned beings.
No one is obligated to respond to Mr. Pottinger's posts. And none are
obligated to excoriate him for his professed commercial attitudes. There
should be room for both viewpoints on this List.
Best regards,
Mark Ludlow, P.E.
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Matt
Pottinger
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 7:55 PM
To: Tom Miles
Cc: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Subject: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
That is easy to understand, thank you. Now as for my motivation for
being here, well, I am not really interested in engineering or design to
personally build a gasifier. I am prospective customer of some of the
other list members or their employers. I am not looking to spend years
of research and development on particular gasifier designs. I wish to
purchase a gasifier as a piece of equipment for a business, and I am in
search of the best available equipment to do the job right. This means
informing myself a little about the technical side of things,
but when it comes down to it, I am an entrepreneur, not an engineer.
To learn a what I need to as an entrepreneur, about the equipment I will
be buying before I invest any money into it.
That is my "agenda". ;-)
People will say that all entrepreneurs only care about money. Well, that
is true to a certain extent, but I also would like to TRY to be
environmentally responsible while I am at it. I am NOT an
environmentalist, contrary to what many people seem to think.
Tom Miles wrote:
>Point of Information:
>
>Several members of this list have spent years working on gasification
>processes to make syngas. Some of us have worked on hydrogen production
>projects at the pilot scale using different processes. So don't assume
>that there is no interest in these areas. Much of the development is
>publically available and some is private. Often it takes significant
>research (or
>licenses) to find it. You won't find it all on the internet.
>
>The enthusiasm for these processes is welcome but we should recognize
>that the information and technologies are not all public. List members
>will be cautious. They are not likely to spend a lot of time educating
>newcomers. They are more likely to discuss specific aspects and
>experiences of processing in detail, and that sometimes in separate
>discussions off the list.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Tom Miles
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
From solar1 at zuper.net Wed Aug 25 22:57:49 2004
From: solar1 at zuper.net (Fundacion Centro de Desarrollo en Energia Solar)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:57:49 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] WARNING I did not send an attachment with my last
message!!!
In-Reply-To: <412D5C29.5030206@zuper.net>
References: <1c5.1d06d91e.2e5ea149@aol.com> <412D5C29.5030206@zuper.net>
Message-ID: <412D5FBD.3060407@zuper.net>
Fundacion Centro de Desarrollol en Energia Solar wrote:
> MMBTUPR at aol.com
>
>> Lewis L. Smith wrote:
>>
>>
>
I noticed that my last message has something attached to it. I did not
attach anything so please beware it my not be friendly. My virus
protection doesn't register it but it seems weird to me.
sorry
David
From Steven.Gust at fortum.com Thu Aug 26 01:50:14 2004
From: Steven.Gust at fortum.com (Gust Steven)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:50:14 +0300
Subject: [Gasification] Durham College
Message-ID: <3930BE7C23933042A55E61A53F31DC2A5B59C3@FIESPC0021.adinfra.net>
Mat
I have also been following your very many ideas here on the list and I
think that you have had some interesting ones. So I was just wondering
what kind of college Durham was where you were studying. Did you get
your ideas from your courses? It sounded like a very interesting
college! I tried to look at the Environmental Technology Program but I
did not find much useful information. Are you still attending? I, as I
believe others on the list believed, that you were a full time student
at the college and trying to get information for your studies. Is that
not the case?
Matthew Pottinger
Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada
If it is not true about the college then it is difficult to take you
seriously about some of your other ideas. I just can't help myself from
wondering if there is also something not true or hidden in these also.
That is the problem with people who misrepresent themselves. They have
very little credibility left after that.
Steven Gust
Fortum Oil
Finland
From d.j.fulford at reading.ac.uk Thu Aug 26 03:21:56 2004
From: d.j.fulford at reading.ac.uk (David Fulford)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:21:56 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
In-Reply-To: <412C0C0D.7E447066@adelaide.edu.au>
References: <20040825010122.12768.qmail@web41006.mail.yahoo.com>
<001001c48a46$d848ccd0$6601a8c0@Yellow>
<412BFF8B.1050105@renewableplanet.ca>
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20040826090952.02dfc5f8@pophost.rdg.ac.uk>
Dear all,
Can I add my support to Paul. As someone with the same motive for being on
this list, teaching a course on renewable energy, so trying to keep up to
date with technical and policy developments, I am interested in hearing
about real projects and their success, or failure. This includes the small
projects as well as the big ones. Many of my students are from developing
countries, so the success of small gasifiers in India is very interesting.
One of my students from Bangladesh was doing a project on supplying a small
island with energy and was very surprised when he found he could use
coconuts as a flexible energy source to supply all the electricity needs of
the island at a cost that was not excessive.
The failure of complex fluidized bed systems in Europe (such as the ARBRE
project here in the UK) challenges many of the official assumptions as to
the best way forward. I am impressed with the number of companies still
trying to push forward with farm-scale gasification in Europe, despite an
almost total lack of support from governments for this scale of technology.
Best wishes,
David Fulford
At 13:18 25/08/2004 +0930, Paul Harris <Paul.Harris at adelaide.edu.au> wrote:
>G'day All,
>
>I have been watching this list for a little while now, as I give a
>session on "renewable energy" to our agriculture and natural resource
>students decided to see what was going on in gasification (I have been
>involved in anaerobic digestion for a number of years at work and have
>solar hot water and grid connect PV at home).
>
>Are any members (other than Matt) interested in the smaller/simpler end
>of things - I had in mind the units used on cars during WWII. One of my
>bugbears is that "we" tend to make everything very complicated and very
>big, but there are other markets - Albert Einstein said "Things should
>be as simple as possible, but no simpler.".
>
>All the best,
>HOOROO
>
>Matt Pottinger wrote:
>SNIP
> >
> > To learn a what I need to as an entrepreneur, about the equipment I will
> > be buying before I invest any money into it.
> > That is my "agenda". ;-)
> >
> > People will say that all entrepreneurs only care about money. Well, that
> > is true to a certain extent, but I also would like to TRY to be
> > environmentally responsible while I am at it. I am NOT an
> > environmentalist, contrary to what many people seem to think.
> >
>--
>Mr. Paul Harris
>Faculty of Sciences, DP710
>The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy Campus, AUSTRALIA 5371
>Ph : +61 8 8303 7880
>Fax : +61 8 8303 7979
>mailto:paul.harris at adelaide.edu.au
>I now use "Spam Assassin" - if you do not get a reply please make
>contact again (by fax?)
>http://www.ees.adelaide.edu.au/people/soil/pharri01.html
>Member IOBB http://www.biotech.kth.se/iobb
>
>CRICOS Provider Number 00123M
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>This email message is intended only for the addressee(s)
>and contains information that may be confidential and/or
>copyright. If you are not the intended recipient please
>notify the sender by reply email and immediately delete
>this email. Use, disclosure or reproduction of this email
>by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly
>prohibited. No representation is made that this email or
>any attachments are free of viruses. Virus scanning is
>recommended and is the responsibility of the recipient.
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
*** Dr David Fulford, Energy Group, Engineering Building ***
*** School of Construction Management and Engineering ***
*** The University of Reading, Whiteknights, ***
*** Reading RG6 6AY, UK Tel: +44-(0)118-378 8563, ***
*** Fax: +44-(0)118-931 3327 E-mail: D.J.Fulford at Reading.ac.uk ***
From arnt at c2i.net Thu Aug 26 05:52:26 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:52:26 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
In-Reply-To: <009c01c48b21$5cee01a0$7d56a1d8@brutus>
References: <412BFF8B.1050105@renewableplanet.ca>
<009c01c48b21$5cee01a0$7d56a1d8@brutus>
Message-ID: <20040826125226.6c7e0484.arnt@c2i.net>
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:01:23 -0700, Mark wrote in message
<009c01c48b21$5cee01a0$7d56a1d8 at brutus>:
>
> No one is obligated to respond to Mr. Pottinger's posts. And none are
> obligated to excoriate him for his professed commercial attitudes.
> There should be room for both viewpoints on this List.
>
..nothing wrong with commercial attitudes. The scorn was earned on
a fraudulent attitude, that lead some of us to waste time on trying to
educate someone who posed as a student of gasification, instead of
being upfront and just tell the truth right away.
Gasification needs business people, not con artists, there's too many
of those.
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
From arnt at c2i.net Thu Aug 26 05:56:38 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:56:38 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20040826090952.02dfc5f8@pophost.rdg.ac.uk>
References: <20040825010122.12768.qmail@web41006.mail.yahoo.com>
<001001c48a46$d848ccd0$6601a8c0@Yellow>
<412BFF8B.1050105@renewableplanet.ca>
<5.2.1.1.2.20040826090952.02dfc5f8@pophost.rdg.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <20040826125638.045ff23d.arnt@c2i.net>
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:21:56 +0100, David wrote in message
<5.2.1.1.2.20040826090952.02dfc5f8 at pophost.rdg.ac.uk>:
> Dear all,
>
> Can I add my support to Paul. As someone with the same motive for
> being on this list, teaching a course on renewable energy, so trying
> to keep up to date with technical and policy developments, I am
> interested in hearing about real projects and their success, or
> failure. This includes the small projects as well as the big ones.
> Many of my students are from developing countries, so the success of
> small gasifiers in India is very interesting. One of my students from
> Bangladesh was doing a project on supplying a small island with energy
> and was very surprised when he found he could use coconuts as a
> flexible energy source to supply all the electricity needs of the
> island at a cost that was not excessive.
.. ;-)
> The failure of complex fluidized bed systems in Europe (such as the
> ARBRE project here in the UK) challenges many of the official
> assumptions as to the best way forward. I am impressed with the number
> of companies still trying to push forward with farm-scale gasification
> in Europe, despite an almost total lack of support from governments
> for this scale of technology.
..some of this amaaazing government funding on flawed complex
fluidized bed systems looks intentional, "prove it can't be done."
--
..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 woolsey at netins.net Thu Aug 26 11:42:22 2004
From: woolsey at netins.net (Ed Woolsey)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:42:22 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
In-Reply-To: <20040826125638.045ff23d.arnt@c2i.net>
Message-ID: <KNEDJEOBPNGNOCLPFIMNGEAJEIAA.woolsey@netins.net>
As an ole farm boy from southern Iowa I can appreciate the "polar bear"
...just in case...analogy. Folks around here have a " show me" mentality
which serves us pretty well given all the BS that fly about.
As I prepare to attend the "World Renewable Energy Congress" in Denver next
week I was disappointed ...but not surprised...with the agenda (below)
The papers in the sections on rural applications are, I believe, all or
mostly all, given by non-US presenters. This is not an indictment of non-US
folks and their work, but an indictment of the continued focus of our US
energy decision makers to focus almost exclusively on support for
mega-corporations and mega sized-applications. Given the obvious multi
benefits of small systems and local ownership, (biomass) several of us have
entertained very serious thoughts as well as discussed at one time or
another the "intentional failure" nature of the past program direction. Be
that as it may....I look forward to hearing some success stories next week.
I will gladly do some "tech transfer" work of much-needed appropriate
technologies to the rural Midwest.
Ed Woolsey
Iowa
http://www.nrel.gov/wrec/topics.html
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Arnt Karlsen
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 5:57 AM
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Subject: Re: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:21:56 +0100, David wrote in message
<5.2.1.1.2.20040826090952.02dfc5f8 at pophost.rdg.ac.uk>:
> Dear all,
>
> Can I add my support to Paul. As someone with the same motive for
> being on this list, teaching a course on renewable energy, so trying
> to keep up to date with technical and policy developments, I am
> interested in hearing about real projects and their success, or
> failure. This includes the small projects as well as the big ones.
> Many of my students are from developing countries, so the success of
> small gasifiers in India is very interesting. One of my students from
> Bangladesh was doing a project on supplying a small island with energy
> and was very surprised when he found he could use coconuts as a
> flexible energy source to supply all the electricity needs of the
> island at a cost that was not excessive.
.. ;-)
> The failure of complex fluidized bed systems in Europe (such as the
> ARBRE project here in the UK) challenges many of the official
> assumptions as to the best way forward. I am impressed with the number
> of companies still trying to push forward with farm-scale gasification
> in Europe, despite an almost total lack of support from governments
> for this scale of technology.
..some of this amaaazing government funding on flawed complex
fluidized bed systems looks intentional, "prove it can't be done."
--
..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.
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
From LINVENT at aol.com Thu Aug 26 11:40:40 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:40:40 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] European gasification systems
Message-ID: <46.57059d04.2e5f6c88@aol.com>
Thermogenics has an operating gasifier in Europe, near Naples in Italy on
RDF. It will be put into full scale and larger operations over the next few
months with additional systems being located in the same industrial park and nearby
to handle the vast amounts of municipal waste accumulating in the area. All
will be operating IC engines or boilers, and possibly a kiln operation. Other
systems including one US system operating on olive pits have not been
successful in operating an IC engine and it is no wonder that gasification is hard to
take seriously as a viable technology. The Arbre system current owner was
instrumental in procuring the Thermogenics system for Italy and has discussed the
option of Thermogenics retrofitting the system to work properly. This has not
moved forward for various reasons, primarily that of financial.
There are many systems planned on initiation in Italy within the next few
months.
Sincerely,
Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
7100-2nd St.,NW Albuquerque, NM 87107 phone: 505-761-5633, fax: 505-341-0424,
website:thermogenics.com e-mail:linvent at aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040826/e0766c62/attachment.html
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Thu Aug 26 11:53:44 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:53:44 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
In-Reply-To: <20040826125226.6c7e0484.arnt@c2i.net>
References: <412BFF8B.1050105@renewableplanet.ca> <009c01c48b21$5cee01a0$7d56a1d8@brutus>
<20040826125226.6c7e0484.arnt@c2i.net>
Message-ID: <412E1598.8060502@renewableplanet.ca>
Just to clear one thing up, I was very much open about my commercial
dreams from the very beginning. I made it clear that I was pursuing a
commercial venture. My choice of schooling is also to assist me in that
particular career. This is incredible. Anyways, this is getting silly.
Let's stop this now. If it keeps getting brought up, I will ignore it.
I'm not the one bringing up the personal attacks here. I'm tired of it
and I'm done with it. Time to focus on something more constructive.
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>..nothing wrong with commercial attitudes. The scorn was earned on
>a fraudulent attitude, that lead some of us to waste time on trying to
>educate someone who posed as a student of gasification, instead of
>being upfront and just tell the truth right away.
>Gasification needs business people, not con artists, there's too many
>of those.
>
>
>
From dschmidt at undeerc.org Thu Aug 26 12:15:36 2004
From: dschmidt at undeerc.org (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:15:36 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Gasification Test Run
Message-ID: <3F678EC15E6D8F4EA7CDC3F389D9CC7E0117DBCF@undeerc.eerc.und.NoDak.edu>
We just completed a 48 hour continuous run with the Ankur WBG-200 gasifier.
We have not reduced our data yet, but we have continuous gas analysis for
the entire run, mass balance, and a 5 hour gas contaminant sample
(tar/particulate). We will produce numbers soon. In general this system
has worked very well. We have run about 10,000 lbs of hardwood chips. We
are currently just making gas and have not connected to a generator yet.
Feed is automated, and gas filtration is working well with no plugging of
filters etc. I have been very pleased with the gasifier and venturi
scrubber. We have even run about 15 hours worth of sawdust (<1/4") through
the gasifier. I am surprised at the ability for this Imbert design to
operate with various fuels. We modified the gasifier from Ankur's standard
design to handle chips vs. chunks.
Darren D. Schmidt, P.E., Research Manager
Energy & Environmental Research Center
University of North Dakota
15 N. 23rd St.
Grand Forks, ND 58203
(701) 777-5120, fax 5181
dschmidt at undeerc.org <mailto:dschmidt at undeerc.org>
www.undeerc.org <http://www.undeerc.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040826/1bb3db59/attachment.html
From tmiles at trmiles.com Thu Aug 26 12:38:42 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:38:42 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Practical Matters: CO and TCLP
Message-ID: <010b01c48b93$c858c250$6401a8c0@OFFICE3>
Owners whose primary business is running a sawmill or secondary wood processing facility do not want to deal with emissions, permits or effluent issues. Two challenges that confront anyone wanting to get permits for small scale gasification for CHP in the US are CO emissions and wastewater.
What information is there on CO emissions to help those of us wishing to permit producer gas driven engines in the US?
CO emissions are higher for CO (producer gas) driven engines than for engines run on diesel or methane (natural gas, landfill gas, digester gas). We are beginning to confront this issue in the US as states adopt strict emission standards for stationary combustion engines, all based on natural gas or diesel fuels. Jesper Ahrenfeldt of the Danish Technological Insitute has been demonstrating that emission standards for CO emissions from producer gas fired engines should be relaxed since the emission characteristics are different from engines running on natural gas.
What data is available for TCLP tests from gasifier effluents?
Wastewater and char disposal are other practical issues for permits here. A demonstration project in Alaska in the 1980s (Marenco) left significant quantities of hazardous materials that turned in the site into a superfund cleanup site. While in Alaska this spring and summer I heard stories about that project. People associated gasogens with toxic waste dumps. On the other hand tests by current gasifier suppliers with both dry and wet gas cleaning systems appear to show very low levels of benzene and other pollutants in liquid and solid effluents when tested using the EPA TCLP extraction procedure.
Tom
See:
200 kW CHP Gasification Systems
http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
Gasification reference sites
http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040826/089a0fb5/attachment.html
From mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca Thu Aug 26 14:03:53 2004
From: mpottinger at renewableplanet.ca (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:03:53 -0400
Subject: [Gasification]was- What am I doing on this list? is what areyou
doing on the list?
In-Reply-To: <00f201c48b0d$452b7c50$799a0a40@kevin>
References: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGAEGIDNAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk><412D154C.5090403@renewableplanet.ca>
<412D2A2C.9040600@zuper.net> <412D384A.3000305@renewableplanet.ca>
<00f201c48b0d$452b7c50$799a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <412E3419.1070903@renewableplanet.ca>
You folks attacked me personally, and because of that I responded, (in
an irritated tone somtimes I admit)
However, most of the time without responding with personal attacks back
at you. It has been like that from the beginning. Personal attacks will
only be met with responses up to a certain point. Beyond that, you won't
get a response and I will ignore those deriding comments. The ignoring
starts just about now.
Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>
>
>Is it perhaps possible that David does understand your position, and that
>THEY are right and you are wrong?
>
>It is just a possibility that you might wish to consider.
>
>Kevin Chisholm
>
>
>
>
From Bryan.Willson at ColoState.Edu Thu Aug 26 17:29:24 2004
From: Bryan.Willson at ColoState.Edu (Bryan Willson)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:29:24 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Practical Matters: CO and TCLP
In-Reply-To: <010b01c48b93$c858c250$6401a8c0@OFFICE3>
Message-ID: <200408262229.i7QMTNc252860@lamar.colostate.edu>
Tom -
Automobiles have uniform emissions standards, but stationary engines do not.
If engines are below a certain threshold horsepower level (varies from state
to state, but often 500 hp), the issue is left to the local jurisdiction.
If an engine is above the threshold, things get interesting - but not
because of CO. The NOx issue is usually much more of an issue than CO. And
as of this year it depends on whether the engine is at or close to what is
classified as a "major source" as determined by the new MACT rule. . .
It's possible that the new EPA non-road engine may apply to a smaller
gasifier engine, but I don't think it precludes the local jurisdiction from
imposing more stringent standards.
The complexities of emissions permitting are a major reason that distributed
generation is progressing much more slowly than originally anticipated.
- Bryan Willson
______________________________________
______________________________________
Dr. Bryan Willson
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Research Director, Engines & Energy Conversion Laboratory
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523-1374
Phone: (970)-491-4783
Mobile: (970)-227-5164
Text Messaging: 9702275164 at mobile.att.net
EECL Web Site: www.engr.colostate.edu/eecl/
Alternate Engines Lab Contact: Ms. Kathy Nugent - (970)-491-4785
_____
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Tom Miles
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 11:39 AM
To: gasification list
Subject: [Gasification] Practical Matters: CO and TCLP
Owners whose primary business is running a sawmill or secondary wood
processing facility do not want to deal with emissions, permits or effluent
issues. Two challenges that confront anyone wanting to get permits for small
scale gasification for CHP in the US are CO emissions and wastewater.
