February 2004 Gasification Archive

From billkichman at COMCAST.NET Wed Feb 4 17:33:57 2004
From: billkichman at COMCAST.NET (Bill Kichman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: New member question
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.2004.173357.0500.BILLKICHMAN@COMCAST.NET>

Hi folks, I am just getting up to speed with wood gasification research, and
am interested in building a prototype gasification unit to burn in a home
cogen operation. I also have at least 5 friends interested in the topic
anxiously awaiting its progress with interest in implementing same. Here's
my question: I have located some simple plans and design info but it is very
limited, can anybody point me in the direction of other sample projects,
design or application info such that this design learning ramp-up is made
easier? Thanks for your assistance in advance

R. William Kichman, P.E.
Kichman Engineering Associates
103 Old Furnace Road
Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
tel/fax 717/270-0714

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Wed Feb 4 20:41:01 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: New member question
Message-ID: <WED.4.FEB.2004.204101.0500.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Bill,

For general gasification references see:
http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html

For some how-to articles and demonstrations look at the links in the
Publications and Research section of the 200 kWe CHP Gasficiations Systems
page at:
http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html

Regards,

Tom Miles

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:33:57 -0500, Bill Kichman <billkichman@COMCAST.NET>
wrote:

>Hi folks, I am just getting up to speed with wood gasification research,
and
>am interested in building a prototype gasification unit to burn in a home
>cogen operation. I also have at least 5 friends interested in the topic
>anxiously awaiting its progress with interest in implementing same.
Here's
>my question: I have located some simple plans and design info but it is
very
>limited, can anybody point me in the direction of other sample projects,
>design or application info such that this design learning ramp-up is made
>easier? Thanks for your assistance in advance
>
>R. William Kichman, P.E.
>Kichman Engineering Associates
>103 Old Furnace Road
>Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
>tel/fax 717/270-0714

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Fri Feb 6 09:02:47 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: New member question
Message-ID: <FRI.6.FEB.2004.070247.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Bill and All:

For anyone new to gasification looking for a demonstration, buy the WoodGas
CampStove at www.woodgasllc.com, run it and think about what you have seen.
It is the world's smallest gasifier, but the principles include the
largest...

Yours truly, TOM REED BEF PRESIDENT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Kichman" <billkichman@COMCAST.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 3:33 PM
Subject: [GASL] New member question

> Hi folks, I am just getting up to speed with wood gasification research,
and
> am interested in building a prototype gasification unit to burn in a home
> cogen operation. I also have at least 5 friends interested in the topic
> anxiously awaiting its progress with interest in implementing same.
Here's
> my question: I have located some simple plans and design info but it is
very
> limited, can anybody point me in the direction of other sample projects,
> design or application info such that this design learning ramp-up is made
> easier? Thanks for your assistance in advance
>
> R. William Kichman, P.E.
> Kichman Engineering Associates
> 103 Old Furnace Road
> Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
> tel/fax 717/270-0714
>

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Fri Feb 6 09:38:05 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: New member question
In-Reply-To: <IFEOJELEEFHNMELLPIHDGEDACIAA.billkichman@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <FRI.6.FEB.2004.083805.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Hello Bill, and welcome onboard!

The art of gasification, in my eyes, is almost a "black art" as magic
or slight of hand, the reason I say this, is that in my "learning" (still
a long way to go) of building & running gasifiers, no two will work the
same,
unless they are sitting side by side, and are running on the same feedstock
(Some may even dispute that also :).

Hold on, let me elaborate on that, they both will run near their calculated
or designed area's of operation, but say, one will slag more than the other,
one will have more ash content, or one might bridge, or at worst one
will channel.

All of these problems are minor (except channeling) but can be quite
aggravating to a person that is under the presumption that these "things"
work flawlessly, and are a unit with a low maintenance requirement.

I'm not saying they are a "bear" to deal with, but just giving you an idea
from an owner/operator's standpoint, that they do take some, of ones time,
to design, test, and once in the commissioning stage still require some
level of service and/or maintenance on a regular basis.

I say commissioning stage, simply because one never really "installs" a
gasifier (like say an electric furnace) rather you place it, and tend to it
somewhat like a young child.

OK, I realize it looks like I'm painting a bad picture of gasification, let
me
"set the bar" on this by using mine as an example.

Unit: Fully automated downdraft, currently heat only,
soon to be CHP unit.

Run Time: 24/7 except as noted below.

Capacity: 100-250 Kw Thermal (KwT) (3 to 1 turndown, by choice,
NOT because of poor design)

Feedstock: "sorted" wood chips from local 3rd parties, about $10 a ton
delivered, sorting is done onsite via homemade sorting machine,
when loading the hopper-bottom bin. (see below)

Consumption: 8kg. to 45kg/hr. (varies with type of feedstock also).
(approx. 16 to 50 lbs. an hour)

Requirements: Approx. 5kw electric TOTAL, (from grid or B/U generator)
for ALL pumps, fans & motors used to heat 3 buildings AND,
preheat domestic hot water for the house.

Note: There is one other electric motor (35ft auger, 5hp, 220vac)
this unit is used roughly once every 2 weeks, for a 2-3 hour
period, for loading the hopper-bottom bin, that directly
supplies the gasifier's smaller feed auger. This motor's
electrical requirement is not included in the above.

Required By Human:
Approx. every 18 days, I shut down the unit (while loading the
hopper bottom bin with a front end loader, via the sorter/35ft
auger) and do a physical inspection of nozzles, hearth, grate,
and throat, as well as re-greasing fan & auger bearings,
checking chains & belts, etc.
(total by-weekly time investment in maintenance approx. 20 min.
(not including cool-down or restart time)).

Time investment in loading the hopper-bottom bin, depends on the
level of use (low, med, high) the gasifier has been running, but is
approx. 1-4 hours per reload (approx. once every 2 weeks, shorter
during very cold periods, like the one we just had. ( Minus 40f ).

Overall Conclusion:

In my opinion, I would never go back to any fossil-fueled heat
source, the time spent doing the above has been very enlightening,
disheartening (when something didn't work as expected), joyous!
(when something does), and even just a general feeling of "a good
days job" and the knowledge that what I'm doing is actually worth
it in both the short and long run.

My very long 2 cents worth :)

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Bill Kichman
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 4:34 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: [GASL] New member question

R. William Kichman, P.E.
Kichman Engineering Associates
103 Old Furnace Road
Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
tel/fax 717/270-0714

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Wed Feb 11 09:36:35 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: ADV: ANNOUNCING ASIA/CHINA GASIFICATION MARKETS & TECHNOLOGY
Message-ID: <WED.11.FEB.2004.083635.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

I just got this, thought it might be of interest to some, and not sure if they
sent it to everyone on the list.

----- Forwarded message from Chow Sian May <marketing@cmtsp.com.sg> -----

Delivered-To: hseaver@cybershamanix.com
From: "Chow Sian May" <marketing@cmtsp.com.sg>
To: <hseaver@cybershamanix.com>
Subject: ADV: ANNOUNCING ASIA/CHINA GASIFICATION MARKETS & TECHNOLOGY
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:54:12 +0800
Reply-To: "Chow Sian May" <sianmay@cmtsp.com.sg>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Feb 2004 06:54:12.0078 (UTC) FILETIME=[DADFE8E0:01C3F06B]

Register by February 28, 2004 to enjoy US$100 off Registration Fee!
Mention Priority Code- GDM02
ASIA/CHINA GASIFICATION
Markets & Technology
1 - 2 April - Beijing CHINA

Gain vital insights about policies from Chinese officials, and global majors ChevronTexaco and Shell. Cost effectiveness of IGCC in the Chinese context will be deliberated by experts and also about how to make advanced gasification technologies work to your benefit.

Conference Highlights
Global Activities & New Developments
Project Updates in China & Asia
Coal Conversion Technology & IGCC: Plant Economics, Performance & Reliability
Applications in Refinery, Petrochemicals & Power Industries

Authoritative Panel
*State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA), PRC *China Petroleum & Chemical Corp(SINOPEC) *State Grid Corporation of China *State Development and Reform Commission, PRC (inviting) *ChevronTexaco Worldwide Power & Gasification *Singapore Syngas Pte Ltd *Institute of Coal Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences *Institute of Coal Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences *Gasification Technologies Council (USA) *Praxair, Inc. *Shell (China) Limited *GE Power Systems *Eastman Chemical Company *Nexant, Inc., A Bechtel Affiliated Company
I look forward to seeing you in April 2004.
Yours sincerely,
Sian May
Marketing Executive
Supporting Publications

Supported by

REGISTER NOW!1 person 2 person
Early Bird Fee
*Register & Pay
before 28th Feb.USD1,395USD1,195
Regular Fee USD1,495USD1,295

For complete program information and details on how to register:

click here to download the Acrobat Reader program

To update your record go to : www.cmtevents.com/update.htm
To remove your email address from our database completely, please click here.
We apologise sincerely for any inconvenience. Thank you.

----- End forwarded message -----

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

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Fri Feb 20 09:38:59 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <FRI.20.FEB.2004.073859.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Ron and Crispin Stovers and Gasifiers:

I greatly enjoyed your friendly exchange below. Here is my attempt to
resolve all conflicts at one blow.
~~~~~~
I have four children and 7 grandchildren. I worry that they will encounter
a shrinking fossil fuel supply as we continue to use Nature's limited
"birthright"supply, more than that they will face either another glacial
age or melted ice caps. Running "Out of energy" will probably create more
wars and dislocations than all past problems that civilization has faced so
far.

The global warming people may be going in the right direction (Ron's
arguments) or the wrong direction (Crispin's arguments below), but this is a
secondary issue. Ron and I have disagreed on global warming (promoted from
Boulder, CO since 1975 and now infecting the world) for 20 years. (We both
went to the same church, so had a chance to disagree often). GW and Boulder
tells us that the earth has heated up because of humans - Geologists tell us
that glacial ice cores show that the earth has been in the grip of ice ages
90% of the last million years, and we are overdue for the next glaciation.
Nature still produces much wider climate swings than we puny Humans.

Whether you vote for the Boulder or Geologists to be correct is immaterial.
If you value your posterity, we should have massive programs, particularly
in the US to slow down the exhaustion of our fossil fuels. Most of these
programs would be identical to what is recommended for fighting Global
Warming - or conserving fuels to keep warm during the (possibly) coming ice
age. (Primative Man existed pretty well through several without any fossil
fuels.)

Conflict resolved.

TOM REED BEF STOVE/GASWORKS

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Larson" <ronallarson@QWEST.NET>
To: <STOVES@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 12:24 PM
Subject: [STOVES] Fw: RE Relationships between global warming and stoves

> Stovers: I meant to send this earlier to all - as had Crispin. Any
other
> comments? Ron
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ron Larson <ronallarson@qwest.net>
> To: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispin@NEWDAWN.SZ>
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 12:10 PM
> Subject: Re: RE Relationships between global warming and stoves
>
>
> > Crispin and "stovers":
> >
> > Yesterday you responded to my same day message saying:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > > Dear Ron and Fellow Stovers
> > >
> > > Many thanks for drawing this timely article to our attention. It is
> > > available to me, far as I am from you. I would like to analyse this
> > > issue in a holistic manner so that we are not encouraging
inappropriate
> > > directions or underrating some issues.
> >
> > RWL: Crispin - it appears that you have not yet read the Sciam
> article.
> > I hope you will first read it before responding.
> > >
> > > Warming or Cooling?
> > > As a start I feel it is important to note that there seems to be no
> > > general agreement on the factual existence of 'global warming' in the
> > > sense that it is caused by the usual suspects - 'development' and all
> > > that. I am not buying into either position yet, but I do understand
the
> > > cautionary principle and I apply it equally to arguments made by those
> > > who note a cooling of the tropics and others who find a warming of the
> > > other latitudes. Pollution in general is a major concern, whether it
is
> > > heating or cooling us.
> >
> > RWL: I believe that almost everyone now agrees that there is major
> > warming going on, so I can't accept your premise that there is a real
> > man-made effect going on. Give me a source citation for your belief
that
> > this is still a valid argument for discussion.
> > >
> > > We are significantly overdue for an ice age. The most recent article
I
> > > have read on the subject holds that the gas production by the
> > > re-establishment by the 1600's of agriculture and cattle ownership in
> > > the northern hemisphere following the decimation of that population by
> > > the 'Black Death' has averted the ice age for which we are presently
> > > overdue.
> > >
> > RWL: Hansen states and I think with good authority that we have
added
> > so much to the atmosphere that there is no chance of global cooling.
The
> > cooling argument is not valid as far as I can see. Look at the Hansen
> > argument.
> >
> > > However, if countries want to agree on an international treaty that
> > > assists improvement in indoor air quality (and people's lives) and
> > > punishes polluters, it's fine by me!
> > >
> > RWL: No disagreement on IAQ. But this is an added and I think
> stronger
> > argument for getting big money into stoves.
> >
> > > Who Contributes What?
> > > Kirk Smith's presentation at the EPA conference mentioned that the
> > > figure for the 'contribution to global warming' of cooking activities
> > > was 4 to 8% (estimated). I am pretty sure this figure was based on
> > > biomass burning and did not include the contribution made by 'clean'
> > > electric cooking. In other words, the 'contribution to global
warming'
> > > made by people who cook with coal, gas and oil-fired electricity is
not
> > > included in that number, or range 4-8%.
> > >
> > RWL: I'll let Kirk respond on his statistic - but as you stated it,
> it
> > might have been for all forms of cooking. In last year's "Science"
> > Editorial, Kirk was urging replacement of biomass cooking by LNG,
propane,
> > or similar petroleum based fuel based on both IAQ and global warming
> > arguments. I think you are wrong in what Kirk meant.
> >
> > > On the face of it, this seems unfair. It seems unreasonable to call
> > > attention only to the gases produced by burning biomass for cooking
and
> > > heating, while not including in any comprehensive analysis the gases
> > > produced on behalf of electricity consumers. Do we know if
electricity
> > > is 'cleaner' than badly burned biomass? What about well burned
biomass?
> > > There are a lot of energy inefficiencies between the coal pit or the
oil
> > > well and the pot. Gas and grid systems have _massive_ energy costs in
> > > their erection and maintenance which has to be included in the
pollution
> > > gas audit.
> >
> > RWL: I think you and Kirk are on the same page. He is definitely
not
> > ignoring the global warming impact of the developed world. It is just
> that
> > his IAQ studies have shown him that most cooking is BAD for both IAQ
> > (health) and GW reasons. And yes I believe this does mean that cooking
> with
> > electricity is better for the environment than cooking on three stones
and
> > maybe even for most improved stoves. As to "well burned biomass", I am
> sure
> > he would agree that this would be better than the modern world's
> combustion
> > of coal, etal. He had nice things to say about biogas.
> > >
> > > As the permafrost of the world is starting to melt we are going to see
> > > it becoming a far larger contributor to CH4 levels as it rots. It
would
> > > be better burned as a bio-fuel, no?
> > >
> > RWL: I can't put much hope on collecting CH4 from permafrost. I
saw
> > one article recently that one group thought they could do it - but to
the
> > best of my knowledge no operating system exists, much less be economic.
> >
> > > Displaced Pollution - out of sight, out of mind?
> > > About 1/3 of humanity burns biomass, apparently, some 2.2 billion
> > > people. What is the relative contribution of the other 4.4 billion?
> > > People have to cook. Discussions I have heard on biomass burning
imply
> > > that 'burning' to get power is inherently more polluting than
> > > 'consuming' from a utility company which may not be true at all. We
> > > should be fully aware of the real implications because if we deliver
> > > electricity to everyone and double the amount of pollution in the
> > > process, we are not being very 'cautionary' or 'principled'.
> > >
> > RWL: Certainly clean biomass burning for power can be better on GW
> > terms than the coal, oil, gas option - but it can also be worse. On
this
> > list, we have to prove that burning in affordable stoves (not power) can
b
> e
> > better. I thnk most would agree that we have not yet proven this.
> > My reason for sending the Hansen summary is to say that the
> particulate
> > (soot, black carbon) side of stove emissions is worse than previously
> > acknowledged and that anyone interested in limited the GW forcing
function
> > should look at stoves as a low cost way of making improvements. We have
> > almost no-one in the international scene making this point and I claim
it
> > can be a way to get more dollars invested in what this list is devoted
to.
> >
> > > There were no calls at the ETHOS conference for people to draft plans
to
> > > get American and German and Argentine cooks to use pot heat shields
> > > around their shiny stainless steel cookware, even though they are in a
> > > far better position to pay for extra hardware than Guatemalan
villagers.
> > > What would an 'improved' General Electric cooking range look like?
What
> > > about an improved Sears Superweight stainless steel saucepan to reduce
> > > the acid rain falling over the Great Lakes?
> > >
> > RWL: Good point. I suggest we first need to do a lot of work to
show
> > that there is a positive benefit-cost ratio for that. We had a pretty
> good
> > cross-section of people working on real stoves for developing
countries -
> > but no-one able to speak for GE and other similar suppliers. I'm not
> > surprised that we didn't get to such a topic.
> >
> > > Fuel efficiency:
> > > I built a very rudimentary coal stove that cooks and heats while
> > > consuming less total coal than is required to generate and distribute
> > > and equivalent amount of electric power (in South Africa). Think
about
> > > this: Everytime someone in South Africa switches from a reasonably
well
> > > designed coal stove to electricity, their coal consumption increases.
> > > The challenge to stove builders is to see that the small stove option
> > > generates less total pollution and then to market the stoves on the
> > > basis of reducing total energy needed for a task.
> > >
> > RWL: Yes, your Vesto (and I guess a different coal-oriented stove)
> > looks very good in this regard.
> > I would like at this point to say I was very impressed by your
clever
> > way to control air input through the fuel-entry port in the "rocket"
> version
> > of your Vesto. For others who didn't or couldn't see the two different
> > stoves that Crispin brought: Crispin had a row of suspended "pendular
long
> > steel blocks" suspended from a wire in such a way that air input was
much
> > reduced but sticks could still be inserted. We agreed that a lower cost
> > version with ceramics should be tried - and that it was an applicable
> > modification of any rocket stove that should reduce the excess air
> problems
> > that some see in the Rocket. Crispin pointed out that there was some
> > preheating of the air as it entered past the "pendulae". Note that
> Crispin
> > had a very different approach from the Rocket - and was separately also
> > controlling primary and secondary air in this and the earlier
top-loading
> > Vesto.
> >
> >
> > > Stovers' Concern for Global Warming
> > > My main argument is mathematical and goes like this:
> > > - The population of the world for a long time was about 1
billion
> > > (stable).
> > > - They almost all burned biomass at a rate similar to what is
used
> > > by modern biomass-using cooks.
> > > - The present number of people burning biomass is about 2
billion
> > > (double)
> > > - This is an increase of only 1 billion above the 'stable'
number.
> > > - The net contribution to any global warming from the burning of
> > > _additional_ biomass is thus (at most) 2-4% of the total.
> >
> > RWL: Maybe - but I'd like to see a reference or computation.
> This
> > has a lot to do with the uncombusted gases in cooking - which is not a
> well
> > documented number. I think your 2-4% might be low. In places like
Sudan
> > cooking is perhaps 90% of the national energy consumption. They use
> mostly
> > charcoal - almost all produced with venting not flaring.
> >
> > > - At a present additional climate forcing of, say, 4 watts/M^2,
> > > the contribution by the consumers of biomass is 0.08 to 0.16 watts
> >
> > RWL: last number per sqm. Hansen would say your number 4 is too
high
> > today.
> >
> > > - The 1/3 of the people who, between them, contribute these 0.12
> > > (avg?) extra watts using a renewable energy source should not be held
> > > accountable for anything if the other 2/3 who contribute (per person)
> > > 1.94 watts are left out of the same sentence.
> > >
> > RWL. I know of no-one saying that this is not a problem for ALL of
> the
> > earth's inhabitants. Clearly we in the US are some at the most at
fault.
> > One problem is the US has refused (stupidly in my opinion) to sign the
> Kyoto
> > protocols because developing countries are not required to contribute
> > similarly. If Hansen is right, then perhaps stoves are one of the
lowest
> > cost means of starting to stabilize. The US might find it cheapest to
> meet
> > its quotas (if we ever sign up) by doing stove promotional work in
> > developing countries.
> > I am not sure if you might have meant 3.94 rather than 1.94 (or
change
> > earlier 4 to 2?)
> >
> > > This is not a totally fair analysis in that part of the 1.94 watts
might
> > > be used to support the lifestyle of the biomass consumers, or equally,
> > > it might be the other way round. Still, on balance, there is no
> > > defensible reason to bring 'global warming' into a discussion of
biomass
> > > cooking stoves. Biomass burning is not more than 1/33 of the problem.
> > >
> > RWL: Again to summarize: I believe GW can be a way to get more
> > attention paid to stoves (because it can be a cheap way to improve on GW
> > warming). It is an added reason, not a replacement reason. I believe
GW
> is
> > of higher concern around the world than is IAQ. (Aside - I got into
this
> > business because of a concern about desertification and deforestation
and
> > still feels that is important. But I strongly endorse IAQ as the stoves
> > driver today - thanks to Kirk Smith and a few others. If something
> attracts
> > more attention to stoves, I am willing to endorse it. What is new about
> > Hansen is that he is taling about soot - and stoves can quickly make a
> > positive change because soot has such a short lifetime in the
atmosphere.
> > I believe that the solution is more than 1/33 of the problem because
> we
> > can put more emphasis on soot - which is the #2 driver.
> >
> > > We see a lot of lousy devices, poor fuel preparation, inappropriate
> > > architecture in unhealthy and dangerous environments. Yet we should
not
> > > lose sight of the fact that this is a renewable energy source and its
> > > use should be encouraged and planned for.
> > >
> > RWL: I have said on this list that I did not think that propane,
LNG,
> > etc was the right solution. I strongly agree that improved biomass
> > combustion is a better way to go. (My reason is that I think we are
right
> > about at the peak of possible world oil production. No way that the
> > developing countries are going to be first in line when the supply can't
> > meet demand, no matter how little theywould use.)
> >
> > > So, how are we going to sell the idea of biomass fuels for the future
of
> > > mankind if we don't have better, cleaner, safer stoves? Biomass fuels
> > > get a bad rap, even though the problem is bad devices and/or bad
> > > management.
> > >
> > RWL: No disagreement from me. But another problem is that there is
> > insufficient attention to possible improvements. Agree also on your
next
> > sentence.
> >
> > > The future of mankind is green....air dried and well seasoned!
> > >
> > > Regards to all
> > > Crispin
> > >
> > > Oh! I forgot to put in the Stovers Global Warming Concern Equation
> > > (the GloWarCo as it is called in Swaziland)
> > >
> > > Formula: C = (B * M * P) / (NB * R * Rn)
> > >
> > > B = Number of biomass users (in billions)
> > > C = Concern that Stove developers should have about global warming
> > > caused biomass fuel cookstoves (absolute)
> > > M = # of mentions that efficient electric stoves (including hotplates)
> > > get during Improved Cook Stove (ICS) programs run by both do-good,
> > > do-well organizations and publicly funded initiatives
> > > NB = Number of non-biomass fuel users - assumed to be using
> > > non-renewable fuels (in billions)
> > > P = Portion of the total contribution to atmospheric gases by burning
> > > biomass