What information is there on CO emissions to help those of us wishing to
permit producer gas driven engines in the US?
CO emissions are higher for CO (producer gas) driven engines than for
engines run on diesel or methane (natural gas, landfill gas, digester gas).
We are beginning to confront this issue in the US as states adopt strict
emission standards for stationary combustion engines, all based on natural
gas or diesel fuels. Jesper Ahrenfeldt of the Danish Technological Insitute
has been demonstrating that emission standards for CO emissions from
producer gas fired engines should be relaxed since the emission
characteristics are different from engines running on natural gas.
What data is available for TCLP tests from gasifier effluents?
Wastewater and char disposal are other practical issues for permits here. A
demonstration project in Alaska in the 1980s (Marenco) left significant
quantities of hazardous materials that turned in the site into a superfund
cleanup site. While in Alaska this spring and summer I heard stories about
that project. People associated gasogens with toxic waste dumps. On the
other hand tests by current gasifier suppliers with both dry and wet gas
cleaning systems appear to show very low levels of benzene and other
pollutants in liquid and solid effluents when tested using the EPA TCLP
extraction procedure.
Tom
See:
200 kW CHP Gasification Systems
http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
Gasification reference sites
http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040826/0dada1e1/attachment.html
From MMBTUPR at aol.com Thu Aug 26 20:46:52 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:46:52 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] European gasification systems
Message-ID: <8e.136d561e.2e5fec8c@aol.com>
to Gasification List from Lewis L. Smith
26/08/04
An Internet source says that the Arbre project has been taken over by a
New Hampshire outfit called Bio Development International, under the name of
DAS Green Energy UK.
URL is < bdi-us.com > . E-mail to < bdiusa at attglobal.net > .
I sent them an e-mail the other day requesting an update on DAS but
haven't got an answer. Cant find anything current about DAS on Google Advanced
Search. Haven't tried other search engines.
Cordially.
End.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040826/fee017c3/attachment.html
From LINVENT at aol.com Thu Aug 26 21:02:56 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:02:56 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] European gasification systems
Message-ID: <1e0.29338470.2e5ff050@aol.com>
I doubt if they will respond as they don't have the staff for it and the
principal is on summer recess in Italy. Last I heard he was in Capri, the day
after I met with him in Caserta, Italy.
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 MMBTUPR at aol.com Thu Aug 26 21:36:34 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:36:34 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] European gasification systems
Message-ID: <1cb.29d22aa1.2e5ff832@aol.com>
to Gasification List from Lewis L. Smith
26/08/04
Thanks for the info.
But then who is minding the store ?
Cordially.
End.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040826/2896cafb/attachment.html
From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Thu Aug 26 22:20:36 2004
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:20:36 +1200
Subject: [Gasification] Dear Mr. Moderator - Help!
References: <014e01c48aa1$7b6ec040$da0cc13f@SFKC.GOV.KH>
Message-ID: <00a501c48beb$66ace9c0$d18f58db@newpc>
Robert,
In answer to your questions:
1 .Nothing we say or do on this list can bring about change in supplies unless we do it our selves. We have our own engine development team and have built new 502 V8's specifically for producer gas. I'm sure the lads would be delighted to supply if you have money.The only problem would be is do you have tar free gas to run them ?
2.Road vibration in a truck gasifier prevents bridging, but there are a number of reasons that cause bridging in the first place. Maybe if you would describe your gasifier I could sort out why the bridge forms
3. We cannot post photo's directly to the list, but they can be out onto a web page set up by individuals.This should inform every one who can to do just that and give us the page reference.
4+5. Cannot help.
Regards
Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification
From: Robert Deutsch
To: Gasification
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 12:45 AM
Subject: [Gasification] Dear Mr. Moderator - Help!
Dear Gasification List Moderator,
Can you please step in and filter what makes it on to the listserv? Open dialogue is great, but seems that much of the content lately is off topic and personal in nature.
I for one would be interested to hear up-dates on what people are doing hand-on, such as:
1.. did anything come from the discussion several months ago on the optimum IC engine for gas burning, is someone going to build us an engine?
2.. Has anyone come up with a good solution for feeding chipped wood feed stock? It was stated that motor vehicle gasifiers didn't have the bridging problem because of the vibration, wouldn't it be possible to simulate the same with a vibrator on the feed hopper?
3.. Photos... is it possible to see more photos of working gasifiers?
4.. Is there any more info on horse sh*t gas scrubbers? How do they really work??
5.. Has anyone done some independent testing of Dr.A.D.Karve's starch based bio-gas? Can I really just get some plastic barrels, cut the lids and pour some flour and water inside and get burnable gas out??
Just a few things I would be interested in hearing about.
Very best,
Robert in Phnom Penh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040827/52475c8b/attachment.html
From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Aug 27 04:24:57 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 05:24:57 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] European gasification systems
Message-ID: <fb.5f973c39.2e6057e9@aol.com>
This is an inside joke....
The Indians.
Leland T. Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
7100-F 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107 Phone: 505-761-5633, fax:
341-0424, website: thermogenics.com.
In order to read the compressed files forwarded under AOL, it is necessary to
download Aladdin's freeware Unstuffit at
http://www.stuffit.com/expander/index.html
From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Aug 27 06:25:53 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 07:25:53 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Practical Matters: CO and TCLP
Message-ID: <84.31e32327.2e607441@aol.com>
Dear Bryan,
Permitting is also hampered by a complete ignorance of the process and
chemistry of gasification. When a permitter asks "what are your control
functions" implying systems to reduce emissions per incineration, I know that an
educational process is necessary and most do not have the time or interest or even
the basic education to understand gasification. In fact, EPA has stated that
unless gasifiers have steam boilers, external fired heat exchangers or the
like, they are not emission sources only their final use of the gas is the source,
engine, boiler, or the like.
Their inclination is to rely upon combustion emission rates for a given
fuel and use these as a baseline for considering gasification when in fact the
chemistry of combustion does not occur in gasification, at least the part that
forms dioxins and other nasties.
A regulator offered me a $10mm bet that we could not show zero PAH's from
the use of gasification gas. When I deferred from taking the bet because
methane is present in gasification gas and is a source of PAH's he was not
impressed. Later on he used his offering of the bet and the fact that I even
discussed it as evidence that I said that zero PAH's from gasifier gas use was what I
said. Later, I found a DOE report that said a major coal gasification system
had zero PAH emission but he would not respond. Unfortunately, if any of the
300 or so recipients of this list have ever dealt with regulators, some have
very immature egos, are basically lazy and will not go through the mental effort
to attempt to understand the process of gasification. Chemically, it is closer
to a refining process than combustion.
As to CO emissions from engine operation, a catalytic convertor should
deal with these rather effectively. TCLP in the carbonaceous ash of a gasifier
is typically below RCRA thresholds for heavy metals and organics are reduced
below thresholds if the gasifier is operating as a gasifier, not an air
pyrolyzer. Tars have to be destroyed or else you have problems with them once removed
from the gas stream.
Leland T. Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
7100-F 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107 Phone: 505-761-5633, fax:
341-0424, website: thermogenics.com.
In order to read the compressed files forwarded under AOL, it is necessary to
download Aladdin's freeware Unstuffit at
http://www.stuffit.com/expander/index.html
From tombreed at comcast.net Fri Aug 27 06:26:38 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 05:26:38 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Ankur 200 kW gasifier testing
Message-ID: <000d01c48c28$b8bd4a10$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
Dear All:
Darren Schmidt is in charge of gasification at the Energy & Environmental
Research Center, University of North Dakota. They are currently testing the
Ankur WBG 200 gasifier from India with the preliminary results shown below.
I have known Dr. Jain, President of Ankur, since 1985 when I met him in
Indonesia at a meeting and I have visited his factory in Ankur (near
Bombay/Mumbai). He makes one of the principle gasifiers in India.
Indian gasifiers are typically not as clean and automated as those made in
the US, but they aren't as expensive either. They typically cost in rupees
what ours cost in $. (Exchange rate 1 Rupee = $0.02.)
Yours truly,
TOM REED LIST MODERATOR
----- Original Message -----
From: "Schmidt, Darren" <dschmidt at undeerc.org>
To: "'TBReed'" <tombreed at comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 2:15 PM
Subject: RE: [GASL] Significant new book on GASIFICATION of biomass
> Tom,
> Thanks for the book. You may post this message to the list.
>
> We just completed a 48 hour continuous run with the Ankur WBG-200
gasifier.
> We have not reduced our data yet, but we have continuous gas analysis for
> the entire run, mass balance, and a 5 hour gas contaminant sample
> (tar/particulate). We will produce numbers soon. In general this system
> has worked very well. We have run about 10,000 lbs of hardwood chips. We
> are currently just making gas and have not connected to a generator yet.
> Feed is automated, and gas filtration is working well with no plugging of
> filters etc. I have been very pleased with the gasifier and venturi
> scrubber. We have even run about 15 hours worth of sawdust (<1/4")
through
> the gasifier. I am surprised at the ability for this Imbert design to
> operate with various fuels. We modified the gasifier from Ankur's
standard
> design to handle chips vs. chunks.
>
> Darren D. Schmidt, P.E., Research Manager
> Energy & Environmental Research Center
> University of North Dakota
> 15 N. 23rd St.
> Grand Forks, ND 58203
> (701) 777-5120, fax 5181
> dschmidt at undeerc.org
> www.undeerc.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TBReed [mailto:tombreed at comcast.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 7:31 AM
> To: Schmidt, Darren
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Significant new book on GASIFICATION of biomass
>
> Dear Darren:
>
> Thanks for the progress report. Another few weeks have gone by. Still
OK?
>
> This continues to confirm my opinion that India is way ahead of the rest
of
> the world in gasification.
>
> I hope you might consider posting this at GASIFICATION - REPP.
>
> Your pal, TOM REED
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Schmidt, Darren" <dschmidt at undeerc.org>
> To: "'TBReed'" <tombreed at comcast.net>
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 9:58 AM
> Subject: RE: [GASL] Significant new book on GASIFICATION of biomass
>
>
> > Thanks Tom,
> >
> > As a gasifier collaborator I wanted to share some information. You have
a
> > photo or our unit operating last November at dusk with the blue flame.
To
> > refresh: It is an Ankur WBG-200, modified to run on chips. We automate
> the
> > feed with a PLC, lockhopper, and level measurement using Bindicator
> > detectors. Gas cleaning is a venturi scrubber, coarse wood block
filter,
> > two fine sawdust filers, and a final fabric safety filter. The blower
is
> a
> > high pressure centrifugal unit. Water is pumped (centrifugal mud pumps)
> to
> > the gasifier (slurry charcoal discharge), and to the scrubber. Heat is
> > transferred from the scrubber water via a closed loop cooling tower.
> > Charcoal is separated from the water using a screened auger and bag
> filters
> > for the finer stuff.
> >
> > I am pleased to report that this system is operating reliably. We have
> > operated for 10 hours and I have a significant amount of testing planned
> > over the next two months. I am very pleased to report that we have been
> > able to operate this downdraft gasifier on sawdust (<1/4" but bigger
than
> > sanderdust). The pressure drop across the reactor leveled out at about
> 30"
> > wg and we were getting 50% of the rated capacity. Gas quality was good
> > (130Btu/scf). We did not measure contaminants yet, however I was
> extremely
> > happy to see no smoke from the flare during startup or at any time
during
> > operation. We start the reactor on wood with charcoal below the
nozzles.
> > You would typically expect to see smoke starting on wood, but the
scrubber
> > and filters prevent it. (a qualitative measure of the efficiency of the
> gas
> > cleanup) It can take 15 minutes to 1 hour to reach steady state in
terms
> of
> > temperature and gas quality. Sawdust restricts gas flow - takes longer
> than
> > wood chips or coarser fuels. I have seen no issues relative to bridging
> > after running about 4,000 lbs of chips and sawdust. I am very pleased
> with
> > the gas cleanup. We are not seeing any filter pressure drop build up at
> > this point (Eventually we will, but looks good so far). I am also very
> > pleased with the scrubber operation. Sending all the particulate and
> > charcoal + organics into the water system has proven to be a robust
> method.
> > I have approval from the Grand Forks City water department to discharge
my
> > waste. In this arrangement I could run an automated strainer that would
> > discharge all my waste to the sewer and leave no maintenance for
charcoal
> or
> > waste water handling. The system cost $100,000 to build
> labor/trailer/crane
> > and all and can produce 100kW if tied to a spark ignited engine. I am
> > excited about the economic potential. I figure $1500/kW to install a
> > complete stationary system with an SI engine.
> >
> > Darren D. Schmidt, P.E., Research Manager
> > Energy & Environmental Research Center
> > University of North Dakota
> > 15 N. 23rd St.
> > Grand Forks, ND 58203
> > (701) 777-5120, fax 5181
> > dschmidt at undeerc.org
> > www.undeerc.org
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: TBReed [mailto:tombreed at comcast.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 9:07 AM
> > To: Schmidt, Darren
> > Subject: Re: [GASL] Significant new book on GASIFICATION of biomass
> >
> > Dear Darren:
> >
> > Good to hear from you. My address is 1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO
80401.
> > Book cost, $30, S&H (Air mail) $4.
> >
> > Hope you benefit as much as I have from it...
> >
> > TOM REED
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Schmidt, Darren" <dschmidt at undeerc.org>
> > To: "'TBReed'" <tombreed at COMCAST.NET>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 4:59 PM
> > Subject: RE: [GASL] Significant new book on GASIFICATION of biomass
> >
> >
> > > I am definitely interested in obtaining a copy.
> > >
> > > I can prepare a purchase order if you provide your mailing address,
etc.
> > >
> > > Darren D. Schmidt, P.E., Research Manager
> > > Energy & Environmental Research Center
> > > University of North Dakota
> > > 15 N. 23rd St.
> > > Grand Forks, ND 58203
> > > (701) 777-5120, fax 5181
> > > dschmidt at undeerc.org
> > > www.undeerc.org
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: TBReed [mailto:tombreed at COMCAST.NET]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 11:47 AM
> > > To: GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> > > Subject: [GASL] Significant new book on GASIFICATION of biomass
> > [faked-from]
> > >
> > > Dear All:
> > >
> > > I have been to India four times in the last 15 years, and I believe
they
> > are
> > > the most advanced country in the world in biomass gasification. Some
> > > countries have a greater need, some have more money and brains, but
> India
> > > has the best combination of need, brains and money and an energetic
fuel
> > > program. The most active sites developing biomass gasification are
the
> > > Combustion, Gasification and Pyrolysis Laboratory (actually
Propulsion)
> > > (CGPL) at the Indian Institute of Science IISc Bangalore and the
diesel
> > > engine test lab at the Indian Institute of technology (IIT) Bombay .
> Both
> > > labs are very well funded, well equipped and managed, and highly
> > motivated.
> > >
> > >
> > > Prof. Mukunda has been head of the CGP lab for the last two decades.
> They
> > > have developed a very low tar (typically < 200 ppm raw gas) gasifier
> that
> > is
> > > widely deployed and has been validated by the Swiss. There are a
number
> > of
> > > village and commercial gasifiers in operation. Over 300 man-years of
> > effort
> > > have clocked by the lab. There are five Village and Rural
installations
> > > from 20-50 kWe, four still functional. There are 6 industrial thermal
> > > installations, all currently functional. There are 13 Industrial
power
> > > generation installations, from 50 to 1000 kWe. 9 patents have been
> issued
> > in
> > > India, Switzerland, Brazil, Japan, Thailand and Sri Lanka.
> > >
> > > Prof. Mukunda has just "retired" and published a book on the
activities
> of
> > > the lab, mostly on biomass gasifiers. It is hard covered and has 152
> > pages
> > > with copious drawings and illustrations (many in color).
> > >
> > > The chapter headings are:
> > >
> > > 1 An overview of biomass gasification systems
> > > 2 Developmental aspects related to system configuration
> > > 3 Performance tests under laboratory conditions
> > > 4 Field tests
> > > 5 Reciprocating engine performance with producer gas
> > > 6 Special applications of biomass gasification
> > > 7 The National biomass resource assessment program
> > > 8 Hydrogen sulphide scrubbing - the ISET process
> > > 9 Field system performance
> > > 10 Economics of Operation
> > > Appendix 1 - Study for estimating bed velocities for different
> briquetted
> > > fuels
> > > List of IISc Gasifier technology licensees
> > >
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~
> > > I have learned a great deal about gasification from my CGP lab visits
> and
> > > their new book, and recommend it heartily. The BEF Press has acquired
> 20
> > > copies and is making them available for $30/copy to the REPP
> Gasification
> > > List. We are considering adding it to our current list of 21 books at
> > > www.Woodgas.com.
> > >
> > > If you are interested in purchasing an advance copy, please send an
> Email
> > > and shipping address to tombreed at comcast.net. I will send an invoice
> > with
> > > the book and you can pay when you receive it.
> > >
> > > Yours truly,
> > >
> > > Thomas B. Reed THE BEF PRESS
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
From george at notable-cards.com Fri Aug 27 07:27:02 2004
From: george at notable-cards.com (George McKessock)
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:27:02 -0300
Subject: [Gasification] Dear Mr. Moderator - Help!
References: <014e01c48aa1$7b6ec040$da0cc13f@SFKC.GOV.KH>
Message-ID: <06ea01c48c31$2b2556d0$05b1ca83@george1200>
Re: 5.
Hi Robert,
I think you are asking about a question Dr. Karve was kind enough to answer for me regarding bio-gas generation and safety (which was posed to the biogas list if I'm not mistaken).
A friend showed me an article from a back-woods magazine. The author poportedly used 50-gallon steel drums (note: he did not use plastic drums because he was concerned that static electricity buildup might cause ignition). He filled them with 10 gallons of H2O and then put in the excess manure, straw, etc. from animal stalls. He sealed the drum and had a truck-tire innertube to collect gas. After two weeks, there was enough gas to burn. He stated that he could run 3 coleman lanterns for 3 weeks straight, or use a natural gas stove for 1/2 hour intervals.
My concern was that the flame might burn back and ignite the load. Dr. Karve assured me that there would not be enough oxygen for this to happen. Since I have stalls and animals and a mountain of manure ;o) I will try this. Currently I am trying to engineer a set up that will a) make it easy for me to dispose of the resulting matter (in my garden and on my fields), b) be warm in the winter months so that I don't end up with a manure-popscickle, c) be far enough away from the house to avoid catastrophy. I am also attempting to find an appropriate space-heater for the job.
Obviously this belongs on the bio-gas list, but since you asked :o)
George.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Deutsch
To: Gasification
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 9:45 AM
Subject: [Gasification] Dear Mr. Moderator - Help!
Dear Gasification List Moderator,
Can you please step in and filter what makes it on to the listserv? Open dialogue is great, but seems that much of the content lately is off topic and personal in nature.
I for one would be interested to hear up-dates on what people are doing hand-on, such as:
1.. did anything come from the discussion several months ago on the optimum IC engine for gas burning, is someone going to build us an engine?
2.. Has anyone come up with a good solution for feeding chipped wood feed stock? It was stated that motor vehicle gasifiers didn't have the bridging problem because of the vibration, wouldn't it be possible to simulate the same with a vibrator on the feed hopper?
3.. Photos... is it possible to see more photos of working gasifiers?
4.. Is there any more info on horse sh*t gas scrubbers? How do they really work??
5.. Has anyone done some independent testing of Dr.A.D.Karve's starch based bio-gas? Can I really just get some plastic barrels, cut the lids and pour some flour and water inside and get burnable gas out??
Just a few things I would be interested in hearing about.
Very best,
Robert in Phnom Penh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040827/22dd3dd9/attachment.html
From tombreed at comcast.net Fri Aug 27 07:38:05 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 06:38:05 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Small vs Large scale gasification
References: <20040825010122.12768.qmail@web41006.mail.yahoo.com><001001c48a46$d848ccd0$6601a8c0@Yellow><412BFF8B.1050105@renewableplanet.ca><5.2.1.1.2.20040826090952.02dfc5f8@pophost.rdg.ac.uk>
<20040826125638.045ff23d.arnt@c2i.net>
Message-ID: <006001c48c32$b37354f0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
Dear Arnt and All:
I try to avoid conspiracy theories and replace them with ignorance and
lemming theories, but I agree with Arnt about the total disconnect between
governments and gasification.