> > > R = Portion of biomass gasses that are completely recycled into new
fuel
> > > (by molecular weight)
> > > Rn = Portion of the total contribution to atmospheric gases by
> > > non-renewable fuels
> > >
> > > Calculate C For
> > > B= 2.2
> > > M = 0
> > > NB = 4.4
> > > P = 0.06 (est)
> > > R = 0.99
> > > Rn = 0.94
> > >
> > > C = (B * M * P) / (NB * R * Rn)
> > >
> > > Substituting:
> > >
> > > Amount of Concern We Should Have = (2.2 * 0 * 0.06) / (4.4 * 0.94 *
> > > 0.99) = 0 Zero!
> > >
> >
> > RWL: Obviously we only need to talk about M (being zero). The Hansen
> > argument has nothing on this, nor have I ever seen this M listed as
being
> a
> > key parameter for concern. I cannot concur that our concern about GW
> should
> > be linearly related to M as you have shown. I know I am stretching the
> > Hansen argument quite a bit to say that soot concern should/could lead
to
> > more support for better stoves. But I think it much less of a stretch
> than
> > your dismissal of his argument about a need for urgent (!) action and
your
> > claiming that GW importance is so linearly related to electric cooking
> > discussion amongst biomass stoves proponents. I think you have not yet
> > understood how much bad stoves contribute to GW and ocean surface rise
> > (especially because of soot, but all forms of incomplete combustion) and
> how
> > we can use this extension to get more international action. Your
equation
> > simply looks like a way to justify your belief that there is no
connection
> > between stoves and GW.
> > I guess we will have to agree to disagree, but here's a hope that I
> said
> > enough more to convert you.
> >
> > Ron
> >
>

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Fri Feb 20 09:39:17 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: Guideline for Tar & Particle testing
Message-ID: <FRI.20.FEB.2004.083917.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Hello GGG, Andrew, Steve, Tom, & All
(the list gets longer all the time, pheeww!)

Anyhow, 2 things.

1) Found this http://www.tarweb.net/results/pdf/guideline-3.3-v2.pdf
on the web, It is a "Standardized" method of tar & particle evaluation,
Has anyone used this method, should I adopt this method ?? on page 50
it gives a list of compounds to look for when testing (Steve, would
have been nice to know this, before I sent out for tests, wouldn't it :)

I guess what I'm asking, is "Are there any of you that are following
this method" ??

2) The "Virtual" Throat/Grate testing is going quite nicely, but will
hold off on results until I can back my findings.

Regards as always,

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Fri Feb 20 09:47:38 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (Greg Manning)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <FRI.20.FEB.2004.094738.0500.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Here, here,

Tom comes through again!!
I for one aggree whole heartedly with tom's view on this.

The cold one, up north
Greg Manning

From claush at MEK.DTU.DK Fri Feb 20 10:12:21 2004
From: claush at MEK.DTU.DK (Claus Hindsgaul)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: Guideline for Tar & Particle testing
In-Reply-To: <000701c3f7bf$52503bf0$0200a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <FRI.20.FEB.2004.161221.0100.CLAUSH@MEK.DTU.DK>

fre, 2004-02-20 kl. 15:39 skrev a31ford:
> I guess what I'm asking, is "Are there any of you that are following
> this method" ??

The tar guideline is a relatively advanced (thus expensive) method to
use for measuring tars. It goes great lengths to capture all tars with
high accuracy and low detection level. I think it is very good as a
standard for evaluation plants and consistently comparing numbers
between different plants. Here in Europe (where it was developed) it is
used for just that.

But if you want to optimise your plant and measure approximate tar
levels for different operational parameters or fuels on your plant, you
may be better off looking for something simpler that require less of
your money and time. Possibly inspired by elements from the guideline.

Claus

--
Ph.D. Student Claus Hindsgaul
CHEC, Dept. Chemical Eng. (KT), DTU
and Biomass Gasification Group, Dept. Mechanical Eng. (MEK), DTU
DTU Building 229 room 114, Phone +45 4525 2831
http://bgg.mek.dtu.dk/ and http://www.kt.dtu.dk/

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Fri Feb 20 13:03:16 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <FRI.20.FEB.2004.140316.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "TBReed" <tombreed@COMCAST.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 10:38 AM
Subject: [GASL] Conflict resolution

> Dear Ron and Crispin Stovers and Gasifiers:
>
> I greatly enjoyed your friendly exchange below. Here is my attempt to
> resolve all conflicts at one blow.
> ~~~~~~
I totally agree with your concluding paragraph, but I disagree with the
point that it resolves any differences in beliefs leading to the conflict.

1: Global Climate Change: Of course, there is "global climate change," at
least in the sense of the weather this year being different from the weather
last year. How many years of "average warmer" or "average colder" weather is
required to justify a change in definition from "Weather Change" to "Climate
Change?"

2: It does appear to me that there is "Global Warming," as evidenced by
polar ice cap melting, violence of weather patterns, rapidity and severity
of change in weather patterns, location of storm damage events, etc, but El
Nino seems to have come and gone. However, I don't know if it has been shown
Globally that we really are on a "permanently warmer plateau", as was parts
of the world in the Carboniferous Era, or if perhaps we are simply
experiencing 15 years of "warmer weather."

3: It is very far from proven that the present "global warming" is caused by
Man. Indeed, there are apparently reports on atmospheric analyses that show
higher CO2 levels in atmosphere blowing from the Ocean to Land, that in the
atmosphere blowing from Land to Ocean.

There is indeed error in the widespread thinking that "planting trees will
correct Global Warming"; apparently there is more "tree biomass in the US
now than there has been for the past 150 years. There is a very fundamental
error in the belief that CO2 from the combustion of Biomass will contribute
to a net increase in the CO2 in the biosphere.

There are some very intelligent and good spirited people on this list, with
a deep professional and personal interest in Biomass, Combustion and Climate
Change. If people with these capabilities hold differing views, then that
alone is an indication of the lack of resolution of the problem.

What you are proposing is a "No Regrets Approach". Regardless if the premise
is right or wrong, what you advocate is good in itself, and will not
aggrivate the fundamental GW/GC issue.

You may have heard the story about the Janitor in the Seismographic Lab, who
bumped into the seismograph late one night and made a large jiggle on the
recorder strip shart. The Resident Seismographer came in the next morning,
and when he saw the jiggle on the chart, then proceeded to show that there
was an earthquake on the far side of the world at that exact time. The
Science Community has within it now more people and more data than it ever
had in the past. Is it possible that perhaps some of the data is corrupt,
but that it is being used to support a particular conclusion?

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm

> I have four children and 7 grandchildren. I worry that they will
encounter
> a shrinking fossil fuel supply as we continue to use Nature's limited
> "birthright"supply, more than that they will face either another glacial
> age or melted ice caps. Running "Out of energy" will probably create more
> wars and dislocations than all past problems that civilization has faced
so
> far.
>
> The global warming people may be going in the right direction (Ron's
> arguments) or the wrong direction (Crispin's arguments below), but this is
a
> secondary issue. Ron and I have disagreed on global warming (promoted
from
> Boulder, CO since 1975 and now infecting the world) for 20 years. (We both
> went to the same church, so had a chance to disagree often). GW and
Boulder
> tells us that the earth has heated up because of humans - Geologists tell
us
> that glacial ice cores show that the earth has been in the grip of ice
ages
> 90% of the last million years, and we are overdue for the next glaciation.
> Nature still produces much wider climate swings than we puny Humans.
>
> Whether you vote for the Boulder or Geologists to be correct is
immaterial.
> If you value your posterity, we should have massive programs, particularly
> in the US to slow down the exhaustion of our fossil fuels. Most of these
> programs would be identical to what is recommended for fighting Global
> Warming - or conserving fuels to keep warm during the (possibly) coming
ice
> age. (Primative Man existed pretty well through several without any
fossil
> fuels.)
>
> Conflict resolved.
>
> TOM REED BEF STOVE/GASWORKS

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Sat Feb 21 08:11:11 2004
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: Conflict resolution
In-Reply-To: <004d01c3f7db$d6e9c950$f29a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <SAT.21.FEB.2004.131111.0000.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

There are several issues here:
1: Is there Global Climate Change?
2: If there is global climate change, is the globe warming or cooling?
3: Which , any, of the above, are due to the activities of Man?
[GGG] Or 4) If there is, whichever it is and however caused is it a good
thing, a bad thing, anything we can or should be doing anything about?
[GGG] Since the earth 's climate had been constantly slowly changing over
its whole life and Life on earth has (as a Darwinian) evolved to meet
/follow/respond to those climatic changes, should we not just be evolving
according to the climatic, social and technical changes?

Just a thought

Yours aye
Gavin

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Sat Feb 21 09:27:03 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <SAT.21.FEB.2004.102703.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Gavin

It is very good that you bring up point #4. The automatic tendency seems to
be to assume:
1: That there is GW.
2: That we are able to do something about it
and
3: It is a bad thing.

Kevin Chisholm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gavin Gulliver-Goodall" <Gavin@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Conflict resolution

> There are several issues here:
> 1: Is there Global Climate Change?
> 2: If there is global climate change, is the globe warming or cooling?
> 3: Which , any, of the above, are due to the activities of Man?
> [GGG] Or 4) If there is, whichever it is and however caused is it a good
> thing, a bad thing, anything we can or should be doing anything about?
> [GGG] Since the earth 's climate had been constantly slowly changing over
> its whole life and Life on earth has (as a Darwinian) evolved to meet
> /follow/respond to those climatic changes, should we not just be evolving
> according to the climatic, social and technical changes?
>
> Just a thought
>
> Yours aye
> Gavin

From Carefreeland at AOL.COM Sat Feb 21 11:17:28 2004
From: Carefreeland at AOL.COM (Carefreeland@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <SAT.21.FEB.2004.111728.EST.>

In a message dated 2/20/04 1:05:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,
kchisholm@ca.inter.net writes:

DD Daniel Dimiduk's Comments added to > Tom's and Kevins:
>
> >Dear Ron and Crispin Stovers and Gasifiers:
> >
> >I greatly enjoyed your friendly exchange below. Here is my attempt to
> >resolve all conflicts at one blow.
> > ~~~~~~
> I totally agree with your concluding paragraph, but I disagree with the
> point that it resolves any differences in beliefs leading to the conflict.
>
> There are several issues here:
> 1: Is there Global Climate Change?
> 2: If there is global climate change, is the globe warming or cooling?
> 3: Which , any, of the above, are due to the activities of Man?

DD Let me add # 4 Which is most important: Is any fluctuation of climate
beyond what man has experienced in the past 1000 years acceptable if it can be
avoided? Local/regional fluctuations can often cause more serious problems than
an overall change.

>
> 1: Global Climate Change: Of course, there is "global climate change," at
> least in the sense of the weather this year being different from the weather
> last year. How many years of "average warmer" or "average colder" weather is
> required to justify a change in definition from "Weather Change" to "Climate
> Change?"

DD I don't feel we have the time to wait to find this out - by that time it
will be too late.

>
> 2: It does appear to me that there is "Global Warming," as evidenced by
> polar ice cap melting, violence of weather patterns, rapidity and severity
> of change in weather patterns, location of storm damage events, etc, but El
> Nino seems to have come and gone. However, I don't know if it has been shown
> Globally that we really are on a "permanently warmer plateau", as was parts
> of the world in the Carboniferous Era, or if perhaps we are simply
> experiencing 15 years of "warmer weather."

DD The earth certainly has a considerable number of balance mechanisms at w
ork to regulate climate-most involve: evaporation, condensation, freezing
thawing and sublimation of water. Shading/ reflection of sun by clouds, and
snowcover are also involved. Others, such as ocean currents , icecap melting/ forming
and escape of subsea methane hydrates are less predictable and do not always
act as balancing mechanisms but can act as destabilizes. When climate is pushed
in one direction these mechanisms can farther amplify the push.
DD Ancient air trapped in ice cores show we are approaching levels of CO2 and
methane similar to and not seen since the carboniferous period. Even if the
long term effects have not shown themselves, the ingredients are already there
for dramatic future change. The question is how long will the stabilizers --
such as melting ice caps-continue to balance out the equation. Every square
meter no longer covered by ice and snow is a square meter absorbing more solar
energy.

> 3: It is very far from proven that the present "global warming" is caused
> by
> Man. Indeed, there are apparently reports on atmospheric analyses that show
> higher CO2 levels in atmosphere blowing from the Ocean to Land, that in the
> atmosphere blowing from Land to Ocean.

DD I have not seen this report -- this is interesting. There could be many
explanations for this. How are air samples being taken? At all altitudes? We
do know that the combustion of fossil fuels is on the way to doubling the CO2
content of the atmosphere over the last 100 years.

>
> There is indeed error in the widespread thinking that "planting trees will
> correct Global Warming"; apparently there is more "tree biomass in the US
> now than there has been for the past 150 years. There is a very fundamental
> error in the belief that CO2 from the combustion of Biomass will contribute
> to a net increase in the CO2 in the biosphere.
>
DD Well, at least the last hundred years anyway. The major deforestation here
accompanied the spread of farm animal grazing brought on by the railroads.
When approached from a global perspective though, deforestation has increased
until lately. As our forests here in the USA have somewhat grown back -
rainforests around the world have been cut down.
DD The combustion of biomass can have different effects on climate change
just by how the combustion takes place. If particles are produced, they absorb
solar radiation at whatever altitude they exist and convert it into heat,
warming the air. The altitude of the particles has an effect on warming or cooling.
More methane is produced for example, while charcoal making with vented,
unflared gas, or with slow anaerobic decomposition of biomass. Remember that
methane has considerably more of a heat trapping effect than CO2
DD Where biomass is combusted is also an issue. Black soot particles have
little effect on solar radiation on a cloudy day. Rain can wash soot and CO2 out
of the air, at least temporarily, in the case of CO2. Methane produced from
lousy combustion in a valley can cause a serious local heating problem on a
calm day. Soot clouds from lousy combustion can cause serious cooling in that
same circumstance.

> There are some very intelligent and good spirited people on this list, with