I have been convinced since 1974 (first oil crisis) that Civilization will
need gasification of solid fuels as the oil peaks and dwindles. I worked
for the Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI) of the US Dept. of Energy
from 1977 to 1986 as a spokesman for small and large scale gasification and
spent ~ $8 Million on developing a high pressure oxygen gasifier for making
syn-gas for methanol (FT, ammonia, ....). Much of what I learned though was
from unauthorized experiments out behind the official gasifier site.
The US and Europe have a "bigger is better" mindset. They forget that all
the present Big evolved from understanding developed on smaller systems. As
a result we have had generous funding for projects like Arbre, Ferco, The
Hawaiian cane project, all eventually abandoned and NO funding for smaller
scale projects more appropriate for widely distributed biomass.
The same mindset has poisoned the technology as well. Because fluidized
beds work well for oil refining in billion dollar refineries, dreamy
bureaucrats assumed that fluidized bed gasifiers would be the solution for
biomass gasification. NOT. In fluidized beds the incoming oxidant oxidizes
both the biomass and the char, resulting in tar levels of >20,000 ppm. In
downdraft gasifiers the incoming oxidant oxidizes the tars in flaming
combustion, producing < 1000 ppm tars easily, and < 100 ppm tar when
properly tuned.
The largest downdraft system I am aware of was that operated by SynGas Inc.
at 75 tons/day, but it evolved from our 1 ton/d test unit.
It is necessary to learn to WALK before you learn to RUN.
Yours truly,
TOM REED LIST MODERATOR
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt at c2i.net>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 4:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:21:56 +0100, David wrote in message
> <5.2.1.1.2.20040826090952.02dfc5f8 at pophost.rdg.ac.uk>:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Can I add my support to Paul. As someone with the same motive for
> > being on this list, teaching a course on renewable energy, so trying
> > to keep up to date with technical and policy developments, I am
> > interested in hearing about real projects and their success, or
> > failure. This includes the small projects as well as the big ones.
> > Many of my students are from developing countries, so the success of
> > small gasifiers in India is very interesting. One of my students from
> > Bangladesh was doing a project on supplying a small island with energy
> > and was very surprised when he found he could use coconuts as a
> > flexible energy source to supply all the electricity needs of the
> > island at a cost that was not excessive.
>
> .. ;-)
>
> > The failure of complex fluidized bed systems in Europe (such as the
> > ARBRE project here in the UK) challenges many of the official
> > assumptions as to the best way forward. I am impressed with the number
> > of companies still trying to push forward with farm-scale gasification
> > in Europe, despite an almost total lack of support from governments
> > for this scale of technology.
>
> ..some of this amaaazing government funding on flawed complex
> fluidized bed systems looks intentional, "prove it can't be done."
>
> --
> ..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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
From tombreed at comcast.net Fri Aug 27 08:11:24 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 07:11:24 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
References: <1c5.1d06d91e.2e5ea149@aol.com> <412D5C29.5030206@zuper.net>
Message-ID: <008f01c48c37$5df95dd0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
Dear All;
The catch-phrase "Food vs Fuel" caught my eye in the exchange below. I believe it originated in the "gasohol" days when it was perceived that making ethanol for our cars was "wicked" when there were starving people in the world. This is naive, since most of the world suffers from overproduction of food (and overeating) and those who starve can blame local politics and distribution.
Food and fuel are complimentary rather than antagonistic because
o Most foods can't be eater unless they are cooked to render them digestible (and palatable)
o Most food production also produces waste biomass in the form of stover, cobs, shells, ....
I have recently been testing the saying from my friend Agua Das the
"It takes a calorie to cook a calorie".
I'm working on expanding this to
"It takes a calorie to wrap the calorie that cooks the calorie".
However, I don't yet have any hard data on this and would appreciate comments from the lists.
Onward,
TOM REED BEF
----- Original Message -----
From: Fundacion Centro de Desarrollol en Energia Solar
To: MMBTUPR at aol.com
Cc: GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification]was- What am I doing on this list? is what areyoudoing on the list?
MMBTUPR at aol.com
Lewis L. Smith wrote:
Another problem is scaleup. For example, Community Power has some neat processes but so far they have only been developed for units of one MW or less. They tell me scaleup to 5 MW [which is what interests me] is going to cost some serious $$$. As we know, scaleup is not simple when we are dealing with cylindrical pressure vessels and rapidly circulating gases !
Lewis - thank you - nicely put
Concerning Community Power. Please tune me in to where I can learn more. (although I have some basic knowledge, I thought they had something like 15 kilowatt multi stations that also produced thermal energy useful for drying or low process heat)
Concerning scale up, in this particular circumstance, would it practice to build in series instead of larger systems? Of course in my cosmovision, where small communities in unaccessible terrain are the norm, reducing distribution system sizes makes sense. (ok I agree thats not always the case, but may be a viable alternative in many areas ?)
Can "scaling up" also to come mean faster and more numerous integration of small systems?
Over in the Bioenergy list, we have to come to some kind of judgment about the newer processes for the combustion of coal. If they are not environmentally acceptable as "transition processes", then we must expand biomass energy a lot faster than what people are now contemplating.
Over on the stove and solar cooking lists, I've observed the last couple of years that progress, team work, sharing and other forms of cooperation seem to be accelerating, translating into more replicable alternatives implemented in developing countries. I suspect that the argument for expanding biomass energy faster is appropriate.
And this is going to get us into to some fierce arguments with agricultural types over "food versus fuel".
In my circles, I keep running into the term "integrated systems" could this include growing some biomass, like bamboo parralle to food crops?
What is our strategic situation in this matter, and how do we handle the latter issue ?
The dialouge you have opened interests me, and is low tech enough that I may participate. Thanks
David
This is not to disparage anybody's concerns, but rather to express a preference as regards priorities.
So can we get back on the track ?
Thank you for your attention.
Cordially.
End.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040827/1b74040e/attachment.html
From tmiles at trmiles.com Fri Aug 27 11:07:57 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:07:57 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Practical Matters: CO and TCLP
References: <200408262229.i7QMTNc252860@lamar.colostate.edu>
Message-ID: <010701c48c50$15129c30$6401a8c0@OFFICE3>
Thanks Bryan,
In Massachusetts, New York and other states there is a movement to regulate emissions from small stationary engines. Regulation is proposed down to sizes smaller than are economically viable with producer gas. We need data to build the case and obtain permits for gasogens.
See:
http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
EMISSIONS
and
http://www.raponline.org/ProjDocs/DREmsRul/Collfile/ReviewDraftModelEmissionsRule.pdf
The document above is the Model Regulations for the Output of Specified Air Emissions from Smaller Scale Electric Generation Resources by the Regulatory Assistance Project (Vermont). It is being used as a model for several states to regulate small engines. It is the result of a two year effort involving industry and goverment. Emissions from producer gas are not specifically cited. We find that regulators are looking for data specific to producer gas, to justify permitting. They realize that gasification is a "new" technology from a permitting perspective. They apply the rules for landfill gas or anaerobic digestors (methane) because they don't have data for producer gas.
I'm trying to permit engine-generators in two states. Regulators are sympathetic to renewable energy but they need emissions factors. Where do I find the emissions data?
One interesting study for dual fuelled diesels is "Liberation of Carbon Monoxide Through Gasifier-IC Engine System" http://www.ieindia.org/publish/id/1103/nov03id3.pdf Is there similar data available in North America or Europe?
So far emissions testing done on engines at NREL/DOE is not useful for discussions with regulators.
The same applies to solid and liquid effluents. Regulators need real test data for TCLP. Where can you get (US) reference data without building a plant first?
This is where we need cooperation between industry, academia and government.
Regards,
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: Bryan Willson
To: 'Tom Miles' ; 'gasification list'
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 3:29 PM
Subject: RE: [Gasification] Practical Matters: CO and TCLP
Tom -
Automobiles have uniform emissions standards, but stationary engines do not. If engines are below a certain threshold horsepower level (varies from state to state, but often 500 hp), the issue is left to the local jurisdiction. If an engine is above the threshold, things get interesting - but not because of CO. The NOx issue is usually much more of an issue than CO. And as of this year it depends on whether the engine is at or close to what is classified as a "major source" as determined by the new MACT rule. . .
It's possible that the new EPA non-road engine may apply to a smaller gasifier engine, but I don't think it precludes the local jurisdiction from imposing more stringent standards.
The complexities of emissions permitting are a major reason that distributed generation is progressing much more slowly than originally anticipated.
- Bryan Willson
______________________________________
______________________________________
Dr. Bryan Willson
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Research Director, Engines & Energy Conversion Laboratory
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523-1374
Phone: (970)-491-4783
Mobile: (970)-227-5164
Text Messaging: 9702275164 at mobile.att.net
EECL Web Site: www.engr.colostate.edu/eecl/
Alternate Engines Lab Contact: Ms. Kathy Nugent - (970)-491-4785
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Tom Miles
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 11:39 AM
To: gasification list
Subject: [Gasification] Practical Matters: CO and TCLP
Owners whose primary business is running a sawmill or secondary wood processing facility do not want to deal with emissions, permits or effluent issues. Two challenges that confront anyone wanting to get permits for small scale gasification for CHP in the US are CO emissions and wastewater.
What information is there on CO emissions to help those of us wishing to permit producer gas driven engines in the US?
CO emissions are higher for CO (producer gas) driven engines than for engines run on diesel or methane (natural gas, landfill gas, digester gas). We are beginning to confront this issue in the US as states adopt strict emission standards for stationary combustion engines, all based on natural gas or diesel fuels. Jesper Ahrenfeldt of the Danish Technological Insitute has been demonstrating that emission standards for CO emissions from producer gas fired engines should be relaxed since the emission characteristics are different from engines running on natural gas.
What data is available for TCLP tests from gasifier effluents?
Wastewater and char disposal are other practical issues for permits here. A demonstration project in Alaska in the 1980s (Marenco) left significant quantities of hazardous materials that turned in the site into a superfund cleanup site. While in Alaska this spring and summer I heard stories about that project. People associated gasogens with toxic waste dumps. On the other hand tests by current gasifier suppliers with both dry and wet gas cleaning systems appear to show very low levels of benzene and other pollutants in liquid and solid effluents when tested using the EPA TCLP extraction procedure.
Tom
See:
200 kW CHP Gasification Systems
http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
Gasification reference sites
http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040827/04e87247/attachment.html
From tmiles at trmiles.com Fri Aug 27 11:59:53 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:59:53 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Dear Mr. Moderator - Help!
References: <014e01c48aa1$7b6ec040$da0cc13f@SFKC.GOV.KH>
<00a501c48beb$66ace9c0$d18f58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <017f01c48c57$50ae7370$6401a8c0@OFFICE3>
Robert,
These lists are "moderated" by volunteers. We do not filter them because we manage the lists with volunteer time. The role of the moderator is to assist with the the technical discussion not to regulate the content. In general the technical bulletin boards and internet discussion groups that I have participated in since the 1980s have been self regulating. List participants need to help keep discussions on track. We depend on the dignity, integrity and maturity of list participants to stay on topic and to take their personal differences into private (offline) discussions. Unfortunately we cannot avoid the fact that you'll find irresponsible and unwanted behavior in any group of adults.
Thanks
Tom Miles
Bioenergy Lists Administrator
From: Robert Deutsch
To: Gasification
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 12:45 AM
Subject: [Gasification] Dear Mr. Moderator - Help!
Dear Gasification List Moderator,
Can you please step in and filter what makes it on to the listserv? Open dialogue is great, but seems that much of the content lately is off topic and personal in nature.
Robert in Phnom Penh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040827/a0c11910/attachment.html
From Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk Fri Aug 27 13:16:28 2004
From: Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 19:16:28 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Small vs Large scale gasification
In-Reply-To: <006001c48c32$b37354f0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGOEHLDNAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
Whilst I agree with Tom with regard to the technical task and process
development I would suggest that from an operational and economic viewpoint
large is better;
Reason:
A engine /genset/gasifier set up needs automatic feeding of fuel. It will
need some level of ability to vary output according to load. It will need
some level of manual supervision and intervention.
For a small system- lets say 100kWe running continuously the income
generated at current UK prices will be ?6.00 per hour from electricity sales
and say ?4.00 per hour from heat sales (total income ?10 per hour or $15 per
hour.
The system will burn approximately 60-80kg/hr of dry biomass fuel.- or 2
tonnes per day.
Dry refined biomass fuel (i.e. woodchips of reasonably uniform size and
moisture content) will cost around ?50 per tonne
So you earn ?240 and spend ?100 on fuel per day. So far so good. leaves ?140
per day profit.
But you will need weekly maintenance of the engine and gasifier say 1/2 day
downtime and 1/2 day staff time for a qualified engineer (cost ?30 per hour)
So from weekly profit of ?980 deduct ?70 (lost revenue and ?120 wages)
leaves ?790 per week.
To pay for:
100kW Genset
Specially converted Gas engine
Controls for same
Grid connection ( ensures that gasifier and engine can run at constant
output )
Gasifier
Fuel store and feed system
Gasifier control system
Total capital cost (installed ) say ?300,000
Weekly repayment equivalent over 10 years = ?1200
Rent on building to put them in. say ?100 per week including taxes
Emergency maintenance fund.
You tell me how long is the gasifier/engine going to last how much will it
cost to replace?
So with basic costs you lose ?500 per week . and this is a pretty automated
gasifier requiring only weekly maintenance!!
If you make a machine 10x the size (i.e. 1MW e and 2MWth) you get 10 x the
income, fuel costs will remain constant, but the capital cost is perhaps 5x
as much say ?1.5M and O&M perhaps 7x (1 maintenance/plant supervisor for
4hrs every day.
So weekly gross income ?9,800
Capital payments ?6,000
Rent maybe ?500
O&M ?1000
So weekly net profit of ?2,300
For another 10x scaling things look even rosier.
So, although the technology development works best in the lab it has to
scale to be commercial.
My costs are based on my knowledge of UK projects and experience of
installing biomass heating plant at the scales indicated ie. 300kW and 3MW
including fuel handling and plant room installation.
Gasifier cost estimates are conservative at ?150,000 for a 100kWe system and
?750,000 for a 1MWe system.
I hope this fuels the debate on optimum size
Kind regards
Gavin
Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
3G Energi Ltd.,
Tel +44 (0)1835 824201
Fax +44 (0)870 8314098
Mob +44 (0)7773 781498
E mail Gavin at 3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin at 3genergi.co.uk>
The contents of this email and any attachments are the property of 3G Energi
Ltd. and are intended for the confidential use of the named recipient(s)
only. They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to or
relied upon by any person without our express written consent. If you are
not an addressee please notify us immediately at the address above or by
email at admin at 3genergi.co.uk <mailto:admin at 3genergi.co.uk>. Any files
attached to this email will have been checked with virus detection software
before transmission. However, you should carry out your own virus check
before opening any attachment. 3G Energi Ltd. accepts no liability for any
loss or damage that may be caused by software viruses.
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of TBReed
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 13:38
To: Arnt Karlsen; GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Cc: Overend, Ralph; Mike Graboski
Subject: [Gasification] Small vs Large scale gasification
Dear Arnt and All:
I try to avoid conspiracy theories and replace them with ignorance and
lemming theories, but I agree with Arnt about the total disconnect between
governments and gasification.
I have been convinced since 1974 (first oil crisis) that Civilization will
need gasification of solid fuels as the oil peaks and dwindles. I worked
for the Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI) of the US Dept. of Energy
from 1977 to 1986 as a spokesman for small and large scale gasification and
spent ~ $8 Million on developing a high pressure oxygen gasifier for making
syn-gas for methanol (FT, ammonia, ....). Much of what I learned though was
from unauthorized experiments out behind the official gasifier site.
The US and Europe have a "bigger is better" mindset. They forget that all
the present Big evolved from understanding developed on smaller systems. As
a result we have had generous funding for projects like Arbre, Ferco, The
Hawaiian cane project, all eventually abandoned and NO funding for smaller
scale projects more appropriate for widely distributed biomass.
The same mindset has poisoned the technology as well. Because fluidized
beds work well for oil refining in billion dollar refineries, dreamy
bureaucrats assumed that fluidized bed gasifiers would be the solution for
biomass gasification. NOT. In fluidized beds the incoming oxidant oxidizes
both the biomass and the char, resulting in tar levels of >20,000 ppm. In
downdraft gasifiers the incoming oxidant oxidizes the tars in flaming
combustion, producing < 1000 ppm tars easily, and < 100 ppm tar when
properly tuned.
The largest downdraft system I am aware of was that operated by SynGas Inc.
at 75 tons/day, but it evolved from our 1 ton/d test unit.
It is necessary to learn to WALK before you learn to RUN.
Yours truly,
TOM REED LIST MODERATOR
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt at c2i.net>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 4:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:21:56 +0100, David wrote in message
> <5.2.1.1.2.20040826090952.02dfc5f8 at pophost.rdg.ac.uk>:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Can I add my support to Paul. As someone with the same motive for
> > being on this list, teaching a course on renewable energy, so trying
> > to keep up to date with technical and policy developments, I am
> > interested in hearing about real projects and their success, or
> > failure. This includes the small projects as well as the big ones.
> > Many of my students are from developing countries, so the success of
> > small gasifiers in India is very interesting. One of my students from
> > Bangladesh was doing a project on supplying a small island with energy
> > and was very surprised when he found he could use coconuts as a
> > flexible energy source to supply all the electricity needs of the
> > island at a cost that was not excessive.
>
> .. ;-)
>
> > The failure of complex fluidized bed systems in Europe (such as the
> > ARBRE project here in the UK) challenges many of the official
> > assumptions as to the best way forward. I am impressed with the number
> > of companies still trying to push forward with farm-scale gasification
> > in Europe, despite an almost total lack of support from governments
> > for this scale of technology.
>
> ..some of this amaaazing government funding on flawed complex
> fluidized bed systems looks intentional, "prove it can't be done."
>
> --
> ..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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
From rstanley at legacyfound.org Fri Aug 27 14:36:07 2004
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 21:36:07 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Re: flashback prevention
In-Reply-To: <06ea01c48c31$2b2556d0$05b1ca83@george1200>
References: <014e01c48aa1$7b6ec040$da0cc13f@SFKC.GOV.KH>
<06ea01c48c31$2b2556d0$05b1ca83@george1200>
Message-ID: <412F8D27.6080402@legacyfound.org>
George,
Biogas is neat if youhave the resources to sustian it.
We used a similar oil drum idea: Tied seven of them into a linked
hexagon cluster to feed a family of five on a continuous basis in
Masaailand in the 70's. Not really knowing about oxygen supply issues at
the time, we prevented flash back through a water trap, a simple 5
liter tin or jug of any water tight material fitted with a removeable
and air tight lid. The feed pipe from the generator entered though the
lid and would extend down well into the water . It would bubble the gas
through water in the half-full jug and be collected by the outlet pipe
(from the jug to the house) which was positioned mounted well above the
water even soldered or brazed fluch to the lid opening itself . If you
mount this at a low spot int eh line it will also tend to function as a
water trap-- a necessary element to biogas production.
I Our family lived on such a generator (set up for continuous feed) for
four years in Tanzania in a nice urban house in Arusha had a great
garden as a result and I would recommend it to anyone with access to a
cow per person or in Ad's more exciting case, selected household refuse,
waste flower and sugar if I read him correctly.
Richard Stanley
George McKessock wrote:
> Re: 5.
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> I think you are asking about a question Dr. Karve was kind enough to
> answer for me regarding bio-gas generation and safety (which was posed
> to the biogas list if I'm not mistaken).
>
> A friend showed me an article from a back-woods magazine. The author
> poportedly used 50-gallon steel drums (note: he did not use plastic
> drums because he was concerned that static electricity buildup might
> cause ignition). He filled them with 10 gallons of H2O and then put
> in the excess manure, straw, etc. from animal stalls. He sealed the
> drum and had a truck-tire innertube to collect gas. After two weeks,
> there was enough gas to burn. He stated that he could run 3 coleman
> lanterns for 3 weeks straight, or use a natural gas stove for 1/2 hour
> intervals.
>
> My concern was that the flame might burn back and ignite the load.
> Dr. Karve assured me that there would not be enough oxygen for this to
> happen. Since I have stalls and animals and a mountain of manure ;o)
> I will try this. Currently I am trying to engineer a set up that will
> a) make it easy for me to dispose of the resulting matter (in my
> garden and on my fields), b) be warm in the winter months so that I
> don't end up with a manure-popscickle, c) be far enough away from the
> house to avoid catastrophy. I am also attempting to find an
> appropriate space-heater for the job.
>
>
> Obviously this belongs on the bio-gas list, but since you asked :o)
>
> George.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert Deutsch <mailto:robdeutsch at online.com.kh>
> To: Gasification <mailto:GASIFICATION at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 9:45 AM
> Subject: [Gasification] Dear Mr. Moderator - Help!
>
>
> Dear Gasification List Moderator,
>
> Can you please step in and filter what makes it on to the
> listserv? Open dialogue is great, but seems that much of the
> content lately is off topic and personal in nature.
>
> I for one would be interested to hear up-dates on what people are
> doing hand-on, such as:
>
> 1. did anything come from the discussion several months ago on
> the optimum IC engine for gas burning, is someone going to
> build us an engine?
> 2. Has anyone come up with a good solution for feeding chipped
> wood feed stock? It was stated that motor vehicle gasifiers
> didn't have the bridging problem because of the vibration,
> wouldn't it be possible to simulate the same with a vibrator
> on the feed hopper?
> 3. Photos... is it possible to see more photos of working
> gasifiers?
> 4. Is there any more info on horse sh*t gas scrubbers? How do
> they really work??
> 5. Has anyone done some independent testing of Dr.A.D.Karve's
> starch based bio-gas? Can I really just get some plastic
> barrels, cut the lids and pour some flour and water inside
> and get burnable gas out??
>
>
> Just a few things I would be interested in hearing about.
>
> Very best,
>
> Robert in Phnom Penh
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040827/cc123d8c/attachment.html
From a31ford at inetlink.ca Fri Aug 27 18:11:26 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:11:26 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Small vs Large scale gasification
In-Reply-To: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGOEHLDNAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
Message-ID: <000001c48c8b$2e503e10$1900a8c0@a31server>
Good Day, Gavin & all....
Gavin, I'm in the last stages of doing a conversion to a pair of Chevy 350
(6 liter) V-8 motors, from the original heat only burner, we had been using.
We are hoping to achieve 20-40kw E and 150kw H off of this arrangement,
using the water jacket and marine style exhaust manifolds, (water jacketed)
on about 25kg of wood chips an hour. (about 60 lbs.)
The Engine will run @ 2100rpm (gear reduced to 1800rpm for the generator)
and is configured for 2 engines (one at a time, other for service & renew).
I am hoping to run this configuration this winter, however if there's a
catastrophic failure we can revert back to the original burner if needed.
(If everything fails we still have an electric furnace).
As we get into the heating season, I will keep the list informed.
Regards,
Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Gavin
Gulliver-Goodall
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 1:16 PM
To: TBReed; Arnt Karlsen; GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Cc: Overend, Ralph; Mike Graboski
Subject: RE: [Gasification] Small vs Large scale gasification
Whilst I agree with Tom with regard to the technical task and process
development I would suggest that from an operational and economic viewpoint
large is better;
Reason:
A engine /genset/gasifier set up needs automatic feeding of fuel. It will
need some level of ability to vary output according to load. It will need
some level of manual supervision and intervention.
For a small system- lets say 100kWe running continuously the income
generated at current UK prices will be ?6.00 per hour from electricity sales
and say ?4.00 per hour from heat sales (total income ?10 per hour or $15 per
hour.
The system will burn approximately 60-80kg/hr of dry biomass fuel.- or 2
tonnes per day.
Dry refined biomass fuel (i.e. woodchips of reasonably uniform size and
moisture content) will cost around ?50 per tonne
So you earn ?240 and spend ?100 on fuel per day. So far so good. leaves ?140
per day profit.
But you will need weekly maintenance of the engine and gasifier say 1/2 day
downtime and 1/2 day staff time for a qualified engineer (cost ?30 per hour)
So from weekly profit of ?980 deduct ?70 (lost revenue and ?120 wages)
leaves ?790 per week.
To pay for:
100kW Genset
Specially converted Gas engine
Controls for same
Grid connection ( ensures that gasifier and engine can run at constant
output )
Gasifier
Fuel store and feed system
Gasifier control system
Total capital cost (installed ) say ?300,000
Weekly repayment equivalent over 10 years = ?1200
Rent on building to put them in. say ?100 per week including taxes
Emergency maintenance fund.
You tell me how long is the gasifier/engine going to last how much will it
cost to replace?
So with basic costs you lose ?500 per week . and this is a pretty automated
gasifier requiring only weekly maintenance!!
If you make a machine 10x the size (i.e. 1MW e and 2MWth) you get 10 x the
income, fuel costs will remain constant, but the capital cost is perhaps 5x
as much say ?1.5M and O&M perhaps 7x (1 maintenance/plant supervisor for
4hrs every day.
So weekly gross income ?9,800
Capital payments ?6,000
Rent maybe ?500
O&M ?1000
So weekly net profit of ?2,300
For another 10x scaling things look even rosier.
So, although the technology development works best in the lab it has to
scale to be commercial.
My costs are based on my knowledge of UK projects and experience of
installing biomass heating plant at the scales indicated ie. 300kW and 3MW
including fuel handling and plant room installation.
Gasifier cost estimates are conservative at ?150,000 for a 100kWe system and
?750,000 for a 1MWe system.
I hope this fuels the debate on optimum size
Kind regards
Gavin
Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
3G Energi Ltd.,
Tel +44 (0)1835 824201
Fax +44 (0)870 8314098
Mob +44 (0)7773 781498
E mail Gavin at 3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin at 3genergi.co.uk>
The contents of this email and any attachments are the property of 3G Energi
Ltd. and are intended for the confidential use of the named recipient(s)
only. They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to or
relied upon by any person without our express written consent. If you are
not an addressee please notify us immediately at the address above or by
email at admin at 3genergi.co.uk <mailto:admin at 3genergi.co.uk>. Any files
attached to this email will have been checked with virus detection software
before transmission. However, you should carry out your own virus check
before opening any attachment. 3G Energi Ltd. accepts no liability for any
loss or damage that may be caused by software viruses.
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of TBReed
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 13:38
To: Arnt Karlsen; GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Cc: Overend, Ralph; Mike Graboski
Subject: [Gasification] Small vs Large scale gasification
Dear Arnt and All:
I try to avoid conspiracy theories and replace them with ignorance and
lemming theories, but I agree with Arnt about the total disconnect between
governments and gasification.
I have been convinced since 1974 (first oil crisis) that Civilization will
need gasification of solid fuels as the oil peaks and dwindles. I worked
for the Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI) of the US Dept. of Energy
from 1977 to 1986 as a spokesman for small and large scale gasification and
spent ~ $8 Million on developing a high pressure oxygen gasifier for making
syn-gas for methanol (FT, ammonia, ....). Much of what I learned though was
from unauthorized experiments out behind the official gasifier site.
The US and Europe have a "bigger is better" mindset. They forget that all
the present Big evolved from understanding developed on smaller systems. As
a result we have had generous funding for projects like Arbre, Ferco, The
Hawaiian cane project, all eventually abandoned and NO funding for smaller
scale projects more appropriate for widely distributed biomass.
The same mindset has poisoned the technology as well. Because fluidized
beds work well for oil refining in billion dollar refineries, dreamy
bureaucrats assumed that fluidized bed gasifiers would be the solution for
biomass gasification. NOT. In fluidized beds the incoming oxidant oxidizes
both the biomass and the char, resulting in tar levels of >20,000 ppm. In
downdraft gasifiers the incoming oxidant oxidizes the tars in flaming
combustion, producing < 1000 ppm tars easily, and < 100 ppm tar when
properly tuned.
The largest downdraft system I am aware of was that operated by SynGas Inc.
at 75 tons/day, but it evolved from our 1 ton/d test unit.
It is necessary to learn to WALK before you learn to RUN.
Yours truly,
TOM REED LIST MODERATOR
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt at c2i.net>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 4:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:21:56 +0100, David wrote in message
> <5.2.1.1.2.20040826090952.02dfc5f8 at pophost.rdg.ac.uk>:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Can I add my support to Paul. As someone with the same motive for
> > being on this list, teaching a course on renewable energy, so trying
> > to keep up to date with technical and policy developments, I am
> > interested in hearing about real projects and their success, or
> > failure. This includes the small projects as well as the big ones.
> > Many of my students are from developing countries, so the success of
> > small gasifiers in India is very interesting. One of my students from
> > Bangladesh was doing a project on supplying a small island with energy
> > and was very surprised when he found he could use coconuts as a
> > flexible energy source to supply all the electricity needs of the
> > island at a cost that was not excessive.
>
> .. ;-)
>
> > The failure of complex fluidized bed systems in Europe (such as the
> > ARBRE project here in the UK) challenges many of the official
> > assumptions as to the best way forward. I am impressed with the number
> > of companies still trying to push forward with farm-scale gasification
> > in Europe, despite an almost total lack of support from governments
> > for this scale of technology.
>
> ..some of this amaaazing government funding on flawed complex
> fluidized bed systems looks intentional, "prove it can't be done."
>
> --
> ..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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
From a31ford at inetlink.ca Fri Aug 27 18:17:17 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:17:17 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Small vs Large scale gasification
In-Reply-To: <000001c48c8b$2e503e10$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <000101c48c8b$ff641b70$1900a8c0@a31server>
Oops !!!!!!
20Kg is INCORRECT.... closer to 40kg/hr, (202kw) about 85 lbs.)
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of a31ford
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 6:11 PM
To: A Gasification List (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [Gasification] Small vs Large scale gasification
Good Day, Gavin & all....
Gavin, I'm in the last stages of doing a conversion to a pair of Chevy 350
(6 liter) V-8 motors, from the original heat only burner, we had been using.
We are hoping to achieve 20-40kw E and 150kw H off of this arrangement,
using the water jacket and marine style exhaust manifolds, (water jacketed)
on about 25kg of wood chips an hour. (about 60 lbs.)
The Engine will run @ 2100rpm (gear reduced to 1800rpm for the generator)
and is configured for 2 engines (one at a time, other for service & renew).
I am hoping to run this configuration this winter, however if there's a
catastrophic failure we can revert back to the original burner if needed.
(If everything fails we still have an electric furnace).
As we get into the heating season, I will keep the list informed.
Regards,
Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Gavin
Gulliver-Goodall
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 1:16 PM
To: TBReed; Arnt Karlsen; GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Cc: Overend, Ralph; Mike Graboski
Subject: RE: [Gasification] Small vs Large scale gasification
Whilst I agree with Tom with regard to the technical task and process
development I would suggest that from an operational and economic viewpoint
large is better;
Reason:
A engine /genset/gasifier set up needs automatic feeding of fuel. It will
need some level of ability to vary output according to load. It will need
some level of manual supervision and intervention.
For a small system- lets say 100kWe running continuously the income
generated at current UK prices will be ?6.00 per hour from electricity sales
and say ?4.00 per hour from heat sales (total income ?10 per hour or $15 per
hour.
The system will burn approximately 60-80kg/hr of dry biomass fuel.- or 2
tonnes per day.
Dry refined biomass fuel (i.e. woodchips of reasonably uniform size and
moisture content) will cost around ?50 per tonne
So you earn ?240 and spend ?100 on fuel per day. So far so good. leaves ?140
per day profit.
But you will need weekly maintenance of the engine and gasifier say 1/2 day
downtime and 1/2 day staff time for a qualified engineer (cost ?30 per hour)
So from weekly profit of ?980 deduct ?70 (lost revenue and ?120 wages)
leaves ?790 per week.
To pay for:
100kW Genset
Specially converted Gas engine
Controls for same
Grid connection ( ensures that gasifier and engine can run at constant
output )
Gasifier
Fuel store and feed system
Gasifier control system
Total capital cost (installed ) say ?300,000
Weekly repayment equivalent over 10 years = ?1200
Rent on building to put them in. say ?100 per week including taxes
Emergency maintenance fund.
You tell me how long is the gasifier/engine going to last how much will it
cost to replace?
So with basic costs you lose ?500 per week . and this is a pretty automated
gasifier requiring only weekly maintenance!!
If you make a machine 10x the size (i.e. 1MW e and 2MWth) you get 10 x the
income, fuel costs will remain constant, but the capital cost is perhaps 5x
as much say ?1.5M and O&M perhaps 7x (1 maintenance/plant supervisor for
4hrs every day.
So weekly gross income ?9,800
Capital payments ?6,000
Rent maybe ?500
O&M ?1000
So weekly net profit of ?2,300
For another 10x scaling things look even rosier.
So, although the technology development works best in the lab it has to
scale to be commercial.
My costs are based on my knowledge of UK projects and experience of
installing biomass heating plant at the scales indicated ie. 300kW and 3MW
including fuel handling and plant room installation.
Gasifier cost estimates are conservative at ?150,000 for a 100kWe system and
?750,000 for a 1MWe system.
I hope this fuels the debate on optimum size
Kind regards
Gavin
Gavin Gulliver-Goodall
3G Energi Ltd.,
Tel +44 (0)1835 824201
Fax +44 (0)870 8314098
Mob +44 (0)7773 781498
E mail Gavin at 3genergi.co.uk <mailto:Gavin at 3genergi.co.uk>
The contents of this email and any attachments are the property of 3G Energi
Ltd. and are intended for the confidential use of the named recipient(s)
only. They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to or
relied upon by any person without our express written consent. If you are
not an addressee please notify us immediately at the address above or by
email at admin at 3genergi.co.uk <mailto:admin at 3genergi.co.uk>. Any files
attached to this email will have been checked with virus detection software
before transmission. However, you should carry out your own virus check
before opening any attachment. 3G Energi Ltd. accepts no liability for any
loss or damage that may be caused by software viruses.
-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of TBReed
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 13:38
To: Arnt Karlsen; GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Cc: Overend, Ralph; Mike Graboski
Subject: [Gasification] Small vs Large scale gasification
Dear Arnt and All:
I try to avoid conspiracy theories and replace them with ignorance and
lemming theories, but I agree with Arnt about the total disconnect between
governments and gasification.
I have been convinced since 1974 (first oil crisis) that Civilization will
need gasification of solid fuels as the oil peaks and dwindles. I worked
for the Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI) of the US Dept. of Energy
from 1977 to 1986 as a spokesman for small and large scale gasification and
spent ~ $8 Million on developing a high pressure oxygen gasifier for making
syn-gas for methanol (FT, ammonia, ....). Much of what I learned though was
from unauthorized experiments out behind the official gasifier site.
The US and Europe have a "bigger is better" mindset. They forget that all
the present Big evolved from understanding developed on smaller systems. As
a result we have had generous funding for projects like Arbre, Ferco, The
Hawaiian cane project, all eventually abandoned and NO funding for smaller
scale projects more appropriate for widely distributed biomass.
The same mindset has poisoned the technology as well. Because fluidized
beds work well for oil refining in billion dollar refineries, dreamy
bureaucrats assumed that fluidized bed gasifiers would be the solution for
biomass gasification. NOT. In fluidized beds the incoming oxidant oxidizes
both the biomass and the char, resulting in tar levels of >20,000 ppm. In
downdraft gasifiers the incoming oxidant oxidizes the tars in flaming
combustion, producing < 1000 ppm tars easily, and < 100 ppm tar when
properly tuned.
The largest downdraft system I am aware of was that operated by SynGas Inc.
at 75 tons/day, but it evolved from our 1 ton/d test unit.
It is necessary to learn to WALK before you learn to RUN.
Yours truly,
TOM REED LIST MODERATOR
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt at c2i.net>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 4:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list?
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:21:56 +0100, David wrote in message
> <5.2.1.1.2.20040826090952.02dfc5f8 at pophost.rdg.ac.uk>:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Can I add my support to Paul. As someone with the same motive for
> > being on this list, teaching a course on renewable energy, so trying
> > to keep up to date with technical and policy developments, I am
> > interested in hearing about real projects and their success, or
> > failure. This includes the small projects as well as the big ones.
> > Many of my students are from developing countries, so the success of
> > small gasifiers in India is very interesting. One of my students from
> > Bangladesh was doing a project on supplying a small island with energy
> > and was very surprised when he found he could use coconuts as a
> > flexible energy source to supply all the electricity needs of the
> > island at a cost that was not excessive.
>
> .. ;-)
>
> > The failure of complex fluidized bed systems in Europe (such as the
> > ARBRE project here in the UK) challenges many of the official
> > assumptions as to the best way forward. I am impressed with the number
> > of companies still trying to push forward with farm-scale gasification
> > in Europe, despite an almost total lack of support from governments
> > for this scale of technology.
>
> ..some of this amaaazing government funding on flawed complex
> fluidized bed systems looks intentional, "prove it can't be done."
>
> --
> ..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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
From arnt at c2i.net Fri Aug 27 20:20:03 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 03:20:03 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Small vs Large scale gasification
In-Reply-To: <000101c48c8b$ff641b70$1900a8c0@a31server>
References: <000001c48c8b$2e503e10$1900a8c0@a31server>
<000101c48c8b$ff641b70$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <20040828032003.62814b2a.arnt@c2i.net>
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:17:17 -0500, a31ford wrote in message
<000101c48c8b$ff641b70$1900a8c0 at a31server>:
> Oops !!!!!!
>
> 20Kg is INCORRECT.... closer to 40kg/hr, (202kw) about 85 lbs.)
.. ;-)
> > Good Day, Gavin & all....
> >
> > Gavin, I'm in the last stages of doing a conversion to a pair of
> > Chevy 350(6 liter) V-8 motors, from the original heat only burner,
> > we had been using.
> >
> > We are hoping to achieve 20-40kw E and 150kw H off of this
> > arrangement, using the water jacket and marine style exhaust
> > manifolds, (water jacketed) on about 25kg of wood chips an hour.
> > (about 60 lbs.)
> >
> > The Engine will run @ 2100rpm (gear reduced to 1800rpm for the
> > generator) and is configured for 2 engines (one at a time, other
> > for service & renew).
..why 2100 rpm? Or, is that the ideal speed for that engine?
With a gear box, you get far more choises.
> > I am hoping to run this configuration this winter, however if
> > there's a catastrophic failure we can revert back to the original
> > burner if needed.(If everything fails we still have an electric
> > furnace).
> >
> > As we get into the heating season, I will keep the list informed.
.. ;-)
--
..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 Aug 27 20:22:57 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 03:22:57 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
In-Reply-To: <008f01c48c37$5df95dd0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
References: <1c5.1d06d91e.2e5ea149@aol.com> <412D5C29.5030206@zuper.net>
<008f01c48c37$5df95dd0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
Message-ID: <20040828032257.2f0e4cfe.arnt@c2i.net>
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 07:11:24 -0600, TBReed wrote in message
<008f01c48c37$5df95dd0$3201a8c0 at OFFICE>:
> Dear All;
>
> The catch-phrase "Food vs Fuel" caught my eye in the exchange below.
> I believe it originated in the "gasohol" days when it was perceived
> that making ethanol for our cars was "wicked" when there were starving
> people in the world. This is naive, since most of the world suffers
> from overproduction of food (and overeating) and those who starve can
> blame local politics and distribution.
..you're naive, they're too busy looking for food. ;-)
--
..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 MMBTUPR at aol.com Fri Aug 27 20:41:29 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 21:41:29 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
Message-ID: <8c.137628f3.2e613cc9@aol.com>
to Gasification & Stoves lists from Lewis L. Smith
I have faith that most of the participants in these lists understand
that the "food vs. fuel" argument is often a phony one. For example, as Tom
points out, where we take biomass wastes and turn them into energy, as we do in the
cases of anaerobic digestion of slaughterhouse wastes, the gasification of
wood wastes or the conversion of fast-food wastes to biodiesel. Also for
example, increasing the extraction of useful energy from cane bagasse by the use of
energy efficiency measures in the mill and higher pressures in the boilers. The
latter in no way requires a reduction in the volume of sucrose produced.
The problem, as I indicated, is primarily with agricultural
traditionalists. By personal experience, I can assure you that some of them become
mortally offended as a matter of principle, whenever someone suggests using
agricultural land or traditional food materials to produce energy.
Nevertheless, conflicts of substance are possible. Consider the
following examples ?
? If we switch the final cane-juice product from sucrose to
ethanol, where the cane is an existing crop.