> a deep professional and personal interest in Biomass, Combustion and Climate
> Change. If people with these capabilities hold differing views, then that
> alone is an indication of the lack of resolution of the problem.

DD Yes, but most evidence points to some major change occurring. If we add
warming here and cooling there we are certainly stirring the climatic pot. If we
warm the atmosphere overall, it causes more clouds and rain in the tropics.
Evaporation, convection and condensation increase to transport additional heat
to upper altitudes where it can be released into space. This can cause
shading and cooling of tropical areas, yet does not indicate global cooling
overall. An increase of convection is related to an increase in convection related
storm activity. The evidence is that of farther extremes in climate.

>
> What you are proposing is a "No Regrets Approach". Regardless if the premise
> is right or wrong, what you advocate is good in itself, and will not
> aggrivate the fundamental GW/GC issue.

DD What working on renewables should seek is to provide the least disturbance
to the balances that exist locally. We cannot hope to do good on a large
scale without knowing what other conditions are affected. For example, a huge
biofuels plant in one area shifts resources and heat balances as much as a forest
fire.

>
> You may have heard the story about the Janitor in the Seismographic Lab, who
> bumped into the seismograph late one night and made a large jiggle on the
> recorder strip shart. The Resident Seismographer came in the next morning,
> and when he saw the jiggle on the chart, then proceeded to show that there
> was an earthquake on the far side of the world at that exact time. The
> Science Community has within it now more people and more data than it ever
> had in the past. Is it possible that perhaps some of the data is corrupt,
> but that it is being used to support a particular conclusion?

DD There is no doubt that faulty and corrupt data are still a problem. These
things will sort out as more data is collected over time. The global climate
change problem is no longer a new observation and some of these problems have
already been solved. It's not like one scientist just went out and discovered
this problem yesterday.

>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
>
> >I have four children and 7 grandchildren. I worry that they will
> encounter
> >a shrinking fossil fuel supply as we continue to use Nature's limited
> >"birthright"supply, more than that they will face either another glacial
> >age or melted ice caps. Running "Out of energy" will probably create more
> >wars and dislocations than all past problems that civilization has faced
> so
> >far.
> >
> >The global warming people may be going in the right direction (Ron's
> >arguments) or the wrong direction (Crispin's arguments below), but this is
> a
> >secondary issue. Ron and I have disagreed on global warming (promoted
> from
> >Boulder, CO since 1975 and now infecting the world) for 20 years. (We both
> >went to the same church, so had a chance to disagree often). GW and
> Boulder
> >tells us that the earth has heated up because of humans - Geologists tell
> us
> >that glacial ice cores show that the earth has been in the grip of ice
> ages
> >90% of the last million years, and we are overdue for the next glaciation.
> >Nature still produces much wider climate swings than we puny Humans.
> >
> >Whether you vote for the Boulder or Geologists to be correct is
> immaterial.
> >If you value your posterity, we should have massive programs, particularly
> >in the US to slow down the exhaustion of our fossil fuels. Most of these
> >programs would be identical to what is recommended for fighting Global
> >Warming - or conserving fuels to keep warm during the (possibly) coming
> ice
> >age. (Primative Man existed pretty well through several without any
> fossil
> >fuels.)
> >
> >Conflict resolved.
> >
> >TOM REED BEF STOVE/GASWORKS
>

From snkm at BTL.NET Sat Feb 21 14:42:33 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <SAT.21.FEB.2004.134233.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 11:17 AM 2/21/2004 EST, Carefreeland@AOL.COM wrote:
>In a message dated 2/20/04 1:05:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>kchisholm@ca.inter.net writes:
>
>DD Daniel Dimiduk's Comments added to > Tom's and Kevins:
>> 3: It is very far from proven that the present "global warming" is caused
>> by
>> Man. Indeed, there are apparently reports on atmospheric analyses that show
>> higher CO2 levels in atmosphere blowing from the Ocean to Land, that in the
>> atmosphere blowing from Land to Ocean.
>
>DD I have not seen this report -- this is interesting. There could be many
>explanations for this. How are air samples being taken? At all altitudes?
We
>do know that the combustion of fossil fuels is on the way to doubling the CO2
>content of the atmosphere over the last 100 years.
>

CO2 evolves from water solution when water temperature rises. Cold water
can "contain" more CO2 in solution than warmer water.

So if more CO2 is blowing in the sea winds -- figure hotter sea water
temperatures -- figure GW.

It is not a balancing act (CO2 levels) -- it is a trigger! As when a very
small input of energy triggers a huge reaction that then becomes irreversible!

It is quite possible that trigger has already been pulled and no matter
what we do -- events can no longer be influenced.

A cosmic event that occurs in a few years is a truly rapid one.

Personally -- I believe we are well past the point of no return.

Eventually forces will come into play that neutralize these effects.

Think of a gun trigger. Trigger is pulled -- hammer falls -- cap is ignited
-- propellent discharges -- pellet is launched. Eventually pellet impacts.
Event is then over.

In cosmic event time -- trigger might be a few years -- ignition a few
years -- discharging of propellent a few years -- ice age for (flight of
pellet) a thousand years or more --

There are reports out that the ice age might be here in 20 years or so.

Sit back -- relax -- observe -- in fact -- "chill-out" night be more
appropriate!

I know the moderns believe they have killed God -- and not they are the
ones in control of the "NATURE OF THINGS" -- but proof is at hand in
regards to what fools that line of thought has made all.

Who will be the survivors?? The "salt" of this earth. The people with the
least mental capacity -- that are not in need of anything beyond basic
survival.

But the genes will still be there -- buried in them -- to rise again in
some distant future reproduction -- maybe to curse us all back to this
ending again??

Now -- could it be possible that every ice age since the rise of mankind
has been due to this same foolishness??

Hey -- good a theory as any other out there at present -- eh??

How many years does it take human kind to cycle through primitive savage to
intellegent barbarian?? How many years since the first intellegent human --
and how many ice ages since?

We can only dream of one cycle occuring where the human animal learns
civilized existence patterns.

Fat chance of that ever happening! Each cycle starts off with civilized
patterns -- but then degenerates to barbarians running the show -- exactly
as we see now -- at present.

Peter / Belize

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Sat Feb 21 15:19:54 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <SAT.21.FEB.2004.161954.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Dan
Subject: Re: [GASL] Conflict resolution

>>
> DD Daniel Dimiduk's Comments added to > Tom's and Kevins:
> >
>
> DD Let me add # 4 Which is most important: Is any fluctuation of climate
> beyond what man has experienced in the past 1000 years acceptable if it
can be
> avoided? Local/regional fluctuations can often cause more serious problems
than
> an overall change.
>
If it is not absolutely clear if we are actually heading for Global Warming
or Global Cooling, we don't know what way we should try to "tip the scales,"
even if it was known for a fact that we could. If we knew for a fact that we
were heading for GC, then we should encourage GW, and vice versa.
> >
>
> DD I don't feel we have the time to wait to find this out - by that time
it
> will be too late.
>
First, we should be confident that we really do know for sure what GOMN
(Good Old Mother Nature) has in store for us, if we keep going down the same
road. Then we should be sure that what we propose to do will, at the least,
be neutral, and at the best, will be helpful. And if it isn't going to make
any difference, why bother?

> >
>
> DD The earth certainly has a considerable number of balance mechanisms at
w
> ork to regulate climate-most involve: evaporation, condensation, freezing
> thawing and sublimation of water. Shading/ reflection of sun by clouds,
and
> snowcover are also involved. Others, such as ocean currents , icecap
melting/ forming
> and escape of subsea methane hydrates are less predictable and do not
always
> act as balancing mechanisms but can act as destabilizes. When climate is
pushed
> in one direction these mechanisms can farther amplify the push.

All true. But what do we know for an absolute fact as being the best course
to follow?

> DD Ancient air trapped in ice cores show we are approaching levels of CO2
and
> methane similar to and not seen since the carboniferous period. Even if
the
> long term effects have not shown themselves, the ingredients are already
there
> for dramatic future change. The question is how long will the
stabilizers --
> such as melting ice caps-continue to balance out the equation. Every
square
> meter no longer covered by ice and snow is a square meter absorbing more
solar
> energy.
>
Right on. Where does all the "new CO2" come from? Do you think there is a
hope in hell that the US Citizens will start car pooling and get rid of
their SUV's? Do you think the 2nd and 3rd World's are going to freeze their
state of development, and cease burning fossil fuel while it is still cheap?

Iraq oil presently costs about $US150 to $180 per barrel. This is when the
cost of m"maintaining a secure supply" is added in. Yet Mr. Bush is totally
against any change in the SUV population, or any "belt tightening changes"
to the US Life Style.
(I am not bashing the Good Old US of A... simply pointing out the difficulty
of making meaningful change.)

> > higher CO2 levels in atmosphere blowing from the Ocean to Land, that in
the
> > atmosphere blowing from Land to Ocean.
>
> DD I have not seen this report -- this is interesting. There could be
many
> explanations for this. How are air samples being taken? At all altitudes?
We
> do know that the combustion of fossil fuels is on the way to doubling the
CO2
> content of the atmosphere over the last 100 years.
>
Sure!! Yet the "energy ostriches" blame it on biomass? How likely is there
for any opportunity for meaningful change if everyone has a different song
sheet and a different agenda?

> >
> DD Well, at least the last hundred years anyway. The major deforestation
here
> accompanied the spread of farm animal grazing brought on by the railroads.
> When approached from a global perspective though, deforestation has
increased
> until lately. As our forests here in the USA have somewhat grown back -
> rainforests around the world have been cut down.

Many of the rainforests were mature, and in a state of equilibrium... there
was as much dying as there was growing. The net effect was probably a lot le
ss than many would admit.

> DD The combustion of biomass can have different effects on climate change
> just by how the combustion takes place. If particles are produced, they
absorb
> solar radiation at whatever altitude they exist and convert it into heat,
> warming the air. The altitude of the particles has an effect on warming or
cooling.
> More methane is produced for example, while charcoal making with vented,
> unflared gas, or with slow anaerobic decomposition of biomass. Remember
that
> methane has considerably more of a heat trapping effect than CO2

CH4 is about 20 times the greenhouse gas as CO2, but CH4 only lasts about 20
years.

> DD Where biomass is combusted is also an issue. Black soot particles have
> little effect on solar radiation on a cloudy day. Rain can wash soot and
CO2 out
> of the air, at least temporarily, in the case of CO2. Methane produced
from
> lousy combustion in a valley can cause a serious local heating problem on
a
> calm day. Soot clouds from lousy combustion can cause serious cooling in
that
> same circumstance.

I don't know if soot particles are really the problem so much as the
aerosols and smoke particles. You can have "smoke" with little to nothing in
the way of soot. Smoke has chemistry, while, pound for pound, "soot" is
carbon, and probably relatively unreactive. NOx SOx and hydrocarbons cause
smog.
>
>
> DD Yes, but most evidence points to some major change occurring. If we add
> warming here and cooling there we are certainly stirring the climatic pot.
If we
> warm the atmosphere overall, it causes more clouds and rain in the
tropics.
> Evaporation, convection and condensation increase to transport additional
heat
> to upper altitudes where it can be released into space. This can cause
> shading and cooling of tropical areas, yet does not indicate global
cooling
> overall. An increase of convection is related to an increase in
convection related
> storm activity. The evidence is that of farther extremes in climate.
>
Sure, we are getting more climate extremes. Thats another topic. At the
present we have:
GC and GW
Global Climate Change
Increasing incidence of Climate Extremes

Certainly, there are major changes going on, but as you point out, the
situation is complex. What can we do? What should we do? I don't know.

> >
> > What you are proposing is a "No Regrets Approach". Regardless if the
premise
> > is right or wrong, what you advocate is good in itself, and will not
> > aggrivate the fundamental GW/GC issue.
>
> DD What working on renewables should seek is to provide the least
disturbance
> to the balances that exist locally. We cannot hope to do good on a large
> scale without knowing what other conditions are affected. For example, a
huge
> biofuels plant in one area shifts resources and heat balances as much as a
forest
> fire.
>
I think it is a question that if we follow a "Basic No Regrets" philosophy,
the idea is to implement it in the "least regretful manner."

> >
>
> DD There is no doubt that faulty and corrupt data are still a problem.
These
> things will sort out as more data is collected over time. The global
climate
> change problem is no longer a new observation and some of these problems
have
> already been solved. It's not like one scientist just went out and
discovered
> this problem yesterday.

There are two major successes that I know of: Acid Rain Control, and
Flurocarbon control. Beyond that, I don't know if anybody has defined "the
next issue that we can resolve."

And just what is "the problem?" :-)
>
Best wishes,

Kevin

From snkm at BTL.NET Sat Feb 21 17:50:47 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <SAT.21.FEB.2004.165047.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

The melting ice caps dumps to much "soft" water into the deep oceans where
it cancels out the currents -- the currents then stop!

No more heat to the North from the tropics by ocean currents.

The poles than go cold -- ice age -- the entire process "flips" --

But the trigger is increased energy input to the planetary atmosphere --

You can have all the oil in the world -- it will not help!!

Music stops -- game over -- etc.

Peter / Belize

At 04:19 PM 2/21/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>Dear Dan
>Subject: Re: [GASL] Conflict resolution
>
>
>If it is not absolutely clear if we are actually heading for Global Warming
>or Global Cooling, we don't know what way we should try to "tip the scales,"
>even if it was known for a fact that we could. If we knew for a fact that we
>were heading for GC, then we should encourage GW, and vice versa.

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Sat Feb 21 18:26:20 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <SAT.21.FEB.2004.192620.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Peter

What you say may very well be happening, and it may very well go "all the
way" and give us the results you suggest.

My concerns are:
1: While the poles may be warming, other areas may be marginally cooler, so
that there is no "net warming". If we were looking for an increase in
average global temperature, we would think there is no problem.