? If our new plantations compete with existing food crops for
land.
? If our new plantations compete with existing food crops for
irrigation water.
Such cases are sure to provoke an argument from some quarters, even
though in the case of cane, its production is often heavily subsidized, and sugar
[96% sucrose] is usually in world surplus. The new energy crops may in fact be
? in economic and environmental terms ??a better use of the land and/or
water, but don't try to tell that to many field-crop farmers !
This is one reason why in Puerto Rico, I am trying to promote the
dispersed [distributed] generation of electricity by the gasification of elephant
grass raised on 100,000 acres of idle or underutilized, unimproved grasslands.
[We actually have 200,000 on our 100 mi x 35 mi island, but one should not
appear to be greedy !]
Forearmed is forewarned !
Cordially.
End.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040827/8c312971/attachment.html
From LINVENT at aol.com Sat Aug 28 01:38:06 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 02:38:06 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Small vs Large scale gasification
Message-ID: <1d4.29834b0b.2e61824e@aol.com>
In a message dated 8/27/04 2:39:07 PM, tombreed at comcast.net writes:
<< Dear Arnt and All:
I try to avoid conspiracy theories and replace them with ignorance and
lemming theories, but I agree with Arnt about the total disconnect between
governments and gasification.
I have been convinced since 1974 (first oil crisis) that Civilization will
need gasification of solid fuels as the oil peaks and dwindles. I worked
for the Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI) of the US Dept. of Energy
from 1977 to 1986 as a spokesman for small and large scale gasification and
spent ~ $8 Million on developing a high pressure oxygen gasifier for making
syn-gas for methanol (FT, ammonia, ....). Much of what I learned though was
from unauthorized experiments out behind the official gasifier site.
The US and Europe have a "bigger is better" mindset. They forget that all
the present Big evolved from understanding developed on smaller systems. As
a result we have had generous funding for projects like Arbre, Ferco, The
Hawaiian cane project, all eventually abandoned and NO funding for smaller
scale projects more appropriate for widely distributed biomass.
The same mindset has poisoned the technology as well. Because fluidized
beds work well for oil refining in billion dollar refineries, dreamy
bureaucrats assumed that fluidized bed gasifiers would be the solution for
biomass gasification. NOT. In fluidized beds the incoming oxidant oxidizes
both the biomass and the char, resulting in tar levels of >20,000 ppm. In
downdraft gasifiers the incoming oxidant oxidizes the tars in flaming
combustion, producing < 1000 ppm tars easily, and < 100 ppm tar when
properly tuned.
The largest downdraft system I am aware of was that operated by SynGas Inc.
at 75 tons/day, but it evolved from our 1 ton/d test unit.
It is necessary to learn to WALK before you learn to RUN.
Yours truly,
TOM REED LIST MODERATOR >>
BRAVO TOM!!!
In some of my dealings with DOE, they have stated that gasification is a
proven technology, but not economic. If this is carefully looked at, it means
that complicated systems work, but that the economics of them prevents them from
working economically, therefore, is gasification really proven?
There is also a psychology which I am finding is prevalent in either this
industry or the business world, fear of success. It says that we will only do
what is necessary to get to the point of not doing what others have not been able
to do, succeed. There just seems to be some form or fear which keeps them
from going the extra mile, km, yard, ft, inch or whatever to complete whatever is
needed.
I told Tom Winn who basically put together SynGas corporation that it
would not succeed. He told me after it failed that I was right in a compliment to
my judgment. Tom's Charter Financial Group put money into the early gasifier
which is still sitting at my mining operation. It was tax sheltered money
which was feasible back then. THey also did the Buddy Holly Story movie as an
example of their diversity in funding projects.
Our Italian gasifier will be completed in commercial operation in a few
weeks when I return and expanded to handle addtional municipal solid waste
refuse derived fuel and other fuels in the area. It runs an IC engine and a major
professor at one of the Neapolitan Universities has seen the gas cleaning
capability and is seriously interested in using the gas cleaning system for his
gas membrane research work.
Thermogenics will be developing serious business in Italy and may create
a permanent research presence there. Their attitude towards the energy issues
and not having the political baggage of petrochemical industry makes them much
more open than the US. I have to limit the visitors to the site to get any
work done.
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 graeme at powerlink.co.nz Sat Aug 28 04:13:59 2004
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:13:59 +1200
Subject: [Gasification] Re: Charcoal vs Wood Gasification
References: <20040825010122.12768.qmail@web41006.mail.yahoo.com><001001c48a46$d848ccd0$6601a8c0@Yellow><412BFF8B.1050105@renewableplanet.ca><412C0C0D.7E447066@adelaide.edu.au>
<001101c48a84$14dd9a80$c38f58db@newpc>
<023f01c48b16$aa379fd0$9401a8c0@OFFICE>
Message-ID: <008b01c48ce0$0da9a0c0$c68f58db@newpc>
TOM R.
You said:
I have just visited Doug's FLUIDYNE site and was very impressed by the size and number of gasifiers built and tested. The MK 2 Mega Class 2 MW gasifier is very impressive and may be the best in the world. I get all kinds of inquiries about gasifiers in these larger size ranges and will certainly send them to this site.
>
Thanks for your compliment, but this project has to prove itself and will be verified by appropriate expertise when it's ready to work.I will be doing a Fluidyne Update with photographs next week showing the next phase of component testing completed during my last visit of four weeks, June-July.
In the mean time I have managed to find the photo's of the WW11 Australian charcoal gasifier and Graeme has added it to the Fluidyne Archive www.fluidynenz.250x.com Thanks to digital cameras, I have dug into the stored workshop and found the gas/air mixer made in N.Z. during WW11 and that's there to see as well.
The foundation members of this forum will know that the Fluidyne Archive was set up to show what we have done in the development of engine gasification specifically for this list, as modern photo's were in short supply. While I would prefer to keep this as a record of our own work, I have a very large file of interesting photo's showing gasifiers and related activity. Some may only be posted for a short time, but if you want to keep any, make the copies or you will miss out. If any one has a specific interest, ask as I may have a picture.
Regards,
Doug Williams,
Fluidyne Gasification.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040828/0b3ff861/attachment.html
From tombreed at comcast.net Sat Aug 28 05:04:35 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 04:04:35 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Dear Mr. Moderator - Help!
References: <014e01c48aa1$7b6ec040$da0cc13f@SFKC.GOV.KH>
Message-ID: <00a701c48ce6$6c6a77a0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
Dear Robert and All:
This may be the first ever mail to "Mr. Moderator - help".
I have tried to pour some cooling water on the Pottinger exchange and hope we can avoid too much of this. However, occasionally we get to know our co-listees better from watching their responses. However, I agree that we should be at least 75% technical at this site, 25% political and argumentative.
Back to the technical, here are a few comments to Robert's excellent questions and I would invite others to comment to keep the balance here primarily technical.
Robert said... I for one would be interested to hear up-dates on what people are doing hand-on, such as:
Did anything come from the discussion several months ago on the optimum IC engine for gas burning, is someone going to build us an engine?
I DON'T REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION THEN, BUT HERE ARE A FEW COMMENTS THAT MAY NOT HAVE APPEARED
SPARK ENGINES SHOULD HAVE A COMPRESSION RATIO OF ~12/1 AND HIGH SPARK ADVANCE BECAUSE PRODUCER GAS HAS AN OCTANE OF 180 AND BURNS VERY SLOWLY. THIS RECOVERS MOST OF THE TYPICAL 30% POWER LOSS WHEN LOW COMPRESSION GASOLINE ENGINES ARE CONVERTED TO PRODUCER GAS
DIESEL ENGINES CAN ASPIRATE PRODUCER GAS FOR >80% OF THEIR FUEL, BUT REQUIRE 20% DIESEL FOR IGNITION UNLESS YOU PUT IN SMALLER INJECTORS
Has anyone come up with a good solution for feeding chipped wood feed stock?
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? CHIPS FEED WELL, PELLETS EVEN BETTER. HOWEVER "SHARDS" PRODUCED BY TUB GRINDING BRIDGE NOTORIOUSLY.
It was stated that motor vehicle gasifiers didn't have the bridging problem because of the vibration, wouldn't it be possible to simulate the same with a vibrator on the feed hopper?
I ATTRIBUTE THE SUCCESS OF THE MILLION GASIFIERS IN WWII TO BUMPY ROADS (AND SHELL HOLES?). I RECOMMEND THAT ALL STATIONARY GASIFIERS SHOULD HAVE A VIBRATOR.
Photos... is it possible to see more photos of working gasifiers?
I BELIEVE THERE ARE LOTS ON VARIOUS SITES - PLEASE SEND SUGGESTED LINKS AND I'LL PUT THEM ON MY WEBSITE AT WWW.WOODGAS.COM. MANY THERE NOW.
Is there any more info on horse sh*t gas scrubbers? How do they really work??
IN THE CGPL (IISC BANGALORE) BOOK "BIOMASS TO ENERGY", CHAPTER 8 THERE IS A CHAPTER ON CLEANING SOUR GAS (CONTAINING 2-8% H2S). THEY SAY "THE ISET PROCESS, DEVELOPED BY ABETS, IISC IS BASED ON THE RED-OX REACTION OF CHELATED POLYVALENT METAL IRON. IN THIS PARTICULAR PROCESS IRON IN AQUEOUS MEDIUM, WHICH EXISTS IN BOTH FE 2+ AND FE 2+ FORM IS USED FOR SCRUBBING HYDROGEN SULFIDE FROM THE BIOGAS. THE SULFUR PRESENT IN TH EH2S IS PRECIPITATED AS ELEMENTAL SULFUR." YOU MAY FIND MORE DETAILS AT WEBSITE, HTTP://CGPL.IISC.ERNET.IN.
Has anyone done some independent testing of Dr.A.D.Karve's starch based bio-gas? C
I RECENTLY CAME ACROSS A JAPANESE PROCESS SOMEWHAT SIMILAR. CAN'T REMEMBER WHERE. IT SURE MAKES SENSE THAT PUTTING REAL FOOD RATHER THAN MOSTLY DIGESTED GRASS IN MAKES MORE GAS.
Can I really just get some plastic barrels, cut the lids and pour some flour and water inside and get burnable gas out??
I THINK SO, FROM WHAT KARVE HAS TOLD US. IF YOU TRY IT LET US KNOW.
Just a few things I would be interested in hearing about.
WE'RE ALL INTERESTED IN THESE ISSUES AND WELCOME COMMENTS.
GOOD LUCK, TOM REED MODERATOR
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Deutsch
To: Gasification
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 6:45 AM
Subject: [Gasification] Dear Mr. Moderator - Help!
Dear Gasification List Moderator,
Can you please step in and filter what makes it on to the listserv? Open dialogue is great, but seems that much of the content lately is off topic and personal in nature.
I for one would be interested to hear up-dates on what people are doing hand-on, such as:
1.. did anything come from the discussion several months ago on the optimum IC engine for gas burning, is someone going to build us an engine?
2.. Has anyone come up with a good solution for feeding chipped wood feed stock? It was stated that motor vehicle gasifiers didn't have the bridging problem because of the vibration, wouldn't it be possible to simulate the same with a vibrator on the feed hopper?
3.. Photos... is it possible to see more photos of working gasifiers?
4.. Is there any more info on horse sh*t gas scrubbers? How do they really work??
5.. Has anyone done some independent testing of Dr.A.D.Karve's starch based bio-gas? Can I really just get some plastic barrels, cut the lids and pour some flour and water inside and get burnable gas out??
Just a few things I would be interested in hearing about.
Very best,
Robert in Phnom Penh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040828/fb40389a/attachment.html
From LWheeler45 at aol.com Sat Aug 28 13:24:15 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:24:15 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Is that notoriously good or notoriously bad.
Message-ID: <81.1484963c.2e6227cf@aol.com>
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? CHIPS FEED WELL, PELLETS EVEN BETTER. HOWEVER "SHARDS"
PRODUCED BY TUB GRINDING BRIDGE NOTORIOUSLY.
Is that notoriously good or notoriously bad?
Any suggestions for a quick disposal of 200,000 tons of Fla tree debris? Some
has been tub ground and some has been chipped and some are just natural logs
Any one with experience and a commercially validated citrus juicer waste to
energy I have 400 to 600 tons a day available as feedstock and need 20 MW power
a day for season of 7 months. Also 200/ 300 TPD digester garbage source
looking for commercially viable answers
Lwheeler45 at aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040828/f98007d5/attachment.html
From arnt at c2i.net Sat Aug 28 13:41:41 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 20:41:41 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Dear Mr. Moderator - Help!
In-Reply-To: <00a701c48ce6$6c6a77a0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
References: <014e01c48aa1$7b6ec040$da0cc13f@SFKC.GOV.KH>
<00a701c48ce6$6c6a77a0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
Message-ID: <20040828204141.13085028.arnt@c2i.net>
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 04:04:35 -0600, TBReed wrote in message
<00a701c48ce6$6c6a77a0$3201a8c0 at OFFICE>:
> Dear Robert and All:
>
> This may be the first ever mail to "Mr. Moderator - help".
>
> I have tried to pour some cooling water on the Pottinger exchange and
> hope we can avoid too much of this. However, occasionally we get to
> know our co-listees better from watching their responses. However, I
> agree that we should be at least 75% technical at this site, 25%
> political and argumentative.
>
> Back to the technical, here are a few comments to Robert's excellent
> questions and I would invite others to comment to keep the balance
> here primarily technical.
>
> Robert said... I for one would be interested to hear up-dates on what
> people are doing hand-on, such as:
>
> Did anything come from the discussion several months ago on the
> optimum IC engine for gas burning, is someone going to build us an
> engine?
>
> I DON'T REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION THEN, BUT HERE ARE A FEW COMMENTS THAT
> MAY NOT HAVE APPEARED
..hush, you're poppin' ear drums. ;-)
> SPARK ENGINES SHOULD HAVE A COMPRESSION RATIO OF ~12/1 AND HIGH SPARK
> ADVANCE BECAUSE PRODUCER GAS HAS AN OCTANE OF 180 AND BURNS VERY
> SLOWLY. THIS RECOVERS MOST OF THE TYPICAL 30% POWER LOSS WHEN LOW
> COMPRESSION GASOLINE ENGINES ARE CONVERTED TO PRODUCER GAS
..also consider supercharging, turbo's etc.
> DIESEL ENGINES CAN ASPIRATE PRODUCER GAS FOR >80% OF THEIR FUEL, BUT
> REQUIRE 20% DIESEL FOR IGNITION UNLESS YOU PUT IN SMALLER INJECTORS
..means tearing down the engine, unless you wanna be able to burn diesel
oils, simply fit electric ignition, and save the cost on those smaller
injectors, selling what you have might pay for the conversion job.
--
..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 Sat Aug 28 13:41:55 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 20:41:55 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Dear Mr. Moderator - Help!
In-Reply-To: <00a701c48ce6$6c6a77a0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
References: <014e01c48aa1$7b6ec040$da0cc13f@SFKC.GOV.KH>
<00a701c48ce6$6c6a77a0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
Message-ID: <20040828204155.7d9622e7.arnt@c2i.net>
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 04:04:35 -0600, TBReed wrote in message
<00a701c48ce6$6c6a77a0$3201a8c0 at OFFICE>:
> Dear Robert and All:
>
> This may be the first ever mail to "Mr. Moderator - help".
>
> I have tried to pour some cooling water on the Pottinger exchange and
> hope we can avoid too much of this. However, occasionally we get to
> know our co-listees better from watching their responses. However, I
> agree that we should be at least 75% technical at this site, 25%
> political and argumentative.
>
> Back to the technical, here are a few comments to Robert's excellent
> questions and I would invite others to comment to keep the balance
> here primarily technical.
>
> Robert said... I for one would be interested to hear up-dates on what
> people are doing hand-on, such as:
>
> Did anything come from the discussion several months ago on the
> optimum IC engine for gas burning, is someone going to build us an
> engine?
>
> I DON'T REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION THEN, BUT HERE ARE A FEW COMMENTS THAT
> MAY NOT HAVE APPEARED
..hush, you're poppin' ear drums. ;-)
> SPARK ENGINES SHOULD HAVE A COMPRESSION RATIO OF ~12/1 AND HIGH SPARK
> ADVANCE BECAUSE PRODUCER GAS HAS AN OCTANE OF 180 AND BURNS VERY
> SLOWLY. THIS RECOVERS MOST OF THE TYPICAL 30% POWER LOSS WHEN LOW
> COMPRESSION GASOLINE ENGINES ARE CONVERTED TO PRODUCER GAS
..also consider supercharging, turbo's etc.
> DIESEL ENGINES CAN ASPIRATE PRODUCER GAS FOR >80% OF THEIR FUEL, BUT
> REQUIRE 20% DIESEL FOR IGNITION UNLESS YOU PUT IN SMALLER INJECTORS
..means tearing down the engine, unless you wanna be able to burn diesel
oils, simply fit electric ignition, and save the cost on those smaller
injectors, selling what you have might pay for the conversion job.
--
..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 phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Sat Aug 28 13:43:55 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 11:43:55 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
References: <1c5.1d06d91e.2e5ea149@aol.com>
<412D5C29.5030206@zuper.net><008f01c48c37$5df95dd0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
<20040828032257.2f0e4cfe.arnt@c2i.net>
Message-ID: <00a801c48d2e$f9b04f70$d7c0f204@7k6rv21>
I am one of those who's concern becomes elevated when the issue of "food vs
fuel" is raised. But, I have found middle ground which does not attack
gasification.
I am comfortable with gasification being used in non-ag products such as
trees etc. however the residues from food production should be returned to
the soil as soil amendment to benefit the ensuing crops. These residues
represent the feedstocks for the soil bacteria which is necessary to
maintain the sustainability of the soil. Without sustainability of the
soil, we will need better teeth and digestion systems to live on forest
products if the soil fails.
Biogas generation spans the issue since it recovers a portion of the energy
from high quality food wastes as biogas and the remainder of the biomass
goes into soil amendment. Trees are a poor choice for biogas production due
to limited solubility and higher percentage of lignin when compared to
products such as potatoes.
I am currently involved in setting up a project which recovers separated
organic waste currently going to landfills (up to 26% of the waste stream).
This process dissolves the easily soluble components from the source
separated waste stream, which are bio-digested into biogas and then
recovering the less soluble solids and waste liquids as compost. The
process is thermophilic so the concerns for human pathogens is low to
non-existent and it recycles a high percentage of water to reduce the water
input requirements.
Now my world hums along and my dander is under control.
Tom Reed - I still love gasification but have attained more balance in my
life. :-)
Art Krenzel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt at c2i.net>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 07:11:24 -0600, TBReed wrote in message
> <008f01c48c37$5df95dd0$3201a8c0 at OFFICE>:
>
> > Dear All;
> >
> > The catch-phrase "Food vs Fuel" caught my eye in the exchange below.
> > I believe it originated in the "gasohol" days when it was perceived
> > that making ethanol for our cars was "wicked" when there were starving
> > people in the world. This is naive, since most of the world suffers
> > from overproduction of food (and overeating) and those who starve can
> > blame local politics and distribution.
>
> ..you're naive, they're too busy looking for food. ;-)
>
> --
> ..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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
From tmiles at trmiles.com Sat Aug 28 15:07:21 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 13:07:21 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Search Discussion List Archives
References: <014e01c48aa1$7b6ec040$da0cc13f@SFKC.GOV.KH>
<00a701c48ce6$6c6a77a0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
Message-ID: <002e01c48d3a$ba23e270$6401a8c0@OFFICE3>
REPP has provided us with a search engine dedicated to the Discussion List Archives. I've added it to the Gasification, Stoves, Carbon and Bioenergy Pages or you can use it directly at http://repp.org/htdig
The search links will take you to individual messages. Once you bring up a message you can move through the archives by thread, subject, author or date.
Kind regards,
Tom Miles
Gasification
http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
Stoves
http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/index.htm
Bioenergy
http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html
----- Original Message -----
From: TBReed
To: Robert Deutsch ; Gasification
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 3:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Dear Mr. Moderator - Help!
Did anything come from the discussion several months ago on the optimum IC engine for gas burning, is someone going to build us an engine?