2: Have we reached the point of no return already?

3: What, if anything, can we do, that is responsible and "evidence based?"

Best wishes,

Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@BTL.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Conflict resolution

> The melting ice caps dumps to much "soft" water into the deep oceans where
> it cancels out the currents -- the currents then stop!
>
> No more heat to the North from the tropics by ocean currents.
>
> The poles than go cold -- ice age -- the entire process "flips" --
>
> But the trigger is increased energy input to the planetary atmosphere --
>
> You can have all the oil in the world -- it will not help!!
>
> Music stops -- game over -- etc.
>
> Peter / Belize
>
>
> At 04:19 PM 2/21/2004 -0400, you wrote:
> >Dear Dan
> >Subject: Re: [GASL] Conflict resolution
> >
> >
> >If it is not absolutely clear if we are actually heading for Global
Warming
> >or Global Cooling, we don't know what way we should try to "tip the
scales,"
> >even if it was known for a fact that we could. If we knew for a fact that
we
> >were heading for GC, then we should encourage GW, and vice versa.

From joacim at YMEX.NET Sat Feb 21 20:55:50 2004
From: joacim at YMEX.NET (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: Conflict resolution
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040221163444.0094d5c0@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <SUN.22.FEB.2004.025550.0100.JOACIM@YMEX.NET>

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004, Peter Singfield wrote:

> The melting ice caps dumps to much "soft" water into the deep oceans where
> it cancels out the currents -- the currents then stop!

Another theory is that the "pump" east of Greenland is slowing down. (an
area of the sea freezing and melting in cycles -- sea ice is less salt than
sea water, thus salt is concentrated in the water, makes the water sink,
and then fresh sea water flows in to replace it.)

>
> No more heat to the North from the tropics by ocean currents.
>
> The poles than go cold -- ice age -- the entire process "flips" --

...and then no more soft water being dumped into the ocean, or the "pump"
starts up again... The system is self-stabilizing. Or at least can be.

A recent report from Uppsala university argues that GW is cancelled. All
climate models assume that combustion of fossile fuel will be the same for
another 100 years. There is not that much fossile fuel available. I haven't
read the actual paper though, only a summary. It's one of Aleklett's
students being behind it.

That was the good news. (If it stands for a publication)

The bad news is what Tom R mentioned: we'll have quite a few other very
interesting problems lurking by the horizon. A lot of people in this world,
particulary in the industrialised part of it, live under the misconception
that all this wealth created the last 100 years is the result of /human/
labour. The energy consumption is currently 40% oil, 20% coal, 20% gas, and
of the remaining 20% only a tiny fraction is human food. The ubiquitous
(but ignored) first law tells us we cannot produce more work than we eat.
The even more ignored second law tells us we can only produce less. Some
people are up for a big surprise which they may not like. The real
challenge is, I think, the pedagogical task of explaining this to a couple
of billion angry (and spoiled) people no more having access to the comfort
they are used to, blaiming eachother for the loss. Fossile carbohydrates is
not only fuel by the way, it's also an important raw material for the
industry.

When the old kingdom of Egypt collapsed, people suddenly had to make
individual decisions and taking personal responsibility, a terrifying
experience indeed for the most pronounced collective in history. It
paralysed them:

The Nile is flooding, but noone ploughs the land.
They all say: "But we know not the future!"
(from Ipu's speech, 2270 b.c.)

It doesn't bother us existentialists though. Life is full of problems which
makes it interesting and worth living. The more problems, the better. =)

Joacim
--
Urinque paratus.
("piss when you have to" -- Do what needs to be done)

From sigma at IX.NETCOM.COM Sat Feb 21 23:54:25 2004
From: sigma at IX.NETCOM.COM (Len Walde)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: plasma gasification
Message-ID: <SAT.21.FEB.2004.205425.0800.SIGMA@IX.NETCOM.COM>

Clear Day

Hello to all:

Not to change the subject, but to change the subject:

I have had a inquiry regarding Plasma Gasification and would like to know the state of the art.
I am particularly interested in biomass gasification. Can anyone help with comment and references in this regard?
Many thanks, in advance.

Len

Sigma Energy Engineering, Inc.
Renewable Energy, Process Engineering
Serving Agriculture, Industry & Commerce
through "Symbiotic Recycling" tm
Est. 1985

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

From jgordes at EARTHLINK.NET Sun Feb 22 09:01:36 2004
From: jgordes at EARTHLINK.NET (jgordes)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: Conflict resolution
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0402220117430.13588-100000@trix.ixum>
Message-ID: <SUN.22.FEB.2004.090136.0500.JGORDES@EARTHLINK.NET>

Dear All,

Been watching this from the sidelights. Peter and Joacim's explanations of
the global climate change precipitating the cooling is correct according to
the readings and interactions with scientists I have done over many
years. Many say that the warming leads to the dilution of the salt water
thus disrupting the thermohaline circulation which interferes with the Gulf
Stream for Europe leading to a potential freeze out.

As for Kevin's concerns over what to do, in an earlier post where he or
someone else [Tom maybe] advocates a no regrets strategy; that is just
right until the science is capable of showing more drastic changes. I
personally see evidence that climate change is happening BUT for now, a
no-regrets make sense for so many other reasons.

Best to you all,
Joel N. Gordes

At 02:55 AM 02/22/2004 +0100, Joacim Persson wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Feb 2004, Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> > The melting ice caps dumps to much "soft" water into the deep oceans where
> > it cancels out the currents -- the currents then stop!
>
>Another theory is that the "pump" east of Greenland is slowing down. (an
>area of the sea freezing and melting in cycles -- sea ice is less salt than
>sea water, thus salt is concentrated in the water, makes the water sink,
>and then fresh sea water flows in to replace it.)
>
> >
> > No more heat to the North from the tropics by ocean currents.
> >
> > The poles than go cold -- ice age -- the entire process "flips" --
>
>...and then no more soft water being dumped into the ocean, or the "pump"
>starts up again... The system is self-stabilizing. Or at least can be.
>
>A recent report from Uppsala university argues that GW is cancelled. All
>climate models assume that combustion of fossile fuel will be the same for
>another 100 years. There is not that much fossile fuel available. I haven't
>read the actual paper though, only a summary. It's one of Aleklett's
>students being behind it.
>
>That was the good news. (If it stands for a publication)
>
>The bad news is what Tom R mentioned: we'll have quite a few other very
>interesting problems lurking by the horizon. A lot of people in this world,
>particulary in the industrialised part of it, live under the misconception
>that all this wealth created the last 100 years is the result of /human/
>labour. The energy consumption is currently 40% oil, 20% coal, 20% gas, and
>of the remaining 20% only a tiny fraction is human food. The ubiquitous
>(but ignored) first law tells us we cannot produce more work than we eat.
>The even more ignored second law tells us we can only produce less. Some
>people are up for a big surprise which they may not like. The real
>challenge is, I think, the pedagogical task of explaining this to a couple
>of billion angry (and spoiled) people no more having access to the comfort
>they are used to, blaiming eachother for the loss. Fossile carbohydrates is
>not only fuel by the way, it's also an important raw material for the
>industry.
>
>
>When the old kingdom of Egypt collapsed, people suddenly had to make
>individual decisions and taking personal responsibility, a terrifying
>experience indeed for the most pronounced collective in history. It
>paralysed them:
>
> The Nile is flooding, but noone ploughs the land.
> They all say: "But we know not the future!"
> (from Ipu's speech, 2270 b.c.)
>
>
>It doesn't bother us existentialists though. Life is full of problems which
>makes it interesting and worth living. The more problems, the better. =)
>
>Joacim
>--
>Urinque paratus.
>("piss when you have to" -- Do what needs to be done)

Joel N. Gordes
Environmental Energy Solutions
P.O. Box 101
Riverton, CT 06065
(860) 379-2430

"...the problem at hand, which is that centrally generated electricity is a
vulnerable genie. In order to be used it must travel on an ugly, complex
and inefficient labyrinth of wires and substations...Even from a security
view (national or otherwise) such a fragile system is suicide."
Gordes-February 1978 in a published Hartford Courant Letter to the editor.

" Distributed generation at many locations around the grid increases power
reliability and quality while reducing the strain on the electricity
transmission system. It also makes our electricity infrastructure less
vulnerable to terrorist attack, both by distributing the generation and
diversifying the generation fuels. So if you're engaged in this effort, it
is my view that you are also engaged in our national effort to fight
terrorism."-- David Garman, Assist Sec. of Energy, 10/2/01

"Dedicated to executing ideas, not killing them!"
Be sure to visit our web site at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jgordes

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Sun Feb 22 09:23:34 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: Conflict resolution
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0402220117430.13588-100000@trix.ixum>
Message-ID: <SUN.22.FEB.2004.082334.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

There's an excellent article in the Feb. 2004 Harpers magazine titled "The
Oil We Eat", not about global climate change per se, more about the extreme
dependance upon fossil fuels to grow food and what that means for our near
future.

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

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Sun Feb 22 09:48:22 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (Greg Manning)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:37 2004
Subject: plasma gasification
Message-ID: <SUN.22.FEB.2004.094822.0500.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Hello, I'm more a woodchip guy, and plasma would be way out of my reach BUT
for what it's worth I found 541 related documents using google.com search.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Plasma%2BGasification%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
8&hl=en&meta=

Watch for line wrapping on the above link.

Hope this helps.

Greg Manning
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:54:25 -0800, Len Walde <sigma@IX.NETCOM.COM> wrote:

>Clear Day
>
>Hello to all:
>
>Not to change the subject, but to change the subject:
>
>I have had a inquiry regarding Plasma Gasification and would like to know
the state of the art.
>I am particularly interested in biomass gasification. Can anyone help with
comment and references in this regard?
>Many thanks, in advance.
>
>Len
>
> Sigma Energy Engineering, Inc.
>Renewable Energy, Process Engineering
>Serving Agriculture, Industry & Commerce
> through "Symbiotic Recycling" tm
> Est. 1985
>
> Ph: 925-254-7633
> E-mail: sigma@ix.netcom.com

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Sun Feb 22 11:03:16 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <SUN.22.FEB.2004.120316.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Joel
Subject: Re: [GASL] Conflict resolution

> Dear All,
>
> Been watching this from the sidelights. Peter and Joacim's explanations
of
> the global climate change

Could you please elaborate and clarify on your impressions of the relevant
aspects of "global climate change?" For example, GC or GW, intensity and
frequency of storms, changes in world rainfall patterns, etc?

precipitating the cooling is correct according to
> the readings and interactions with scientists I have done over many
> years. Many say that the warming leads to the dilution of the salt water
> thus disrupting the thermohaline circulation which interferes with the
Gulf
> Stream for Europe leading to a potential freeze out.

OK... it would appear from the above that a period of Warming is necessary
in order to precipitate an Ice Age. Is this basically correct, or is it
being too simplistic?

>
> As for Kevin's concerns over what to do, in an earlier post where he or
> someone else [Tom maybe] advocates a no regrets strategy; that is just
> right until the science is capable of showing more drastic changes. I
> personally see evidence that climate change is happening BUT for now, a
> no-regrets make sense for so many other reasons.

The plot is thickening substantially. From the above, it would appear that
GW is NOT necessary to trigger GC. It appears that it is only necessary to
have Polar Warming, with melting of the Ice Caps, to liberate the water
necessary to stop the Ocean Engine.

Thus, if there is "polar warming" and an equivalent of "equatorial cooling",
the world average temperature would be the same, so that there would be no
"net GW."

It is thus very easy to see the "Field Day" that the various "climate camps"
could have. Each camp or vested interest could flaunt whatever data they
wanted to use, to advance their cause.

I personally trust "anecdotal observations" far more than I trust any
"conclusion papers". Nobody can "misinterpert" data if they don't interpert
it. :-)

1: Someone mentioned to me "off list" that there is very significalt melting
of permafrost in Alaska. I trust his observation.

2: Canadian Government Fish and Wildlife Service report less fat on polar
bears in the Fall, because with more open water, their food supplies are
more dispersed

3: Every few weeks, we see pictures of ice bergs floating away from the
Polar Ice Caps

4: A few years ago, the body of the "Ice Man" was discovered after the snow
that covered him for 6,000 years melted away.

5: Here in Downtown Barrachois, Cape Breton, up until about 3 years ago,
daytime temperature would rise to about 1 to 3 C, and fall to about -5 C
over a typical winter. (Of course, there were colder periods) The net effect
was that we could have a major snow storm, and a week or two later, the snow
was mostly melted. In the past few years, day time temperatures get up to
about -1 or -2 C, with the very noticeable consequence that "when the snow
came, it stayed".

In my opinion, there is definitely "Climate Change", but it appears that
some areas are warmer, and some are cooler, and I don't know if the "average
effect" is GW or GC. As noted above, perhaps the factor of major importance
is NOT whether we have GW or GC, but whether we have "PW", ie, "Polar
Warming."

So!! Is there anything we can do about PW, other than "no regrets
activities"? Even if there was something we could do, is it now too late?

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

>
> Best to you all,
> Joel N. Gordes
>
>
> At 02:55 AM 02/22/2004 +0100, Joacim Persson wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 21 Feb 2004, Peter Singfield wrote:
> >
> > > The melting ice caps dumps to much "soft" water into the deep oceans
where
> > > it cancels out the currents -- the currents then stop!
> >
> >Another theory is that the "pump" east of Greenland is slowing down. (an
> >area of the sea freezing and melting in cycles -- sea ice is less salt
than
> >sea water, thus salt is concentrated in the water, makes the water sink,
> >and then fresh sea water flows in to replace it.)
> >
> > >
> > > No more heat to the North from the tropics by ocean currents.
> > >
> > > The poles than go cold -- ice age -- the entire process "flips" --
> >
> >...and then no more soft water being dumped into the ocean, or the "pump"
> >starts up again... The system is self-stabilizing. Or at least can be.
> >
> >A recent report from Uppsala university argues that GW is cancelled. All
> >climate models assume that combustion of fossile fuel will be the same
for