I DON'T REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION THEN, BUT HERE ARE A FEW COMMENTS THAT MAY NOT HAVE APPEARED
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040828/51332d2e/attachment.html
From solar1 at zuper.net Sat Aug 28 18:31:07 2004
From: solar1 at zuper.net (Fundacion Centro de Desarrollo en Energia Solar)
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:31:07 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Search Discussion List Archives
In-Reply-To: <002e01c48d3a$ba23e270$6401a8c0@OFFICE3>
References: <014e01c48aa1$7b6ec040$da0cc13f@SFKC.GOV.KH> <00a701c48ce6$6c6a77a0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
<002e01c48d3a$ba23e270$6401a8c0@OFFICE3>
Message-ID: <413115BB.4070201@zuper.net>
Tom Miles wrote:
>REPP has provided us with a search engine dedicated to the Discussion List Archives. I've added it to the Gasification, Stoves, Carbon and Bioenergy Pages or you can use it directly at http://repp.org/htdig
>
>The search links will take you to individual messages. Once you bring up a message you can move through the archives by thread, subject, author or date.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Tom Miles
>
>
>
Wow, Tom
That is about the handiest addition i-ve seen in a long time. Thanks
From tombreed at comcast.net Sun Aug 29 10:54:25 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (Tom Reed)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:54:25 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
References: <1c5.1d06d91e.2e5ea149@aol.com><412D5C29.5030206@zuper.net><008f01c48c37$5df95dd0$3201a8c0@OFFICE><20040828032257.2f0e4cfe.arnt@c2i.net>
<00a801c48d2e$f9b04f70$d7c0f204@7k6rv21>
Message-ID: <01b801c48de0$761c8db0$3401a8c0@TOMBREED>
Dear Art, Tom Miles and All:
I appreciate your concerns about returning some fraction of agricultural
residues to the soil for maximum sustainability, and would have opposed use
of Ag resudues 25 years ago.
However, I have heard from responsible agronomists that too much residue
re-appication acts as a "negative fertilizer" so that fertilizer for next
year's crops is used instead to help the bacteria. Therefore, farmers in
many areas remove these residues from the fields (and burn them if
permitted) to get ready for next year's crops.
I hope we will hear many opinions from responsible agronomists on this
topic, because it is a key issue in the use of surplus ag-residues,
particularly for ag activities such as making ammonia and fuel. And using
ag-residues responsibly can double the amount of biomass available to
humans.
What a benefit to have so many experts here at GASIFICATION and STOVES!
COMMENTS?
Your pal, TOM REED
----- Original Message -----
From: "Art Krenzel" <phoenix98604 at earthlink.net>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
> I am one of those who's concern becomes elevated when the issue of "food
vs
> fuel" is raised. But, I have found middle ground which does not attack
> gasification.
>
> I am comfortable with gasification being used in non-ag products such as
> trees etc. however the residues from food production should be returned to
> the soil as soil amendment to benefit the ensuing crops. These residues
> represent the feedstocks for the soil bacteria which is necessary to
> maintain the sustainability of the soil. Without sustainability of the
> soil, we will need better teeth and digestion systems to live on forest
> products if the soil fails.
>
> Biogas generation spans the issue since it recovers a portion of the
energy
> from high quality food wastes as biogas and the remainder of the biomass
> goes into soil amendment. Trees are a poor choice for biogas production
due
> to limited solubility and higher percentage of lignin when compared to
> products such as potatoes.
>
> I am currently involved in setting up a project which recovers separated
> organic waste currently going to landfills (up to 26% of the waste
stream).
> This process dissolves the easily soluble components from the source
> separated waste stream, which are bio-digested into biogas and then
> recovering the less soluble solids and waste liquids as compost. The
> process is thermophilic so the concerns for human pathogens is low to
> non-existent and it recycles a high percentage of water to reduce the
water
> input requirements.
>
> Now my world hums along and my dander is under control.
>
> Tom Reed - I still love gasification but have attained more balance in my
> life. :-)
>
> Art Krenzel
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt at c2i.net>
> To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 6:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
>
>
> > On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 07:11:24 -0600, TBReed wrote in message
> > <008f01c48c37$5df95dd0$3201a8c0 at OFFICE>:
> >
> > > Dear All;
> > >
> > > The catch-phrase "Food vs Fuel" caught my eye in the exchange below.
> > > I believe it originated in the "gasohol" days when it was perceived
> > > that making ethanol for our cars was "wicked" when there were starving
> > > people in the world. This is naive, since most of the world suffers
> > > from overproduction of food (and overeating) and those who starve can
> > > blame local politics and distribution.
> >
> > ..you're naive, they're too busy looking for food. ;-)
> >
> > --
> > ..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.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gasification mailing list
> > Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> > http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
From santo at poczta.fm Sat Aug 28 13:06:24 2004
From: santo at poczta.fm (Krzysztof Lis)
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 20:06:24 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Re[2]: Dear Mr. Moderator - Help!
In-Reply-To: <00a701c48ce6$6c6a77a0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
References: <014e01c48aa1$7b6ec040$da0cc13f@SFKC.GOV.KH>
<00a701c48ce6$6c6a77a0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
Message-ID: <1422148933.20040828200624@poczta.fm>
Good day to All!!
T> SPARK ENGINES SHOULD HAVE A COMPRESSION RATIO OF ~12/1 AND HIGH
T> SPARK ADVANCE BECAUSE PRODUCER GAS HAS AN OCTANE OF 180 AND BURNS
T> VERY SLOWLY.? THIS RECOVERS MOST OF THE TYPICAL 30% POWER LOSS WHEN
T> LOW COMPRESSION GASOLINE ENGINES ARE CONVERTED TO PRODUCER GAS
Do you mean that by increacing CR of an IC engine and advancing spark
after the engine being fueled by wood gas will allow to reduce the po-
wer loss? To what level?
I plan someday to have wood gas generator built to fuel my fiat 126p
(650 ccm / 40 cubic inches, two cylinder, four-stroke, 24 HP) and add
to the engine's electronic ignition system a device which will allow
me to change the ignition advance from the driver's seat. :)
>> It was stated that motor vehicle gasifiers didn't have the
>> bridging problem because of the vibration, wouldn't it be possible
>> to simulate the same with a vibrator on the feed hopper??
T> ?
T> I ATTRIBUTE THE SUCCESS OF THE MILLION GASIFIERS IN WWII TO
T> BUMPY ROADS (AND SHELL HOLES?).? I RECOMMEND THAT ALL STATIONARY
T> GASIFIERS SHOULD HAVE A VIBRATOR.
From a book "Gazogeneratory samochodowe" ("Gas generators for automo-
biles") by A.Tuszynski, 1954 or something like this:
"Practice shown frequent failures of suspension's springs. It's
because of drivers agitate the fuel inside fuel hopper in somewhat pe-
culiar way -- from time to time while driving on a bumpy road they
increase speed, to create strong shocks / vibrations and cause the
fuel to move down in the furnace."
--
Best regards,
Krzysztof Lis / Poland
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Portal INTERIA.PL zaprasza... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f17cb
From greenguy99 at juno.com Sun Aug 29 12:17:46 2004
From: greenguy99 at juno.com (greenguy99 at juno.com)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 12:17:46 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Re: Food vs Fuel vs Waste
Message-ID: <20040829.121746.1420.0.greenguy99@juno.com>
Previous coments:
"....However, I have heard from responsible agronomists that too much
residue
re-appication acts as a "negative fertilizer" so that fertilizer for next
year's crops is used instead to help the bacteria. Therefore, farmers in
many areas remove these residues from the fields (and burn them if
permitted) to get ready for next year's crops.
I hope we will hear many opinions from responsible agronomists on this
topic, because it is a key issue in the use of surplus ag-residues,
particularly for ag activities such as making ammonia and fuel. And
using
ag-residues responsibly can double the amount of biomass available to
humans."
When ag residues are left on the field, they do help woth
erosion....however to much residue can be a detriment....
It takes nitrogen to break down the residue, nitrogen whcih is needed for
the subsequent crop. While there must be organic matter left in the
soil, there must also be a balance.
The basic premise of feeding the plant with only NPK to grow a crop is
incorrect. We should feed the soil and keep it balanced. It in turn
will give us subanstially better (in terms of nutritional value) crops.
Before the mold-board plow ravaged the Plains, fires would periodically
sweep across the vast area....this released and made available vast
amounts of nutrients which lead to greater growth. Earthworm populations
were high, organic matter was substantial and a natural system was in
balance. With gasification of biomass, the ash portion should be
returned to the soil. We should look to feed the natural system and not
try to put all the nutrients from artificial sources.
We must to return to balance in order to promote sustainability.
greenguy99
From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Sun Aug 29 12:30:08 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:30:08 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
References: <1c5.1d06d91e.2e5ea149@aol.com><412D5C29.5030206@zuper.net><008f01c48c37$5df95dd0$3201a8c0@OFFICE><20040828032257.2f0e4cfe.arnt@c2i.net>
<00a801c48d2e$f9b04f70$d7c0f204@7k6rv21>
<01b801c48de0$761c8db0$3401a8c0@TOMBREED>
Message-ID: <003601c48ded$d57f45b0$37bdf204@7k6rv21>
Tom,
Having recently completed the world's largest composting project (the
Willamette Valley of OR) approaching 2.0 million tons of ag waste per year
being put back onto 400,000 acres, I can speak with some experience on this
matter. I have received calls from the farmers who are doing the composting
reporting they are using less fertilizer, less herbicide, less diesel fuel
(increased soil tilth) and increased yields. I didn't change anything - I
just redirected them back to the way nature had worked out the crop residue
recycling system and their cropping system became better optimized.
The condition of "negative fertilizer" that you refer to is where the soils
are being used beyond nature's ability to provide sufficient nitrogen for
plant decomposition. Natural nitrogen (normally supplied by nature such as
in unfarmed prairie areas) is supplied by rainfall, animal manure and green
plants falling to the soil - man adds additional nitrogen in the form of
fertilizer. Nitrogen acts like a catalyst in the decomposition of plant
residues for the bacteria to eat and digest the cellulose. Since bacteria
have very small mouths, water is needed to solublize the nutrients so they
become a floating film on the surface to plant residue to become "plant
soup" for the bacteria to eat. Without water AND nitrogen, the system fails
and the plant residues will not decompose in a normal crop year and they
accumulate. NOW you have a problem! The carbon content of the soil
increases which further requires more nitrogen to decompose and a new life
axiom begins to take over.
The axiom is "if there is a competition for available nitrogen between
growth and decomposition, decomposition wins every time". So if you are
attempting to grow crops in soil which has large amounts of actively
decomposing plant matter - good luck, you will need it if you want the next
crop immediately. This explains the "negative fertilizer" condition that
you refer to where planting new crops in decomposing residues can result in
a decreased in plant growth of the new crop. I have concluded that this law
is necessary because if it were not that way, we would be up to our butts in
decomposing residue and new plants would not get available sunlight
necessary to grow. Ahh nature, it had it figured out so long ago.....
Moisture is a very critical issue because the bacteria can only eat
solubilzed "plant soup" in their decomposition of crop residues. So even
irrigation, unless applied often, does not provide sufficient moisture for
the time required to solublize the carbon before it dries out again. Only
soil moisture is normally retained and there is no direct path for the
microbes to reach the food that a full residue load represents (lying ABOVE
the soil) and will take a very long time to decompose. The solution is to
have the residue in intimate contact with the soil by discing some of the
dirt over the top of the residue to help pack it down and act as a well
distributed source of bacteria for the decomposition. Now the water can
have sufficient time to dissolve the cellulose carbon, there are bacteria in
the area and nitrogen from rainfall and the soil to act as a catalyst. The
system is near the surface where the faster aerobic bacteria can perform as
compared to below the surface where the slower anaerobic bacteria live. NOW
the system works.
Making 20 insecticide applications per year as a means of crop control and
saying it does not affect the natural bacterial levels is like saying
shooting a shotgun into a crowd only hits people between the ages of 20 -
22. A single desired effect of an insecticide may be very well known but
ALL of the collateral effects are NOT KNOWN. Growth progresses at the rate
of a limiting condition whether it is nitrogen, iron, moisture, plant
available foods, etc. Healthy living soil bacteria affect all of these
feedstocks. Plant residues represent all of the minerals and plant foods
necessary to produce the previous crop and we are less than smart not to use
them to produce the next crop.
I am sorry to take so much space to vent my passion but thank you for
reading it.
Art Krenzel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Reed" <tombreed at comcast.net>
To: "Art Krenzel" <phoenix98604 at earthlink.net>;
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>; "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
> Dear Art, Tom Miles and All:
>
> I appreciate your concerns about returning some fraction of agricultural
> residues to the soil for maximum sustainability, and would have opposed
use
> of Ag resudues 25 years ago.
>
> However, I have heard from responsible agronomists that too much residue
> re-appication acts as a "negative fertilizer" so that fertilizer for next
> year's crops is used instead to help the bacteria. Therefore, farmers in
> many areas remove these residues from the fields (and burn them if
> permitted) to get ready for next year's crops.
>
> I hope we will hear many opinions from responsible agronomists on this
> topic, because it is a key issue in the use of surplus ag-residues,
> particularly for ag activities such as making ammonia and fuel. And using
> ag-residues responsibly can double the amount of biomass available to
> humans.
>
> What a benefit to have so many experts here at GASIFICATION and STOVES!
>
> COMMENTS?
>
> Your pal, TOM REED
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Art Krenzel" <phoenix98604 at earthlink.net>
> To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 12:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
>
>
> > I am one of those who's concern becomes elevated when the issue of "food
> vs
> > fuel" is raised. But, I have found middle ground which does not attack
> > gasification.
> >
> > I am comfortable with gasification being used in non-ag products such as
> > trees etc. however the residues from food production should be returned
to
> > the soil as soil amendment to benefit the ensuing crops. These residues
> > represent the feedstocks for the soil bacteria which is necessary to
> > maintain the sustainability of the soil. Without sustainability of the
> > soil, we will need better teeth and digestion systems to live on forest
> > products if the soil fails.
> >
> > Biogas generation spans the issue since it recovers a portion of the
> energy
> > from high quality food wastes as biogas and the remainder of the biomass
> > goes into soil amendment. Trees are a poor choice for biogas production
> due
> > to limited solubility and higher percentage of lignin when compared to
> > products such as potatoes.
> >
> > I am currently involved in setting up a project which recovers separated
> > organic waste currently going to landfills (up to 26% of the waste
> stream).
> > This process dissolves the easily soluble components from the source
> > separated waste stream, which are bio-digested into biogas and then
> > recovering the less soluble solids and waste liquids as compost. The
> > process is thermophilic so the concerns for human pathogens is low to
> > non-existent and it recycles a high percentage of water to reduce the
> water
> > input requirements.
> >
> > Now my world hums along and my dander is under control.
> >
> > Tom Reed - I still love gasification but have attained more balance in
my
> > life. :-)
> >
> > Art Krenzel
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt at c2i.net>
> > To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> > Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 6:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
> >
> >
> > > On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 07:11:24 -0600, TBReed wrote in message
> > > <008f01c48c37$5df95dd0$3201a8c0 at OFFICE>:
> > >
> > > > Dear All;
> > > >
> > > > The catch-phrase "Food vs Fuel" caught my eye in the exchange below.
> > > > I believe it originated in the "gasohol" days when it was perceived
> > > > that making ethanol for our cars was "wicked" when there were
starving
> > > > people in the world. This is naive, since most of the world suffers
> > > > from overproduction of food (and overeating) and those who starve
can
> > > > blame local politics and distribution.
> > >
> > > ..you're naive, they're too busy looking for food. ;-)
> > >
> > > --
> > > ..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.
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Gasification mailing list
> > > Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> > > http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gasification mailing list
> > Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> > http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
From CAVM at aol.com Sun Aug 29 13:12:34 2004
From: CAVM at aol.com (CAVM at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:12:34 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
Message-ID: <ba.5ee40ed1.2e637692@aol.com>
While not an expert, I have worked as a farm consultant and researcher for 20
years. It is generally held that, from the view of the soil, the best use of
crop residue it to burn it on the fields, thereby making mineral nutrients
readily available to the soil. The second best use is to allow it to remain on
the field untouched. Third is to plow or disc it in, this is third because of
the compaction caused to the sold by running equipment over it. Last in
order of preference is to remove if from the soil for whatever use.
However, the economics of removing the crop residue may outweigh the
advantages of leaving it under what ever conditions. The feed value of residue is
usually very low but its fuel value can be high. Compared to the equivalent
value of petroleum fuels the biomass of crop residue can me very desirable as an
alternative fuel. And the ash can be returned to the soil providing the
highest use of the crop residue after its alternative use.
Neal Van Milligen
www.kentuckenrichment.com
cavm at aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040829/c9c41744/attachment.html
From LINVENT at aol.com Sun Aug 29 14:00:29 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:00:29 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
Message-ID: <da.12af7e6b.2e6381cd@aol.com>
When organic matter is continuously applied to the soil, dilution of certain
nutrients occurs and excesses of others is seen. Iron, Mn, B, Cu, Zn are often
depressed in uptake and absolute levels. It takes some time to see these
results.
The real serious offender is phosphate excess accumulation. It takes a
few years to see this, but all of the original benefits are lost when this
elements shuts down microbial activity, cation exchange, water migration, serious
nutrient deficiencies arise and the soil goes dead. Wait a few years and all of
the organic matter will destroy the now fertile soils. Seen it happen lots of
times.
Sincerely,
Leland T. Taylor
President
Agronics Inc.
Address: 7100-E 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, NM 87107 phone: 505-761-1454, fax;
505-341-0424 website: agronicsinc.com
To download attachments, go to Aladdin.com and download unstuffit for
decompressing files
From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Sun Aug 29 14:14:33 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 12:14:33 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
References: <da.12af7e6b.2e6381cd@aol.com>
Message-ID: <007101c48dfc$6bfd3d90$37bdf204@7k6rv21>
Leland,
If repeated applications of organic matter produced in place were as
negative as you say, there would have been no grass on the American Prairies
which had total recycling for thousands of years. Burning converts the
metals in the residue to water soluble metal oxides so the new plant roots
have this material as well as soil available metals to grow with thus to
creating the observed "fertilizer"effect attributed to burning.
The plants do not produce NEW nutrients, they use the nutrients from the
soil and when you recycle them, they get used again.
The phosphate issue you bring up results from the continuous use of
phosphate based supplemental fertilizer. Be more selective in your
fertilizer and things will be in your favor.
Work with nature instead of fighting it - Then you will realize that you are
actually the smaller partner in the relationship.
Art
----- Original Message -----
From: <LINVENT at aol.com>
To: <phoenix98604 at earthlink.net>; <tombreed at comcast.net>;
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>; <tmiles at trmiles.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
> When organic matter is continuously applied to the soil, dilution of
certain
> nutrients occurs and excesses of others is seen. Iron, Mn, B, Cu, Zn are
often
> depressed in uptake and absolute levels. It takes some time to see these
> results.
> The real serious offender is phosphate excess accumulation. It takes a
> few years to see this, but all of the original benefits are lost when this
> elements shuts down microbial activity, cation exchange, water migration,
serious
> nutrient deficiencies arise and the soil goes dead. Wait a few years and
all of
> the organic matter will destroy the now fertile soils. Seen it happen lots
of
> times.
>
> Sincerely,
> Leland T. Taylor
> President
> Agronics Inc.
> Address: 7100-E 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, NM 87107 phone: 505-761-1454, fax;
> 505-341-0424 website: agronicsinc.com
> To download attachments, go to Aladdin.com and download unstuffit for
> decompressing files
>
From LWheeler45 at aol.com Sun Aug 29 14:35:17 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:35:17 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] please post for feedback
Message-ID: <15b.3ddc695f.2e6389f5@aol.com>
This is my citrus analysis of citrus WET...from an accomplished PE chemical
engineer that does ethanol production designs using low acid reduction. I am
looking for other options and validated efficiencies
Leonard:
With moisture content @ 82.5% ave; it's a potential feedstock that is
great for slurrys.
On dry basis, it's about:
Sugars = 34%; Pectin = 23%; Hemi-Cell = 9%; Cell = 12.2%
w/ lignin =5% (for vanilia, not fuel.
Carbohydrates = 78.2; which are 34% sugars; 55.2% poly-sugars; which
can probably be dach hydrolyzed up-to-about 61.3% sugars, on a dry basis
(w/out moisture).
All of which could become fermentable sugars; which can be used for
ethanol production. (Certainly, it's been used for "white-lightning"
production, in the hills.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040829/28119f3a/attachment.html
From LWheeler45 at aol.com Sun Aug 29 14:37:40 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:37:40 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Fwd: Citrus breakout from citrus producer Please post
Message-ID: <99.4b8764f4.2e638a84@aol.com>
Leonard, Hopefully this answers most of the questions posed by Ed L. Residue
Composition-(%Wet Wt.) Orange (O) & Grapefruit (G)-Water for both 80-85%,
Sugars for both 5-7%, Pectin O ~3.7% & G ~4.4%, Hemicellulose O~1.8% & G~ 1.4%,
Cellulose O~3.8% & G ~2.6% , Lignin O~.3% & G~ 1.2%. Since most residue is
either pellatized for cattle feed or a much smaller volume trucked to local
pasture fields for wet cattle feed the form of shipment and the how to ship to the
ethanol plant would have to be worked out.I would think the cost would have to
be worked out with the individual processors
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040829/4eb1487f/attachment.html
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com
Subject: Citrus breakout
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:24:25 EDT
Size: 2007
Url: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040829/4eb1487f/attachment.mht
From gjahnke at birch.net Sun Aug 29 16:01:18 2004
From: gjahnke at birch.net (Greg Jahnke)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 21:01:18 -0000
Subject: [Gasification] Re[2]: Dear Mr. Moderator - Help!
References: <014e01c48aa1$7b6ec040$da0cc13f@SFKC.GOV.KH><00a701c48ce6$6c6a77a0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
<1422148933.20040828200624@poczta.fm>
Message-ID: <000c01c07438$97381700$ac28d4d8@shop>
Do you mean that by increacing CR of an IC engine and advancing spark
after the engine being fueled by wood gas will allow to reduce the po-
wer loss? To what level?
=======I am running a chevy straight 6 (stationary) using a gengas inspired
gasifier. I had the head planed down and installed domed pistons to raise
the compression ratio and added a turbocharger. On the dyno, the engine
shows a higher top end horsepower than it did stock running gasoline.
There seems to be a slight lag when it comes to throttle response, but
nothing too terrible (I weighted the flywheel to make up for it, as I am
using the engine to drive a 40KW alternator).
From LINVENT at aol.com Sun Aug 29 22:58:41 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 23:58:41 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
Message-ID: <1d7.2a0bf876.2e63fff1@aol.com>
In a message dated 8/29/04 9:14:54 PM, phoenix98604 at earthlink.net writes:
<< Leland,
If repeated applications of organic matter produced in place were as
negative as you say, there would have been no grass on the American Prairies
which had total recycling for thousands of years. Burning converts the
metals in the residue to water soluble metal oxides so the new plant roots
have this material as well as soil available metals to grow with thus to
creating the observed "fertilizer"effect attributed to burning.
The plants do not produce NEW nutrients, they use the nutrients from the
soil and when you recycle them, they get used again.
The phosphate issue you bring up results from the continuous use of
phosphate based supplemental fertilizer. Be more selective in your
fertilizer and things will be in your favor.
Work with nature instead of fighting it - Then you will realize that you are
actually the smaller partner in the relationship.
Art >>
If the praries were productive enough to support economic activities as are
now required in modern farming economics, then your theory would be true.
Prairies supported minimal total organic or edible feedstock, not the high level of
production required in today's ag economics. Various chemical factors such as
differing solubility rates of various nutrients, migration and overall
reaction with other nutrients prevents the pure recycling of organic matter to be
useful. If you are composting and then adding it to the soils, you are violating
your own standard of the prarie where the indigenous organic matter is
maintained and bringing in additional organic matter. Composting, green manuring,
and the like work for a couple of years and then production drops. I have seen
this repeatedly with organic farming operations where their intake is limited
to organic residues, composted or not. I have also seen aluminum uptake in
plants skyrocket from organic material applications and growers actually kill
crops using phosphate fertilizers.
I am not fighting your concept, just as with any complex system, aware of
the nuances and limitations which they have and after 30+years working with
ag systems, know that there are no simple magic bullets which last forever.
Each system has it's limitations and has to be accomodated/adapted if high levels
of production are desired.
Sincerely,
Leland T. Taylor
President
Agronics Inc.
Address: 7100-E 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, NM 87107 phone: 505-761-1454, fax;
505-341-0424 website: agronicsinc.com
To download attachments, go to Aladdin.com and download unstuffit for
decompressing files
From LWheeler45 at aol.com Sun Aug 29 23:02:17 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:02:17 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] please post for group imputs
Message-ID: <104.4f740975.2e6400c9@aol.com>
In discussions with members the IC engine is the power plant of choice for
the gas that is being produced. Clearly turbines are more efficient and better
suited. Is there anyone with a system for using this gas that has achieved any
success with turbine power? See the info on efficiencies provided. Leonard
2.3.2.3. Turbines
There are currently several coal-powered gas plants that operate on coal
gasification (IGCC), which uses considerable amounts of hydrogen in the fuel.The
combustion chamber concept developed for syngas from coal gasification is well
suited for fuel with a high content of hydrogen (syngas: synthesis gas;
mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen). The usability of hydrogen in turbines has
been verified by several turbine manufacturers, notably GE. Currently cheaper
than fuel cells, turbines may be considered a transitional technology. Norsk
Hydro?s ?Hydrokraft? concept was based on electric power production with
turbines and hydrogen. This is elaborated on in the section on removal of CO2 in
Chapter 4.
2.3.2.4. Hybrids
By integrating solid oxide fuel cell technology with turbines, the electrical
efficiency of a gas power plant can reach up to 80% under optimum
conditions.Fuel cells alone have the potential to utilise 60% of the energy in the fuel.
The rest is lost in the form of low quality heat, but also because the fuel
cells are not capable of utilising all the fuel. The excess fuel in the exhaust
gas can be used however with the help of gas turbines. Such a plant would
still produce NOx unless pure O2 is used in the afterburner, but to a lesser
degree than in a conventional power plant. Siemens Westinghouse has started a 220
kW SOFC micro turbine ?hybrid? system at the University of California in
Irvine. This is the first of its kind and the efficiency is 52-53%. A 550 kW system
is under development.
: www.bellona.no : Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge
Information: info at bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster at bellona.no
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141
Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040830/3e8e552d/attachment.html
From LWheeler45 at aol.com Mon Aug 30 00:07:55 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 01:07:55 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] please post
Message-ID: <1e.325932ef.2e64102b@aol.com>
This is what I am talking about by high efficiency biomass turbines Leonard
Siemens-Westinghouse Power Corp., Orlando, FL, will pursue a modular gas
turbine with new "enabling" technologies in a single, low-cost system design that
holds worldwide applications. The turbine is to operate on natural gas as well
as a syngas derived from coal or biomass, and can be integrated into a fuel
cell/turbine hybrid system to reach efficiency levels mandated by the Vision 21
program. Proposed DOE award: $571,000; corporate share: $245,000.
-End of TechLine-
For more information, contact:
Hattie Wolfe, DOE Office of Fossil Energy, (202) 586-6503, e-mail:
hattie.wolfe at hq.doe.gov
Technical contacts at the National Energy Technology Laboratory:
Abbie W. Layne, 304/285-4603, e-mail alayne at netl.doe.gov
or
Charles T. Alsup, 304/285-5432, e-mail calsup at netl.doe.gov
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040830/e30e4302/attachment.html
From tombreed at comcast.net Mon Aug 30 08:52:32 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 07:52:32 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Re[2]: Dear Mr. Moderator - Help!
References: <014e01c48aa1$7b6ec040$da0cc13f@SFKC.GOV.KH><00a701c48ce6$6c6a77a0$3201a8c0@OFFICE><1422148933.20040828200624@poczta.fm>
<000c01c07438$97381700$ac28d4d8@shop>
Message-ID: <007601c48e98$992a0ea0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
Dear Greg and All:
Nice to see theory of CR vs. Power and Efficiency verified experimentally.
Congratulations. Too bad not all power gasifiers don't take this step. Our
reputation would improve! We recently shaved 0.080 inches off the head of
our 5 kW Honda motor generator and noticed a major improvement.
TOM REED
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Jahnke" <gjahnke at birch.net>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Re[2]: Dear Mr. Moderator - Help!
> Do you mean that by increacing CR of an IC engine and advancing spark
> after the engine being fueled by wood gas will allow to reduce the po-
> wer loss? To what level?
>
> =======I am running a chevy straight 6 (stationary) using a gengas
inspired
> gasifier. I had the head planed down and installed domed pistons to raise
> the compression ratio and added a turbocharger. On the dyno, the engine
> shows a higher top end horsepower than it did stock running gasoline.
>
> There seems to be a slight lag when it comes to throttle response, but
> nothing too terrible (I weighted the flywheel to make up for it, as I am
> using the engine to drive a 40KW alternator).
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
From Bryan.Willson at ColoState.Edu Mon Aug 30 09:22:07 2004
From: Bryan.Willson at ColoState.Edu (Bryan Willson)
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:22:07 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Engine Effiency on Gasified Biomass
In-Reply-To: <007601c48e98$992a0ea0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
Message-ID: <200408301422.i7UEM3c165794@lamar.colostate.edu>
This brings up an issue dear to my heart. As an "Engines Guy" who monitors
the gasifier listserve, I believe that improving there is huge room for
improving the efficiency of the end-use generator. Standard small engines
are not made for high-efficiency, but can achieve much higher efficiency if
the application warrants. It's not unrealistic to think that the efficiency
of a 5 kW generator, nominally 20%-25%, can be boosted to 30%-35%+. I
suspect the cost of increasing gasifier effiency by this same ratio would be
much higher.
Our lab works with ultra-lean burn natural gas engines, giving them some of
the characteristics of engines operating on producer gas. Some of the
engines we work with are huge (one engine in our lab has pistons 46 cm in
diameter), but some are modest. For engines around 500 kW, 40% effiency is
not remarkable, and were currently working as part of a large project to
boost the efficiency to 50% overall. This isn't that remarkable - marine
diesel engines are in the range of 65% efficiency, although their large size
and slow speed gives them a boost up in effiency.
Several tricks: increased compression ratio, optimized timing, individual
cylinder optimization, detonation feedback, optimized air/fuel control,
reduced pumping losses, reduced ring friction, reduced valvetrain friction,
improved bearings, overexpanded cycles (i.e. Miller cycle), improved
ignition (diesel pilot ignition, precombustion chambers, torch chambers),
enhanced turbulence (swirl, tumble, squish), turbocompounding, etc. And
that's even before getting to some of the more exotic things our lab is
working with.
Hopefully, some day we'll get a projectin place to allow us to apply some of
our "engine tricks" to an engine operating on gasified biomass.
______________________________________
______________________________________
Dr. Bryan Willson
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Research Director, Engines & Energy Conversion Laboratory
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523-1374
Phone: (970)-491-4783
Mobile: (970)-227-5164
Text Messaging: 9702275164 at mobile.att.net
EECL Web Site: www.engr.colostate.edu/eecl/
Alternate Engines Lab Contact: Ms. Kathy Nugent - (970)-491-4785
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org [mailto:gasification-
> bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of TBReed
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 7:53 AM
> To: Greg Jahnke; GASIFICATION at listserv.repp.org; Robb Walt
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Re[2]: Dear Mr. Moderator - Help!
>
> Dear Greg and All:
>
> Nice to see theory of CR vs. Power and Efficiency verified experimentally.
> Congratulations. Too bad not all power gasifiers don't take this step.
> Our
> reputation would improve! We recently shaved 0.080 inches off the head of
> our 5 kW Honda motor generator and noticed a major improvement.
>
> TOM REED
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Greg Jahnke" <gjahnke at birch.net>
> To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 3:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Re[2]: Dear Mr. Moderator - Help!
>
>
> > Do you mean that by increacing CR of an IC engine and advancing spark
> > after the engine being fueled by wood gas will allow to reduce the po-
> > wer loss? To what level?
> >
> > =======I am running a chevy straight 6 (stationary) using a gengas
> inspired
> > gasifier. I had the head planed down and installed domed pistons to
> raise
> > the compression ratio and added a turbocharger. On the dyno, the engine
> > shows a higher top end horsepower than it did stock running gasoline.
> >
> > There seems to be a slight lag when it comes to throttle response, but
> > nothing too terrible (I weighted the flywheel to make up for it, as I am
> > using the engine to drive a 40KW alternator).
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gasification mailing list
> > Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> > http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
From LINVENT at aol.com Mon Aug 30 10:30:50 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:30:50 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Re[2]: Dear Mr. Moderator - Help!
Message-ID: <f4.3f941c57.2e64a22a@aol.com>
engine vs. turbine operations: turbines are not more efficient than engines.
Caterpillar's natural gas engine has a heat rate as low as 8650 btu/kwhr.
Turbines are typically in the range of 10,000-15,000, the GE low-BTU turbines in
the upper range. Increasing compression, fuel air charge, lower temperature of
the air:fuel mixture all increase efficiency. It is doubtful if turbines will
ever get to this efficiency and waste heat combined cycle is the only way to
approach IC engine single cycle efficiency but, IC engines can also be combined
cycled.
Tom Reed's comment about quantifying data is very salient. Sometimes it
is more expensive to do this than it is to operate a gasification system. The
sublety in this statement is getting a gasifier to operate well enough to use
it for quantification work. Additionally, any valid quantification work is done
by third parties and this is $.
Leland T. Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
7100-F 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107 Phone: 505-761-5633, fax:
341-0424, website: thermogenics.com.
In order to read the compressed files forwarded under AOL, it is necessary to
download Aladdin's freeware Unstuffit at
http://www.stuffit.com/expander/index.html
From snkm at btl.net Mon Aug 30 11:06:38 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:06:38 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Re[2]: Dear Mr. Moderator - Help!
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20040830100501.00aa2d60@pop.btl.net>
"Mechanical" efficiencies -- not plant efficiencies!!
You big exotic turbines top out at 85%. Say 100 megawatts and up.
Old style Uniflow piston steam engines got 90% -- and under 100 kwh sizes!
Small turbines -- 500 kw and less -- good if the break 55%
Turbo extractors -- as used in the Ormat systems -- maybe 75% -- maybe less
-- in one megawatt and up sizes??
Probably 60% or 65% at 250 kw size???
These all externally expanded vapor engines. Not internal combustion!
To give a perspective of small piston vapor devices -- consider your normal
refrigerator compressor.
Basically -- what you see there you would get with an ORC system --
refrigerant working fluid -- hermetically sealed -- small -- economic --
and ten plus years maintenance free operation.
No changes of engine oil -- etc.
One can easily visualize a small ORC power plant -- say 3 kw -- costing
less than $250 US if produced in quantities. As in just adapting present
state of the art refrigeration compressors. This does not include condenser
-- feed pump -- etc -- but that two is found in the refrigeration domain.
The boiler is also extra expense -- but do like ORMAT does -- use a zero
pressure oil bath "boiler" to transfer heat to ORC device -- where a heat
exchanger flashes refrigerant working fluid to high pressure vapor.
Now -- you can use any thermal gasifier design to run this -- get 30% plus
- easy - over all plant efficiencies -- and have small systems for probably
less than $500 US per kwh capital costs.
No scheduled tear downs -- not changing engine oil -- no cleaning tars --
etc -- etc --etc.
Certainly -- one should be able to market such at less than $1000 per kwh
cost -- including the thermal gasifier.
And burn anything for fuel!!
(AKA -- look at how the Hurst Boiler works)
Further -- this same system easily upgrades to larger power plants -- to 50
kwh. Using present state of the art -- piston driven -- "chiller" compressors.
We do have viable alternatives -- but we lack interest in stepping over
that line drawn in the sand.
Mainly cause these days -- everyone that does -- gets wacked!!
Eventually 3rd world will feel a need for these style devices and then
maybe they will be developed.
A 500 watt model would fill a huge market niche in 3rd world. Would be
quite small -- portable in fact.
As the stover listers must be thinking now -- perfect application for their
small furnace/stove devices -- eh??
Just stick a pot of thermal oil on top -- and away you go!!
A 750 watt refrigeration compressor would be sufficient for this application.
The motor windings probably can be adjusted to generate power -- just need
change some valving -- and add a feed pumping circuit.
Hmm -- that would require less than 500 grams of biomass per hour to
produce 500 watts "E" power.
I have always believed this as "feasible" ---
Peter / Belize
At 11:30 AM 8/30/2004 EDT, LINVENT at aol.com wrote:
>engine vs. turbine operations: turbines are not more efficient than engines.
>Caterpillar's natural gas engine has a heat rate as low as 8650 btu/kwhr.
>Turbines are typically in the range of 10,000-15,000, the GE low-BTU
turbines in
>the upper range. Increasing compression, fuel air charge, lower
temperature of
>the air:fuel mixture all increase efficiency. It is doubtful if turbines
will
>ever get to this efficiency and waste heat combined cycle is the only way to
>approach IC engine single cycle efficiency but, IC engines can also be
combined
>cycled.
> Tom Reed's comment about quantifying data is very salient. Sometimes it
>is more expensive to do this than it is to operate a gasification system.
The
>sublety in this statement is getting a gasifier to operate well enough to
use
>it for quantification work. Additionally, any valid quantification work is
done
>by third parties and this is $.
>
>Leland T. Taylor
>President
>Thermogenics Inc.
>7100-F 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107 Phone: 505-761-5633,
fax:
>341-0424, website: thermogenics.com.
>In order to read the compressed files forwarded under AOL, it is necessary
to
>download Aladdin's freeware Unstuffit at
>http://www.stuffit.com/expander/index.html
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
From tmiles at trmiles.com Mon Aug 30 12:20:09 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:20:09 -0700
Subject: [Bioenergy] Re: [Stoves] Fw: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs Waste
References: <E68635E5A1B47E4AB86E63E8A9FD9612514455@outlook.mainebondbank.com>
Message-ID: <010301c48eb5$e11c0070$6401a8c0@OFFICE3>
Mary Lou Gallup has correctly identified the URL for the Fiber Futures Fiber
Crop Mapping Project as :
http://www.fiberfutures.org/fibercrop/
Fiber Futures http://www.fiberfutures.org/ is a non profit organization
dedicated to the use of agricultural residues and non wood fibers. The
mapping project was part of an assessment that we did in 2001 of alternative
uses for wheat straw in Eastern Washington and Oregon. The map illustrates
the wide variability in straw residues using local agronomic criteria.
The Fiber Futures web site also has a good compendium of information on
straw utilization:
http://www.fiberfutures.org/straw/main.html
I note that the links to the Oregon Department of Agriculture pages on Smoke
Management and field burning history have changed to:
http://www.oda.state.or.us/nrd/smoke/
http://www.oda.state.or.us/nrd/smoke/WmVFBhist.html
Thanks for the correction.
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mary Lou Gallup" <mlg at mainepoweroptions.org>
To: "'Tom Miles'" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 5:06 AM
Subject: RE: [Bioenergy] Re: [Stoves] Fw: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs
Waste
> Hi Tom,
> I believe you meant http://www.fiberfutures.org/fibercrop/ not
> http://www.fibercrops.org??
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Miles [mailto:tmiles at trmiles.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 2:59 PM
> To: Tom Reed; STOVES
> Cc: The Bioenergy Discussion List
> Subject: [Bioenergy] Re: [Stoves] Fw: [Gasification] Food vs Fuel vs
> Waste
>
>
> Tom,
In Eastern Washington we
> used the best available data to identify residues that could be removed
> withouth affecting the soil using GIS techniqes http://www.fibercrops.org
> Fiber Crop Mapping Project.
From LWheeler45 at aol.com Tue Aug 31 12:59:50 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:59:50 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] http://epw.senate.gov/107th/Childress_01-29-02.pdf
please post
Message-ID: <1a3.28e6258e.2e661696@aol.com>
I found this most interesting document that I submit to the group for
discussion. It is interesting to note the interested parties.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040831/b0be2659/attachment.html
From LWheeler45 at aol.com Tue Aug 31 14:45:49 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:45:49 EDT
Subject: [Gasification]
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_EO_Energy_crop_paper_A-E-9_87916_7.pdf
Message-ID: <84.325c05cd.2e662f6d@aol.com>
PDF report on Michigan energy crops as point of reference
Question to group:
It is very apparent from my individual communications with this group that
you are very informed on your subject. Need I say impassioned?