> >another 100 years. There is not that much fossile fuel available. I
haven't
> >read the actual paper though, only a summary. It's one of Aleklett's
> >students being behind it.
> >
> >That was the good news. (If it stands for a publication)
> >
> >The bad news is what Tom R mentioned: we'll have quite a few other very
> >interesting problems lurking by the horizon. A lot of people in this
world,
> >particulary in the industrialised part of it, live under the
misconception
> >that all this wealth created the last 100 years is the result of /human/
> >labour. The energy consumption is currently 40% oil, 20% coal, 20% gas,
and
> >of the remaining 20% only a tiny fraction is human food. The ubiquitous
> >(but ignored) first law tells us we cannot produce more work than we eat.
> >The even more ignored second law tells us we can only produce less. Some
> >people are up for a big surprise which they may not like. The real
> >challenge is, I think, the pedagogical task of explaining this to a
couple
> >of billion angry (and spoiled) people no more having access to the
comfort
> >they are used to, blaiming eachother for the loss. Fossile carbohydrates
is
> >not only fuel by the way, it's also an important raw material for the
> >industry.
> >
> >
> >When the old kingdom of Egypt collapsed, people suddenly had to make
> >individual decisions and taking personal responsibility, a terrifying
> >experience indeed for the most pronounced collective in history. It
> >paralysed them:
> >
> > The Nile is flooding, but noone ploughs the land.
> > They all say: "But we know not the future!"
> > (from Ipu's speech, 2270 b.c.)
> >
> >
> >It doesn't bother us existentialists though. Life is full of problems
which
> >makes it interesting and worth living. The more problems, the better. =)
> >
> >Joacim
> >--
> >Urinque paratus.
> >("piss when you have to" -- Do what needs to be done)
>
> Joel N. Gordes
> Environmental Energy Solutions
> P.O. Box 101
> Riverton, CT 06065
> (860) 379-2430
>
> "...the problem at hand, which is that centrally generated electricity is
a
> vulnerable genie. In order to be used it must travel on an ugly, complex
> and inefficient labyrinth of wires and substations...Even from a security
> view (national or otherwise) such a fragile system is suicide."
> Gordes-February 1978 in a published Hartford Courant Letter to the editor.
>
> " Distributed generation at many locations around the grid increases power
> reliability and quality while reducing the strain on the electricity
> transmission system. It also makes our electricity infrastructure less
> vulnerable to terrorist attack, both by distributing the generation and
> diversifying the generation fuels. So if you're engaged in this effort, it
> is my view that you are also engaged in our national effort to fight
> terrorism."-- David Garman, Assist Sec. of Energy, 10/2/01
>
> "Dedicated to executing ideas, not killing them!"
> Be sure to visit our web site at:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~jgordes

From snkm at BTL.NET Sun Feb 22 11:28:42 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: plasma gasification - Better Steam Reforming!!
Message-ID: <SUN.22.FEB.2004.102842.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Hello everyone;

You can do the same with "Steam Reforming"

Much less exotic -- more efficient.

I have an old article of this technology mounted at:

http://tzabcan.com/gas/BriteStar/TechnicalOverview.zip

Download the zip file -- open -- be amazed.

I have numerous thoughts in regards on how to improve that system described
-- and even how to seriously downsize this application.

Remember -- steam reforming is endothermic -- that means it absorbs energy
to convert biomass to gas.

But understand -- the absorbed energy is invested in a higher quality (more
BTU) gas -- so there are no energy losses. Well -- some heat process losses
-- but minor.

Steam reforming biomass can accomplish products of high methane -- or high
synthesis gas. The methane production occurs at lower temperatures -- is
thus easier. This product is the same as present natural gas -- but cleaner.

The entire operation can be simplified by using super critical water under
high pressure.

Or -- simply heating the biomass in a water bath to required temperature
under extreme pressures -- a super pressure cooker -- that vents gas.

Have specific articles on file in regards to that process.

It is a much simpler operation than plasma gasification.

All the above has been discussed in great depth on this same mail list
years ago -- search the archives.

We no longer are so highly motivated or active on this mail list -- due to
political realities of our modern age -- than any other single reasoning.

Steam reforming is still a major process in the peto industries. The
process itself is more than 100 years old -- and has been in continuous use
ever since.

It is a vital part of modern infrastructure responsible -- among other
things -- for most of the fertilizers and chemical required for
agricultural purposes.

It is the process used to synthesis engine fuels from coal by the Germans
during WWII.

Etc -- etc -- ad-finum!!

Yet is invisible today -- totally -- and never "discussed".

Any serious interest in gasification processes should investigate steam
reforming before even thinking plasma!

Oh -- it is the foundation of the now dead fuel cell cars "dream". Steam
reforming alcohols -- and eventually -- petro fuels -- to H2. They designed
and operated very small -- compact steam reforming gasifiers.

Mercedes was a leader in this research endeavor.

My past speciality was the design of high temperature -- high pressure --
reactors. Idealy suited for steam reformation.

A certain "leader" raised his arms and declared there was no such thing as
global warming and all incentive to continue this line of research was
ended as SUV's became the rule of this day and age.

Politics -- the most deadly disease of human kind -- always.

Peter / Belize

At 09:48 AM 2/22/2004 -0500, Greg Manning wrote:
>Hello, I'm more a woodchip guy, and plasma would be way out of my reach BUT
>for what it's worth I found 541 related documents using google.com search.
>
>http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Plasma%2BGasification%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
>8&hl=en&meta=
>
>Watch for line wrapping on the above link.
>
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Greg Manning
>Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>
>
>On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:54:25 -0800, Len Walde <sigma@IX.NETCOM.COM> wrote:
>
>>Clear Day
>>
>>Hello to all:
>>
>>Not to change the subject, but to change the subject:
>>
>>I have had a inquiry regarding Plasma Gasification and would like to know
>the state of the art.
>>I am particularly interested in biomass gasification. Can anyone help with
>comment and references in this regard?
>>Many thanks, in advance.
>>
>>Len
>>
>> Sigma Energy Engineering, Inc.
>>Renewable Energy, Process Engineering
>>Serving Agriculture, Industry & Commerce
>> through "Symbiotic Recycling" tm
>> Est. 1985
>>
>> Ph: 925-254-7633
>> E-mail: sigma@ix.netcom.com
>

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Sun Feb 22 11:42:25 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: Energy Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <SUN.22.FEB.2004.094225.0700.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Crispin and All;

Excellent exchange.

I said that the solution in my last paragraph "resolved" the issues because
whatever you believe, global warming OR global cooling, we could ALL agree
to conseve our fossil fuel resources for the rest of our lives (if we are
young and busy) or for our posterity (if we are old and cam afford to be
concerned).

It is a human failing to think that "truth is in the words". Words can lie
or tell the truth with equal ease. Ultimately truth is in the facts and the
final GW/GC facts aren't available. But a verifiable fact is that we are
pissing away our energy inheritance as fast as we can. We had better come up
with a viable alternative sooner rather than later, faster rather than
slower. So lets stop arguing and start conserving!

Yours for a viable future...

TOM REED
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Conflict resolution

> Dear Tom
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "TBReed" <tombreed@COMCAST.NET>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 10:38 AM
> Subject: [GASL] Conflict resolution
>
>
> > Dear Ron and Crispin Stovers and Gasifiers:
> >
> > I greatly enjoyed your friendly exchange below. Here is my attempt to
> > resolve all conflicts at one blow.
> > ~~~~~~
> I totally agree with your concluding paragraph, but I disagree with the
> point that it resolves any differences in beliefs leading to the conflict.
>
> There are several issues here:
> 1: Is there Global Climate Change?
> 2: If there is global climate change, is the globe warming or cooling?
> 3: Which , any, of the above, are due to the activities of Man?
>
> 1: Global Climate Change: Of course, there is "global climate change," at
> least in the sense of the weather this year being different from the
weather
> last year. How many years of "average warmer" or "average colder" weather
is
> required to justify a change in definition from "Weather Change" to
"Climate
> Change?"
>
> 2: It does appear to me that there is "Global Warming," as evidenced by
> polar ice cap melting, violence of weather patterns, rapidity and severity
> of change in weather patterns, location of storm damage events, etc, but
El
> Nino seems to have come and gone. However, I don't know if it has been
shown
> Globally that we really are on a "permanently warmer plateau", as was
parts
> of the world in the Carboniferous Era, or if perhaps we are simply
> experiencing 15 years of "warmer weather."
>
> 3: It is very far from proven that the present "global warming" is caused
by
> Man. Indeed, there are apparently reports on atmospheric analyses that
show
> higher CO2 levels in atmosphere blowing from the Ocean to Land, that in
the
> atmosphere blowing from Land to Ocean.
>
> There is indeed error in the widespread thinking that "planting trees will
> correct Global Warming"; apparently there is more "tree biomass in the US
> now than there has been for the past 150 years. There is a very
fundamental
> error in the belief that CO2 from the combustion of Biomass will
contribute
> to a net increase in the CO2 in the biosphere.
>
> There are some very intelligent and good spirited people on this list,
with
> a deep professional and personal interest in Biomass, Combustion and
Climate
> Change. If people with these capabilities hold differing views, then that
> alone is an indication of the lack of resolution of the problem.
>
> What you are proposing is a "No Regrets Approach". Regardless if the
premise
> is right or wrong, what you advocate is good in itself, and will not
> aggrivate the fundamental GW/GC issue.
>
> You may have heard the story about the Janitor in the Seismographic Lab,
who
> bumped into the seismograph late one night and made a large jiggle on the
> recorder strip shart. The Resident Seismographer came in the next morning,
> and when he saw the jiggle on the chart, then proceeded to show that there
> was an earthquake on the far side of the world at that exact time. The
> Science Community has within it now more people and more data than it ever
> had in the past. Is it possible that perhaps some of the data is corrupt,
> but that it is being used to support a particular conclusion?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
>
> > I have four children and 7 grandchildren. I worry that they will
> encounter
> > a shrinking fossil fuel supply as we continue to use Nature's limited
> > "birthright"supply, more than that they will face either another
glacial
> > age or melted ice caps. Running "Out of energy" will probably create
more
> > wars and dislocations than all past problems that civilization has faced
> so
> > far.
> >
> > The global warming people may be going in the right direction (Ron's
> > arguments) or the wrong direction (Crispin's arguments below), but this
is
> a
> > secondary issue. Ron and I have disagreed on global warming (promoted
> from
> > Boulder, CO since 1975 and now infecting the world) for 20 years. (We
both
> > went to the same church, so had a chance to disagree often). GW and
> Boulder
> > tells us that the earth has heated up because of humans - Geologists
tell
> us
> > that glacial ice cores show that the earth has been in the grip of ice
> ages
> > 90% of the last million years, and we are overdue for the next
glaciation.
> > Nature still produces much wider climate swings than we puny Humans.
> >
> > Whether you vote for the Boulder or Geologists to be correct is
> immaterial.
> > If you value your posterity, we should have massive programs,
particularly
> > in the US to slow down the exhaustion of our fossil fuels. Most of
these
> > programs would be identical to what is recommended for fighting Global
> > Warming - or conserving fuels to keep warm during the (possibly) coming
> ice
> > age. (Primative Man existed pretty well through several without any
> fossil
> > fuels.)
> >
> > Conflict resolved.
> >
> > TOM REED BEF STOVE/GASWORKS
>

From jgordes at EARTHLINK.NET Sun Feb 22 12:02:57 2004
From: jgordes at EARTHLINK.NET (jgordes)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: Conflict resolution
In-Reply-To: <003001c3f95d$6891db90$179a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <SUN.22.FEB.2004.120257.0500.JGORDES@EARTHLINK.NET>

At 12:03 PM 02/22/2004 -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:

>Dear Joel
>Subject: Re: [GASL] Conflict resolution
>
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> > Been watching this from the sidelights. Peter and Joacim's explanations
>of
> > the global climate change
>
>Could you please elaborate and clarify on your impressions of the relevant
>aspects of "global climate change?" For example, GC or GW, intensity and
>frequency of storms, changes in world rainfall patterns, etc?

I adhere pretty much to the science that comes out of the IPCC and over the
years they have become more definitive in their pronouncement BUT they do
it in terms of probabilities, confidence levels, likeliness, etc rather
than any hard fast statements or any relation of climate change to any
given event [hot summer in Europe for instance]. As such, they seem to
have higher probabilities in Tables TS-3 and TS-4 of the summary for policy
makers in the Third Assessment Report than in the previous two
reports. Some of the work by Dr. Tom Karl et al of NOAA's National
Climatic Data Center is interesting and also show increase in the
frequency of large precip events in many places but also areas of decrease
as well. All this leads to my opinion that it is a far more complex set of
interacting forces that we still do not well-understand. In a dynamic
system it is altogether possible to have warming in some areas and cooling
in others and I believe this has been stated somewhere in all the IPCC
literature. It is also appears that the addition of heat energy is one
primary driver to climate changes and the increases in temperature by
whatever cause may exacerbate some conditions.

>precipitating the cooling is correct according to
> > the readings and interactions with scientists I have done over many
> > years. Many say that the warming leads to the dilution of the salt water
> > thus disrupting the thermohaline circulation which interferes with the
>Gulf
> > Stream for Europe leading to a potential freeze out.
>
>OK... it would appear from the above that a period of Warming is necessary
>in order to precipitate an Ice Age. Is this basically correct, or is it
>being too simplistic?

Actually, I left out the step which may have been understood that the
warming causes the melting of ice in the Arctic areas leading to the
dilution. Again, this appears to be a complex situation. For instance, in
1996 according to the Hartford Courant, "The Labrador Current, a conveyer
that usually starts dumping icebergs into the shipping lanes in late March,
failed to deliver... Not a single iceberg drifted south of the 48th
parallel, which runs through Newfoundland and is considered a an informal
threshold to the shipping lanes. But they are close and plentiful."

Actually, previous years had been extreme with as many as 1765 calving off
and going south of the 48th parallel in 1994 and 1753 in 1993. So, what's
it mean? I mentioned the article to Prof. Bill Gray at CSU who predicts
the hurricanes but is a climate change "disbeliever" and he found it very
interesting.

So do we need a period of warming before an ice age? Don't now and
wouldn't even venture a guess. Maybe it has something to do with the
Lovelock Gaia hypothesis that nature become self balancing over time.
> >
> > As for Kevin's concerns over what to do, in an earlier post where he or
> > someone else [Tom maybe] advocates a no regrets strategy; that is just
> > right until the science is capable of showing more drastic changes. I
> > personally see evidence that climate change is happening BUT for now, a
> > no-regrets make sense for so many other reasons.
>
>The plot is thickening substantially. From the above, it would appear that
>GW is NOT necessary to trigger GC. It appears that it is only necessary to
>have Polar Warming, with melting of the Ice Caps, to liberate the water
>necessary to stop the Ocean Engine.
>
>Thus, if there is "polar warming" and an equivalent of "equatorial cooling",
>the world average temperature would be the same, so that there would be no
>"net GW."

As noted earlier it has been said that you can have warming in some places
and cooling in others and some indications that nighttime temperature
increases are more pronounced. Still, the IPCC info seems to confirm an
overall warming trend in a small period of time geologically speaking.

>It is thus very easy to see the "Field Day" that the various "climate camps"
>could have. Each camp or vested interest could flaunt whatever data they
>wanted to use, to advance their cause.

And a field day they do have. That is why I support the IPCC since it is
a consensus process. What I do find interesting is that while some support
the thesis/antithesis/synthesis of the scientific method that developed the
cellular phone [which we all know works--sometmes, at least] , they can
discount and denigrate the same back and forth in science when it is
applied to climate change and dismiss it by calling it "junk science".
Science is science. When done right and if kept honest in an open process
will come out with realistic models.

Best,
Joel

>I personally trust "anecdotal observations" far more than I trust any
>"conclusion papers". Nobody can "misinterpert" data if they don't interpert
>it. :-)

Many of these "fingerprints" are very interesting and I do keep some files
on them. But as one wag said to me "weather is to climate as the evening
news is to history" so while there is a relationship, one must look at the
long view to make an affirmative statements. The continued work and
increasing level of scientific inquiry will be carefully watched. I share
you conviction that it is happening and I still say that, for now, the
"no-regrets [called the "tie-in strategy" by economist Kenneth Boulding] is
the path to follow as there are many, many untapped ways to use this that
will not bring up the visceral antagonisms that the words "Climate Change" do.

Interesting, in Europe and Asia many insurers have weighed in on the
climate change question sicne much of the basis of their business is
dependent upon relatively stable climate conditions. US insurers have
still been reticent but if the science becomes more certain, the
insurance/reinsurance industry may well become the primary drivers.

Till then, we need to do the best we can with gasified biomass--for many,
many reason.

Best,
Joel

>1: Someone mentioned to me "off list" that there is very significalt melting
>of permafrost in Alaska. I trust his observation.
>
>2: Canadian Government Fish and Wildlife Service report less fat on polar
>bears in the Fall, because with more open water, their food supplies are
>more dispersed
>
>3: Every few weeks, we see pictures of ice bergs floating away from the
>Polar Ice Caps
>
>4: A few years ago, the body of the "Ice Man" was discovered after the snow
>that covered him for 6,000 years melted away.
>
>5: Here in Downtown Barrachois, Cape Breton, up until about 3 years ago,
>daytime temperature would rise to about 1 to 3 C, and fall to about -5 C
>over a typical winter. (Of course, there were colder periods) The net effect
>was that we could have a major snow storm, and a week or two later, the snow
>was mostly melted. In the past few years, day time temperatures get up to
>about -1 or -2 C, with the very noticeable consequence that "when the snow
>came, it stayed".
>
>In my opinion, there is definitely "Climate Change", but it appears that
>some areas are warmer, and some are cooler, and I don't know if the "average
>effect" is GW or GC. As noted above, perhaps the factor of major importance
>is NOT whether we have GW or GC, but whether we have "PW", ie, "Polar
>Warming."
>
>So!! Is there anything we can do about PW, other than "no regrets
>activities"? Even if there was something we could do, is it now too late?
>
>Kindest regards,
>
>Kevin Chisholm
>
>
> >
> > Best to you all,
> > Joel N. Gordes
> >
> >
> > At 02:55 AM 02/22/2004 +0100, Joacim Persson wrote:
> >
> > >On Sat, 21 Feb 2004, Peter Singfield wrote:
> > >
> > > > The melting ice caps dumps to much "soft" water into the deep oceans
>where
> > > > it cancels out the currents -- the currents then stop!
> > >
> > >Another theory is that the "pump" east of Greenland is slowing down. (an
> > >area of the sea freezing and melting in cycles -- sea ice is less salt
>than
> > >sea water, thus salt is concentrated in the water, makes the water sink,
> > >and then fresh sea water flows in to replace it.)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > No more heat to the North from the tropics by ocean currents.
> > > >
> > > > The poles than go cold -- ice age -- the entire process "flips" --
> > >
> > >...and then no more soft water being dumped into the ocean, or the "pump"
> > >starts up again... The system is self-stabilizing. Or at least can be.
> > >
> > >A recent report from Uppsala university argues that GW is cancelled. All
> > >climate models assume that combustion of fossile fuel will be the same
>for
> > >another 100 years. There is not that much fossile fuel available. I
>haven't
> > >read the actual paper though, only a summary. It's one of Aleklett's
> > >students being behind it.
> > >
> > >That was the good news. (If it stands for a publication)
> > >
> > >The bad news is what Tom R mentioned: we'll have quite a few other very
> > >interesting problems lurking by the horizon. A lot of people in this
>world,
> > >particulary in the industrialised part of it, live under the
>misconception
> > >that all this wealth created the last 100 years is the result of /human/
> > >labour. The energy consumption is currently 40% oil, 20% coal, 20% gas,
>and
> > >of the remaining 20% only a tiny fraction is human food. The ubiquitous
> > >(but ignored) first law tells us we cannot produce more work than we eat.
> > >The even more ignored second law tells us we can only produce less. Some
> > >people are up for a big surprise which they may not like. The real
> > >challenge is, I think, the pedagogical task of explaining this to a
>couple
> > >of billion angry (and spoiled) people no more having access to the
>comfort
> > >they are used to, blaiming eachother for the loss. Fossile carbohydrates
>is
> > >not only fuel by the way, it's also an important raw material for the
> > >industry.
> > >
> > >
> > >When the old kingdom of Egypt collapsed, people suddenly had to make
> > >individual decisions and taking personal responsibility, a terrifying
> > >experience indeed for the most pronounced collective in history. It
> > >paralysed them:
> > >
> > > The Nile is flooding, but noone ploughs the land.
> > > They all say: "But we know not the future!"
> > > (from Ipu's speech, 2270 b.c.)
> > >
> > >
> > >It doesn't bother us existentialists though. Life is full of problems
>which
> > >makes it interesting and worth living. The more problems, the better. =)
> > >
> > >Joacim
> > >--
> > >Urinque paratus.
> > >("piss when you have to" -- Do what needs to be done)
> >
> > Joel N. Gordes
> > Environmental Energy Solutions
> > P.O. Box 101
> > Riverton, CT 06065
> > (860) 379-2430
> >
> > "...the problem at hand, which is that centrally generated electricity is
>a
> > vulnerable genie. In order to be used it must travel on an ugly, complex
> > and inefficient labyrinth of wires and substations...Even from a security
> > view (national or otherwise) such a fragile system is suicide."
> > Gordes-February 1978 in a published Hartford Courant Letter to the editor.
> >
> > " Distributed generation at many locations around the grid increases power
> > reliability and quality while reducing the strain on the electricity
> > transmission system. It also makes our electricity infrastructure less
> > vulnerable to terrorist attack, both by distributing the generation and
> > diversifying the generation fuels. So if you're engaged in this effort, it
> > is my view that you are also engaged in our national effort to fight
> > terrorism."-- David Garman, Assist Sec. of Energy, 10/2/01
> >
> > "Dedicated to executing ideas, not killing them!"
> > Be sure to visit our web site at:
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~jgordes

Joel N. Gordes
Environmental Energy Solutions
P.O. Box 101
Riverton, CT 06065
(860) 379-2430

"Dedicated to executing ideas, not killing them!"
Be sure to visit our web site at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jgordes

From praufast at FREE.FR Sun Feb 22 12:33:20 2004
From: praufast at FREE.FR (Philippe)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: producer gas and thermal weeding
Message-ID: <SUN.22.FEB.2004.183320.0100.>

Hello !

Thermal weeding is used by organic farmers to kill weeds in crops.
Has someone heared about a producer-gas burning thermal weeder ?
It would save some propane/LPG and the farmers will be independant.

http://www.flameengineering.com/Row_Crop_Flamers.htm

Philippe.

From sigma at IX.NETCOM.COM Sun Feb 22 13:45:57 2004
From: sigma at IX.NETCOM.COM (Len Walde)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: plasma gasification -- back from Len 2-22-04
Message-ID: <SUN.22.FEB.2004.104557.0800.SIGMA@IX.NETCOM.COM>

Thanks Greg:

I found about the same. The largest commercialization seems to be in the
area of MSW where there is a good tipping fee to make the economics work.
Appears that the sale of distilled water is a must too. Capital cost seems
to be massive and the key market for the technology seems to be municipal.
None of which fits the rural electrical "New Wave co-op" model we are
interested in -- small, local farmer owned, who both supply the biomass and
buy the power -- with excess going to the grid. Maybe one megawatt in size.
We are talking California here, which means what we are trying to do would
work almost anywhere else in the USA and Canada. And we know we have a
battle coming , but hope to be able to interest some members of the state
legislature to change some of the power sale rules, in order to make this
model work. Right now, small power producers can not sell power "outside of
the fence" -- "believe it or not"!

Any anecdotal stories or data to help our case would be most appreciated.

thanks and best wishes,

Len

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Manning" <a31ford@INETLINK.CA>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 6:48 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] plasma gasification

> Hello, I'm more a woodchip guy, and plasma would be way out of my reach
BUT
> for what it's worth I found 541 related documents using google.com search.
>
> http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Plasma%2BGasification%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
> 8&hl=en&meta=
>
> Watch for line wrapping on the above link.
>
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Greg Manning
> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>
>
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:54:25 -0800, Len Walde <sigma@IX.NETCOM.COM> wrote:

> >Hello to all:
> >
> >Not to change the subject, but to change the subject:
> >
> >I have had a inquiry regarding Plasma Gasification and would like to know
> the state of the art.
> >I am particularly interested in biomass gasification. Can anyone help
with
> comment and references in this regard?
> >Many thanks, in advance.
> >
> >Len
> >
> > Sigma Energy Engineering, Inc.
> >Renewable Energy, Process Engineering
> >Serving Agriculture, Industry & Commerce
> > through "Symbiotic Recycling" tm
> > Est. 1985
> >
> > Ph: 925-254-7633
> > E-mail: sigma@ix.netcom.com
>

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Sun Feb 22 14:17:38 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: Conflict resolution
In-Reply-To: <003001c3f95d$6891db90$179a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <SUN.22.FEB.2004.131738.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 12:03:16PM -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> Dear Joel
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Conflict resolution
>
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> > Been watching this from the sidelights. Peter and Joacim's explanations
> of
> > the global climate change
>
> Could you please elaborate and clarify on your impressions of the relevant
> aspects of "global climate change?" For example, GC or GW, intensity and
> frequency of storms, changes in world rainfall patterns, etc?
>
>
> precipitating the cooling is correct according to
> > the readings and interactions with scientists I have done over many
> > years. Many say that the warming leads to the dilution of the salt water
> > thus disrupting the thermohaline circulation which interferes with the
> Gulf
> > Stream for Europe leading to a potential freeze out.
>
> OK... it would appear from the above that a period of Warming is necessary
> in order to precipitate an Ice Age. Is this basically correct, or is it
> being too simplistic?
>
> >
> > As for Kevin's concerns over what to do, in an earlier post where he or
> > someone else [Tom maybe] advocates a no regrets strategy; that is just
> > right until the science is capable of showing more drastic changes. I
> > personally see evidence that climate change is happening BUT for now, a
> > no-regrets make sense for so many other reasons.
>
> The plot is thickening substantially. From the above, it would appear that
> GW is NOT necessary to trigger GC. It appears that it is only necessary to
> have Polar Warming, with melting of the Ice Caps, to liberate the water
> necessary to stop the Ocean Engine.
>

No, part of the effect of GW that is killing the Gulf Stream is that the
hotter temps down in the equatorial regions causes much greater evaporation of
water, which then flows north and falls as rain in the Artic, adding further
fresh water and diluting the sea water there even more.

> Thus, if there is "polar warming" and an equivalent of "equatorial cooling",
> the world average temperature would be the same, so that there would be no
> "net GW."

Except there isn't any "equatorial cooling", that's getting hotter as well,
from what I've read about the problem with the ocean engine.

From snkm at BTL.NET Sun Feb 22 15:57:07 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <SUN.22.FEB.2004.145707.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 01:17 PM 2/22/2004 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 12:03:16PM -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>
>> Thus, if there is "polar warming" and an equivalent of "equatorial
cooling",
>> the world average temperature would be the same, so that there would be no
>> "net GW."
>
> Except there isn't any "equatorial cooling", that's getting hotter as
well,
>from what I've read about the problem with the ocean engine.
>

Antidotally -- from here -- in Central America:

Ten years ago and before -- average high temps seldom exceeded 86 F -- now
we average 95 plus F for extremely long periods.

I have been tracking sea surface temperatures for three years from the
chart at this Url:

http://www.wunderground.com/tropical/

I can compare any two dates over a 3 year period -- there is no question
that tropical sea temperatures are increasing!

I have all of these charts stored to hard drive for reference.

I have often showed these to Kevin in the past -- he should be well aware.

Either Kevin has no ability to retain information -- or he enjoys simply
asking foolish questions that he should already know the answers to.

Kevin "scores" by continual question asking -- and it can become a royal
pain in the butt.

I have yet to see him research a subject to supply answers -- sorry Kevin