Answer for me this question: With the efficiencies that some of the members
have obtained and the commercial validation of the process well established and
supported by even oil companies why is it the application of this proven
process has not been more evidenced in the USA and particularly in Fla?
I am without understanding why in Fla with all of the debris 200,000 tons
currently on the ground and possibly more to follow Francis and the high cost of
electrical power and the abundance of daily farm waste suitable for this
process noted in USDA studies for the last 10 years no one amongst you has
presented this technology to the agricultural interest for use in waste disposal and
power generation. Or have you?
Please advise.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040831/25e244ed/attachment.html
From dglickd at pipeline.com Tue Aug 31 15:06:52 2004
From: dglickd at pipeline.com (Dick Glick)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:06:52 -0400
Subject: [Gasification]
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_EO_Energy_crop_paper_A-E-9_87916_7.pdf
References: <84.325c05cd.2e662f6d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <00ae01c48f96$0f7d6900$0200a8c0@cframcomp>
Hello --
Your question as to, "Why not use debris?" -- generally has an all too simple answer -- collection and transportation costs -- unfortunately this is almost always the reason why, without substantial subsidies -- most biomass energy projects, those that require the above, are unprofitable.
Best, Dick
www.CorpFutRes.com
----- Original Message -----
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 3:45 PM
Subject: [Gasification] http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_EO_Energy_crop_paper_A-E-9_87916_7.pdf
PDF report on Michigan energy crops as point of reference
Question to group:
It is very apparent from my individual communications with this group that you are very informed on your subject. Need I say impassioned?
Answer for me this question: With the efficiencies that some of the members have obtained and the commercial validation of the process well established and supported by even oil companies why is it the application of this proven process has not been more evidenced in the USA and particularly in Fla?
I am without understanding why in Fla with all of the debris 200,000 tons currently on the ground and possibly more to follow Francis and the high cost of electrical power and the abundance of daily farm waste suitable for this process noted in USDA studies for the last 10 years no one amongst you has presented this technology to the agricultural interest for use in waste disposal and power generation. Or have you?
Please advise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040831/773b2348/attachment.html
From snkm at btl.net Tue Aug 31 15:10:30 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:10:30 -0600
Subject: [Gasification]
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_EO_Energy_crop_paper_A-E-9_87916_
7.pdf
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20040831140911.00aa1730@pop.btl.net>
It's not over yet -- a lot more is soon to pile up! Frances may well double
the crude supply of biomass "wastes"
We have to consider the total amount before advancing any quotes on size of
power plants -- etc.
The best solution is whole tree chippers (As the Mo-bark) -- but not sure
if enough are readily available to handle a "bonanza" of this size.
Peter / Belize
(Remembering when hurrican Iris hit here a few years back and dropped a
zillion or so tons of jungle down -- it soon rots)
At 03:45 PM 8/31/2004 EDT, LWheeler45 at aol.com wrote:
>>>>
PDF report on Michigan energy crops as point of reference
Question to group:
It is very apparent from my individual communications with this group that
you are very informed on your subject. Need I say impassioned?
Answer for me this question: With the efficiencies that some of the members
have obtained and the commercial validation of the process well established
and supported by even oil companies why is it the application of this
proven process has not been more evidenced in the USA and particularly in Fla?
I am without understanding why in Fla with all of the debris 200,000 tons
currently on the ground and possibly more to follow Francis and the high
cost of electrical power and the abundance of daily farm waste suitable for
this process noted in USDA studies for the last 10 years no one amongst you
has presented this technology to the agricultural interest for use in waste
disposal and power generation. Or have you?
Please advise.
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
From CAVM at aol.com Tue Aug 31 15:44:36 2004
From: CAVM at aol.com (CAVM at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:44:36 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Florida Power
Message-ID: <15b.3e17dc24.2e663d34@aol.com>
In a message dated 8/31/2004 2:47:05 PM Central Standard Time,
LWheeler45 at aol.com writes:
for the last 10 years no one amongst you
has presented this technology to the agricultural interest for use in waste
disposal and power generation. Or have you?
-----------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few years ago a substantial biomass plant was built in Florida based on a
contract with FL Power for the purchase of the electricity. Fl Power is said
to have cancelled the contract after the plant was built and also refused to
wheel the power elsewhere. Who else would ever build there with that
background?
Neal Van Milligen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040831/50740507/attachment.html
From dglickd at pipeline.com Tue Aug 31 18:11:30 2004
From: dglickd at pipeline.com (Dick Glick)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:11:30 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Florida Power
References: <15b.3e17dc24.2e663d34@aol.com>
Message-ID: <001101c48faf$da7e1000$0200a8c0@cframcomp>
Hello --
No excuse, but the facility was -- close to this anyway -- a $300 million facility -- bond supported, firing 70 MW bagasse -- catch those numbers realizing that bagasse would only be available 1/2 the year or not much more. Beyond that, and again no excuse, FP&L did -- under considerable pressure -- satisfy the investors at least to 90%. That's the bare facts -- but the whole story might very well contain all the elements why a large scale biomass project based on waste collection and transport -- even if 1/2 of the biomass was on site materials -- requires that the rest of the year biomass must be collected and transported in order to fire the facility the year-round.
Best, Dick
www.CorpFutRes.com
----- Original Message -----
From: CAVM at aol.com
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 4:44 PM
Subject: [Gasification] Florida Power
In a message dated 8/31/2004 2:47:05 PM Central Standard Time, LWheeler45 at aol.com writes:
for the last 10 years no one amongst you has presented this technology to the agricultural interest for use in waste disposal and power generation. Or have you?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few years ago a substantial biomass plant was built in Florida based on a contract with FL Power for the purchase of the electricity. Fl Power is said to have cancelled the contract after the plant was built and also refused to wheel the power elsewhere. Who else would ever build there with that background?
Neal Van Milligen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040831/a01be864/attachment.html
From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Tue Aug 31 18:41:09 2004
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 11:41:09 +1200
Subject: [Gasification]
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_EO_Energy_crop_paper_A-E-9_87916_7.pdf
References: <84.325c05cd.2e662f6d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <005e01c48fb4$31c69680$d18f58db@newpc>
Leonard.
<Snip>
I am without understanding why in Fla with all of the debris 200,000 tons currently on the ground and possibly more to follow Francis and the high cost of electrical power and the abundance of daily farm waste suitable for this process noted in USDA studies for the last 10 years no one amongst you has presented this technology to the agricultural interest for use in waste disposal and power generation. Or have you?
Please advise.
<Snip>
It's Quite simple. First you need to understand the technology, then build a plant to a commercial standard, followed by appropriate testing.When you get to this point, countles demonstrations, attending endless meetings and conferances, writing papers that nobody reads qualifies you to fill in a questionare for a curious researcher. Some times you even become listed in Directories that people who need our services never see!
Once we have achiened this wonderful state of capability, we then try very hard to get through the pseudo expertise barrier of administerators who cannot tell the differance between incineration and gasification. It doesn't end there, because gasifiers are lumped lot in many peoples knowledge, and this has resulted in big project falling over, both in the U.S.A. and Europe.
Most of our development work has been funded on a shoe string, in New Zealand, and for the last 27 years. Having a technology does not qualify you to enter a market any where, and the diverseness of agrcultural biomass waste is trap waiting to snare unsuspecting investors. The size of gasifiers needed for "POTENTIAL" projects in the U.S.A have to be large, and they have to work to specification. This costs money if the private $1.2 M we have spent for our project in Canada is anything to go by. Funded projects go on into oblivion in most cases, but the endless reports of how good they might have been are presented to us repeatedly by those who are just discovering this technology. [Often on this forum]
For industries who need electric power and generate waste streams that must be disposed of some where, gasification is an option looking better each day, but they also have a responsibility to clean up their own act and either fund or invest in technology most appropriate for their need. Would you invest in a company that didn't have a track record, or be able to demonstate their expertise?
As a group of expertse, those of us who can do some thing are very thin on the ground and getting older by the day. My challenge to you is put some money up front for the need you claim to have, and see who rises to the bait.
Doug Williams,
Fluidyne Gasification.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040831/e5c7d129/attachment.html
From Paul.Harris at adelaide.edu.au Tue Aug 31 19:46:50 2004
From: Paul.Harris at adelaide.edu.au (Paul Harris)
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 10:16:50 +0930
Subject: [Gasification]http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_EO_Energy_crop_paper_A-E-9_87916_7.pdf
References: <84.325c05cd.2e662f6d@aol.com>
<005e01c48fb4$31c69680$d18f58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <41351BFA.64A96158@adelaide.edu.au>
G'day All,
I detect a little cynicsm in this topic - quite rightly when a 19 yo
soccer player is involved in a 69 million pound(?) transfer, as I heard
on our radio this morning.
What about multiple small units (in a distributed system) to greatly
reduce transport costs? This may also create employment, satisfying the
"triple bottom line" but does make it hard for a few individuals to get
rich quickly (not quite the quadruple bottom line we are starting to
hear about!).
On a related topic I have a friend involved in our State Emergency
Service who is interested in disposing of animal mortalities following a
major disaster like a disease outbreak. I have picked up on a couple of
leads through this group, but thought I would throw it wider. Any
responses welcome!
Have a good day,
HOOROO
--
Mr. Paul Harris
Faculty of Sciences, DP710
The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy Campus, AUSTRALIA 5371
Ph : +61 8 8303 7880
Fax : +61 8 8303 7979
mailto:paul.harris at adelaide.edu.au
I now use "Spam Assassin" - if you do not get a reply please make
contact again (by fax?)
http://www.ees.adelaide.edu.au/people/soil/pharri01.html
Member IOBB http://www.biotech.kth.se/iobb
CRICOS Provider Number 00123M
-----------------------------------------------------------
This email message is intended only for the addressee(s)
and contains information that may be confidential and/or
copyright. If you are not the intended recipient please
notify the sender by reply email and immediately delete
this email. Use, disclosure or reproduction of this email
by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly
prohibited. No representation is made that this email or
any attachments are free of viruses. Virus scanning is
recommended and is the responsibility of the recipient.
From tmiles at trmiles.com Tue Aug 31 20:17:03 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:17:03 -0700
Subject: [Gasification]
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_EO_Energy_crop_paper_A-E-9_87916_7.pdf
References: <84.325c05cd.2e662f6d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <018e01c48fc1$70241710$6401a8c0@OFFICE3>
People in Florida seem to get excited about biomass plants every time a major hurricane comes through, recently in 1989, 1992, 2004, etc. Actually a hurricane killed a gasification demonstration in Florida by flooding the fuel prior to the banker's accceptance tests. There was no fuel dryer in the system and as I understand it the banker was not impressed that the gasifier could not handle the wet fuel. But that was years ago. . .
For a good example of a biomass plant in Florida look at the Ridge Generating Station http://www.westbioenergy.org/lessons/les14.htm
If I recall the history of the Okeelanta bagasse plant, which has been referred to, was far more complicated.
http://www.westbioenergy.org/lessons/les18.htm
Thanks to George Wiltsee and West Bioenergy for the plant profiles.
Tom Miles
----- Original Message -----
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 12:45 PM
Subject: [Gasification] http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_EO_Energy_crop_paper_A-E-9_87916_7.pdf
PDF report on Michigan energy crops as point of reference
Question to group:
It is very apparent from my individual communications with this group that you are very informed on your subject. Need I say impassioned?
Answer for me this question: With the efficiencies that some of the members have obtained and the commercial validation of the process well established and supported by even oil companies why is it the application of this proven process has not been more evidenced in the USA and particularly in Fla?
I am without understanding why in Fla with all of the debris 200,000 tons currently on the ground and possibly more to follow Francis and the high cost of electrical power and the abundance of daily farm waste suitable for this process noted in USDA studies for the last 10 years no one amongst you has presented this technology to the agricultural interest for use in waste disposal and power generation. Or have you?
Please advise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040831/be971306/attachment.html
From MMBTUPR at aol.com Tue Aug 31 22:11:51 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 23:11:51 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Florida Power
Message-ID: <15a.3e022ea8.2e6697f7@aol.com>
to Gasification List from Lewis L. Smith
If cane is to be grown for energy, then one should not worry about the %
sucrose. With an "energy-cane" management system, the weight harvested
increases enough to increase sucrose per acre, even though the % falls.
And if one is not going to worry about % sucrose, one should harvest at
ten months, with different fields on different cycles. Fuel for the rest of
the time [allowing for scheduled maintenance] can be provided by Napier grass,
the cellulosic portion of MSW and/or cane trash. If trash is not the
supplemental fuel, then the cane should be harvested whole, that is, with tops and fresh
leaves attached. [This will not turn the cane juice green !] The only trash
remaining in this case is constituted by the dried leaves which have fallen
off. These should probably be plowed under.
Hence I suspect that a big fault with this project was harvesting the
cane at six months.
Cordially.
End.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040831/f939db7e/attachment.html
From LWheeler45 at aol.com Tue Aug 31 22:19:51 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 23:19:51 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Please post You want a challenge do you.....Doug
Message-ID: <d7.137e5c4a.2e6699d7@aol.com>
Ahhhammmm ......"thin on the ground and getting older by the day" Doug
My what a lively group!
"Quick...staff my mutineer's cannon with grape this gasification crew looks
kinda mean and rowdy."
People who know me and have seen me work tend not to challenge me.
So Lets get aquatinted.
This is the current proposed project. Validated Gasification Projects ONLY
An estimated 200,000 tons of tree debris in central Fla more if the next
hurricane hits Fri. Over 50 million has been budgeted to collect and dispose of
it.
In the Fla keys 1998 the amount was 6 million the final bill was over 50.
144 miles at an average width of less than 1 mile. That is the FEMA and
state experience.
My old co workers at FEMA and the State are doubtless in quite a bind over
this Charlie projected cost growth and the season is not in full swing yet.
Tipping fees are between 25 to 120 a ton in Fla average about 40.00.
After it is all scraped and buried or burned you have lost landfill space at
$175.000 a cell and you also have lost economic base in the crops of citrus
that will not return for years.
We have studies that I can supply that show the extent of Fla waste and types
of waste in all of Fla. We in Fla have a rural agricultural base of 17
billion a year. Less this year due to Charlie.
What is needed is a way to build a sustainable Fla agricultural waste
renewable energy infrastructure out of these Debris and hurricane waste streams. NOW.
Fla is the 4th largest state soon to be the third with expected population of
20 million by 2012. We also need more drinking water and electrical power.
I have a Fla electrical needs study done for the Governor that I can send
you.
I will send you my sunshine energy proposal in PDF wherein I discussed with
the state bio mass Ethanol and plasma energy using garbage and agricultural
waste stream of Fla.
Send me e mail your presentation 4 pages MAX in Word or Word Perfect and I
will insert in my presentation your process JPEG photos and FLA proposal
engineering studies cost or interest at negotiation, etc., and PERSONALLY see that
state people who are confronted with the Fla debris decision and agricultural
problems get to look at it.
This is a FREE gift from me this 1 time. Any takers Doug ?????
Anyone with any video tapes suitable for TV News send them to me also.
I need this by this Thurs. Fri looks a bit iffy.
Leonard E. Wheeler, Jr, MPA/REM
Former State Disaster Engineer
Former Appointed Member Lake Co.. Landfill Oversight Committee
Etc....
"thin on the ground, round in the middle, and getting older by the day"
>
> As a group of expertise, those of us who can do something are very thin on
> the ground and getting older by the day. My challenge to you is put some
> money up front for the need you claim to have, and see who rises to the bait.
>
> Doug Williams,
> Fluidyne Gasification.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040831/f663744d/attachment.html
From CAVM at aol.com Tue Aug 31 22:30:03 2004
From: CAVM at aol.com (CAVM at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 23:30:03 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Please post You want a challenge do you.....Doug
Message-ID: <8b.13cf4651.2e669c3b@aol.com>
Len, depending on your priorities, composting might be as good a solution as
power. The devastated farm land could use more quality organic matter and
there is no shortage of manure to mix with the storm debris.
As for power, I would suggest a Bioten combustion unit or one like it. The
existing Bioten power plant has been bought and is being moved from TN to the
Pacific northwest, yet another can be built to produce 8-9MW for about
$7,000,000 in 8 months. It does not use steam to turn the turbine, it is a hot
air plant. It consumes about 10 tons per hour of 40% moisture biomass of your
choosing.
After that I might suggest a series of modest sized gasifiers so that the
fuel is moved as short a distance as possible. One large plant allows
significant grass roots opposition to kill the entire project. Smaller plants draw
less protest.
I am sure that medium sized gasification technology is available from this
group.
Regards,
Neal Van Milligen
_www.kentuckyenrichment.com_ (http://www.kentuckyenrichment.com)
_cavm at aol.com_ (mailto:cavm at aol.com)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040831/c4d0f3a6/attachment.html
From LWheeler45 at aol.com Tue Aug 31 23:27:37 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 00:27:37 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Thanks for your answer.... Neal Van Milligen
Message-ID: <194.2d0b7762.2e66a9b9@aol.com>
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 23:30:03 EDT
From: CAVM at aol.com
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Please post You want a challenge do
you.....Doug
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Message-ID: <8b.13cf4651.2e669c3b at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Len, depending on your priorities, composting might be as good a solution as
power. The devastated farm land could use more quality organic matter and
there is no shortage of manure to mix with the storm debris. TRUE BUT
TALLAHASSEE IS MILES AWAY. I NEED TO REPLACE AGRICULTURE LOSSES WITH AN ANNUAL
ENERGY CROP THIS YEAR, WHEN THERE IS MONEY TO PAY FOR IT.
As for power, I would suggest a Bioten combustion unit or one like it. The
existing Bioten power plant has been bought and is being moved from TN to
the
Pacific northwest, yet another can be built to produce 8-9MW
I NEED AT LEAST 20 MW @ 600 DRY TONS A day .
for about $7,000,000 in 8 months. It does not use steam to turn the
turbine, it is a hot air plant. It consumes about 10 tons per hour of 40% moisture
biomass of your choosing.
NEED MORE EFFICIENCY AND CAPACITY PER MILLION.
After that I might suggest a series of modest sized gasifiers so that the
fuel is moved as short a distance as possible. I AM NEXT TO THE JUICE PLANTS
OR ON LANDFILL SITE
One large plant allows significant grass roots opposition to kill the entire
project.
Smaller plants draw less protest. I AM THE GRASSROOTS OPPOSITION!
C.A.M.P. CITIZENS AGAINST MERCHANT POWER, LEAF, PIRG, etc.
I am sure that medium sized gasification technology is available from this
group. I too am sure that someone has what is needed .
Regards,
Neal Van Milligen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040901/8ee007ca/attachment.html
From VHarris001 at aol.com Tue Aug 31 23:39:40 2004
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 00:39:40 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Florida Debris Disposal
Message-ID: <bd.45024185.2e66ac8c@aol.com>
In the olden days, they'd open-burn the stuff. In case of emergency, such as
the economic impact of enormous volume transport and disposal, might the
government consider that again?
If not, I wonder if it might be possible to cover piles of dozer-compacted
combustible debris with a large insulative blanket, with an attached,
close-coupled, blower driven secondary combustion chamber. Slow burn the debris in the
oxygen-starved 'primary combustion chamber' formed by the earth and blanket,
and incinerate the off-gas in the high-temperature secondary combustion
chamber. After the burn, scrape to the soil surface for ash removal and disposal.
Rather than haul the debris to a central site, have many small, local,
supervised sites. Pick a flat or slightly domed spot, pile the debris, compact it
with a dozer, cover it with the blanket, and set it ablaze. The burn would be
contained and controlled, minimizing the risk of run-away, while giving a
clean secondary burn for the off-gas.
I suppose you could also consider covering the debris with earth instead of a
blanket, but that might result in insufficient oxygen, and also would require
digging out the ash for disposal.
I've heard that high-temperature ground-burns can destroy the nutritive value
of the soil. There likely are factors which might make this difficult -- or
even impossible. But perhaps it is worth examining in a disposal crisis.
Any thoughts, suggestions, critiques from list members?
Vernon Harris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20040901/32a50fcc/attachment.html
Copyright © 2006 - 2009 All Rights Reserved.
Copyright is retained by the original contributor to the discussion list or web site.
Related Sites: Bioenergy, Stoves, Renewable Carbon, BioChar (Terra Preta)