-- but it gets under one's skin after a period of repetition that never
seems to have an ending.

Kevin, another scientist and myself went over all what we are discussing
now -- in serious detail -- less than one year ago.

It simply astounds me that he has to ask questions -- rather than simply
draw from past information on these areas and actually contribute
information and references.

If this topic was of more importance -- I would spend the few hours going
through my archive files searching out complete detailing on ocean currents
-- etc.

But here is just a five minute search --

Urls:

http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleostory.html

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/stp.htm

http://www.gcrio.org/

Specifically ocean currents

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/23/11/13.html

Another -- excellent tutorial for those that want to know:

1. Deep Water
2. The "Conveyor Belt"
and its relationship to climate

http://earth.usc.edu/~stott/Catalina/Deepwater.html

More .........

http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/oceanography_currents_1.html

http://earth.usc.edu/~stott/Catalina/Oceans.html

I could keep on going --

All this was presented and discussed in greatest detail in Kevin's presence.

I am astounded that Kevin does not seem to remember one single item of that!!

Kevin -- please pay attention -- review what we already "studied" -- try
contributing from data you have at hand rather than continually asking
repetitious questions that you already should know the answers to -- please!!

The facts are steadily accumulating that we are indeed in deep trouble!!

Mind you -- those urls are all dated one year or so past -- and there must
be much new information there now.

Now Kevin -- let me ask you one question.

If you knew -- beyond any shadow of a doubt -- that the next ice age will
be here before twenty more years have passed (remember the scientific
article I sent you from the US military site that postulated exactly that
-- sent to you less than one month ago Kevin!!) -- just what would you
personally do about it -- eh??

Let's hear you "contribute"!!! You answer a question. What would you
suggest the people living in the polar areas do??

It is one thing to ask questions to further one's knowledge -- quite
another to ask questions just to appear "cute".

In your position you have already reviewed all the above urls -- been
involved in a highly technical discussion in regards to global warming --
currents being disrupted -- ice caps melting -- etc -- yet you ask
questions like a person that is totally clueless!!

Please -- as we say here in Belize -- "Give us a break" -- contribute
information -- surely you are capable of contribution??

Again -- a hypothetical situation:

The ice age is a sure thing before 20 years passes. Now -- just what can
you do??

Surely -- not just ask more questions!!

So you save your Email messages?? Look up the US military "possible"
projection of an ice age in 20 years time that I sent you!!

Give this list that Url.

Demonstrate you can contribute!!

Peter / Belize

From snkm at BTL.NET Sun Feb 22 16:13:21 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare - For KEVIN!!!
Message-ID: <SUN.22.FEB.2004.151321.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

The article I refer to -- according to my archives -- Kevin read it Feb
9_04 (was posted to him then) -- less than 2 weeks past.

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,582584-1,00.html

Title:

"Climate Collapse"

The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare

The "meat" of interest:

The case for angst was buttressed by a theory regarded as the most likely
explanation for the abrupt changes. The eastern U.S. and northern Europe,
it seems, are warmed by a huge Atlantic Ocean current that flows north from
the tropics?that's why Britain, at Labrador's latitude, is relatively
temperate. Pumping out warm, moist air, this "great conveyor" current gets
cooler and denser as it moves north. That causes the current to sink in the
North Atlantic, where it heads south again in the ocean depths. The sinking
process draws more water from the south, keeping the roughly circular
current on the go.

But when the climate warms, according to the theory, fresh water from
melting Arctic glaciers flows into the North Atlantic, lowering the
current's salinity?and its density and tendency to sink. A warmer climate
also increases rainfall and runoff into the current, further lowering its
saltiness. As a result, the conveyor loses its main motive force and can
rapidly collapse, turning off the huge heat pump and altering the climate
over much of the Northern Hemisphere.

**************The entire article!!*********

This answers many questions people have been discussing on list.

CLIMATE COLLAPSE

The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare
The climate could change radically, and fast. That would be the mother of
all national security issues.
By David Stipp

Global warming may be bad news for future generations, but let's face it,
most of us spend as little time worrying about it as we did about al Qaeda
before 9/11. Like the terrorists, though, the seemingly remote climate risk
may hit home sooner and harder than we ever imagined. In fact, the prospect
has become so real that the Pentagon's strategic planners are grappling
with it.

The threat that has riveted their attention is this: Global warming, rather
than causing gradual, centuries-spanning change, may be pushing the climate
to a tipping point. Growing evidence suggests the ocean-atmosphere system
that controls the world's climate can lurch from one state to another in
less than a decade?like a canoe that's gradually tilted until suddenly it
flips over. Scientists don't know how close the system is to a critical
threshold. But abrupt climate change may well occur in the not-too-distant
future. If it does, the need to rapidly adapt may overwhelm many
societies?thereby upsetting the geopolitical balance of power.

Though triggered by warming, such change would probably cause cooling in
the Northern Hemisphere, leading to longer, harsher winters in much of the
U.S. and Europe. Worse, it would cause massive droughts, turning farmland
to dust bowls and forests to ashes. Picture last fall's California
wildfires as a regular thing. Or imagine similar disasters destabilizing
nuclear powers such as Pakistan or Russia?it's easy to see why the Pentagon
has become interested in abrupt climate change.

Climate researchers began getting seriously concerned about it a decade
ago, after studying temperature indicators embedded in ancient layers of
Arctic ice. The data show that a number of dramatic shifts in average
temperature took place in the past with shocking speed?in some cases, just
a few years.

Scientists aren't sure what caused the warming that triggered such
collapses in the remote past. (Clearly it wasn't humans and their
factories.) But the data from Arctic ice and other sources suggest the
atmospheric changes that preceded earlier collapses were dismayingly
similar to today's global warming. As the Ice Age began drawing to a close
about 13,000 years ago, for example, temperatures in Greenland rose to
levels near those of recent decades. Then they abruptly plunged as the
conveyor apparently shut down, ushering in the "Younger Dryas" period, a
1,300-year reversion to ice-age conditions. (A dryas is an Arctic flower
that flourished in Europe at the time.)

Though Mother Nature caused past abrupt climate changes, the one that may
be shaping up today probably has more to do with us. In 2001 an
international panel of climate experts concluded that there is increasingly
strong evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past 50
years is attributable to human activities?mainly the burning of fossil
fuels such as oil and coal, which release heat-trapping carbon dioxide.
Indicators of the warming include shrinking Arctic ice, melting alpine
glaciers, and markedly earlier springs at northerly latitudes. A few years
ago such changes seemed signs of possible trouble for our kids or
grandkids. Today they seem portents of a cataclysm that may not
conveniently wait until we're history.

Accordingly, the spotlight in climate research is shifting from gradual to
rapid change. In 2002 the National Academy of Sciences issued a report
concluding that human activities could trigger abrupt change. Last year the
World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, included a session at which
Robert Gagosian, director of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in
Massachusetts, urged policymakers to consider the implications of possible
abrupt climate change within two decades.

Such jeremiads are beginning to reverberate more widely. Billionaire Gary
Comer, founder of Lands' End, has adopted abrupt climate change as a
philanthropic cause. Hollywood has also discovered the issue?next summer
20th Century Fox is expected to release The Day After Tomorrow, a
big-budget disaster movie starring Dennis Quaid as a scientist trying to
save the world from an ice age precipitated by global warming.

Fox's flick will doubtless be apocalyptically edifying. But what would
abrupt climate change really be like?

Scientists generally refuse to say much about that, citing a data deficit.
But recently, renowned Department of Defense planner Andrew Marshall
sponsored a groundbreaking effort to come to grips with the question. A
Pentagon legend, Marshall, 82, is known as the Defense Department's
"Yoda"?a balding, bespectacled sage whose pronouncements on looming risks
have long had an outsized influence on defense policy. Since 1973 he has
headed a secretive think tank whose role is to envision future threats to
national security. The Department of Defense's push on ballistic-missile
defense is known as his brainchild. Three years ago Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld picked him to lead a sweeping review on military
"transformation," the shift toward nimble forces and smart weapons.

When scientists' work on abrupt climate change popped onto his radar
screen, Marshall tapped another eminent visionary, Peter Schwartz, to write
a report on the national-security implications of the threat. Schwartz
formerly headed planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group and has since consulted
with organizations ranging from the CIA to DreamWorks?he helped create
futuristic scenarios for Steven Spielberg's film Minority Report. Schwartz
and co-author Doug Randall at the Monitor Group's Global Business Network,
a scenario-planning think tank in Emeryville, Calif., contacted top climate
experts and pushed them to talk about what-ifs that they usually shy away
from?at least in public.

The result is an unclassified report, completed late last year, that the
Pentagon has agreed to share with FORTUNE. It doesn't pretend to be a
forecast. Rather, it sketches a dramatic but plausible scenario to help
planners think about coping strategies. Here is an abridged version:

A total shutdown of the ocean conveyor might lead to a big chill like the
Younger Dryas, when icebergs appeared as far south as the coast of
Portugal. Or the conveyor might only temporarily slow down, potentially
causing an era like the "Little Ice Age," a time of hard winters, violent
storms, and droughts between 1300 and 1850. That period's weather extremes
caused horrific famines, but it was mild compared with the Younger Dryas.

For planning purposes, it makes sense to focus on a midrange case of abrupt
change. A century of cold, dry, windy weather across the Northern
Hemisphere that suddenly came on 8,200 years ago fits the bill?its severity
fell between that of the Younger Dryas and the Little Ice Age. The event is
thought to have been triggered by a conveyor collapse after a time of
rising temperatures not unlike today's global warming. Suppose it recurred,
beginning in 2010. Here are some of the things that might happen by 2020:

At first the changes are easily mistaken for normal weather
variation?allowing skeptics to dismiss them as a "blip" of little
importance and leaving policymakers and the public paralyzed with
uncertainty. But by 2020 there is little doubt that something drastic is
happening. The average temperature has fallen by up to five degrees
Fahrenheit in some regions of North America and Asia and up to six degrees
in parts of Europe. (By comparison, the average temperature over the North
Atlantic during the last ice age was ten to 15 degrees lower than it is
today.) Massive droughts have begun in key agricultural regions. The
average annual rainfall has dropped by nearly 30% in northern Europe, and
its climate has become more like Siberia's.

Violent storms are increasingly common as the conveyor becomes wobbly on
its way to collapse. A particularly severe storm causes the ocean to break
through levees in the Netherlands, making coastal cities such as the Hague
unlivable. In California the delta island levees in the Sacramento River
area are breached, disrupting the aqueduct system transporting water from
north to south.

Megadroughts afflict the U.S., especially in the southern states, along
with winds that are 15% stronger on average than they are now, causing
widespread dust storms and soil loss. The U.S. is better positioned to cope
than most nations, however, thanks to its diverse growing climates, wealth,
technology, and abundant resources. That has a downside, though: It
magnifies the haves-vs.-have-nots gap and fosters bellicose finger-pointing
at America.

Turning inward, the U.S. effectively seeks to build a fortress around
itself to preserve resources. Borders are strengthened to hold back
starving immigrants from Mexico, South America, and the Caribbean
islands?waves of boat people pose especially grim problems. Tension between
the U.S. and Mexico rises as the U.S. reneges on a 1944 treaty that
guarantees water flow from the Colorado River into Mexico. America is
forced to meet its rising energy demand with options that are costly both
economically and politically, including nuclear power and onerous Middle
Eastern contracts. Yet it survives without catastrophic losses.

Europe, hardest hit by its temperature drop, struggles to deal with
immigrants from Scandinavia seeking warmer climes to the south. Southern
Europe is beleaguered by refugees from hard-hit countries in Africa and
elsewhere. But Western Europe's wealth helps buffer it from catastrophe.

Australia's size and resources help it cope, as does its location?the
conveyor shutdown mainly affects the Northern Hemisphere. Japan has fewer
resources but is able to draw on its social cohesion to cope?its government
is able to induce population-wide behavior changes to conserve resources.

China's huge population and food demand make it particularly vulnerable. It
is hit by increasingly unpredictable monsoon rains, which cause devastating
floods in drought-denuded areas. Other parts of Asia and East Africa are
similarly stressed. Much of Bangladesh becomes nearly uninhabitable because
of a rising sea level, which contaminates inland water supplies. Countries
whose diversity already produces conflict, such as India and Indonesia, are
hard-pressed to maintain internal order while coping with the unfolding
changes.

As the decade progresses, pressures to act become irresistible?history
shows that whenever humans have faced a choice between starving or raiding,
they raid. Imagine Eastern European countries, struggling to feed their
populations, invading Russia?which is weakened by a population that is
already in decline?for access to its minerals and energy supplies. Or
picture Japan eyeing nearby Russian oil and gas reserves to power
desalination plants and energy-intensive farming. Envision nuclear-armed
Pakistan, India, and China skirmishing at their borders over refugees,
access to shared rivers, and arable land. Or Spain and Portugal fighting
over fishing rights?fisheries are disrupted around the world as water
temperatures change, causing fish to migrate to new habitats.

Growing tensions engender novel alliances. Canada joins fortress America in
a North American bloc. (Alternatively, Canada may seek to keep its abundant
hydropower for itself, straining its ties with the energy-hungry U.S.)
North and South Korea align to create a technically savvy, nuclear-armed
entity. Europe forms a truly unified bloc to curb its immigration problems
and protect against aggressors. Russia, threatened by impoverished
neighbors in dire straits, may join the European bloc.

Nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable. Oil supplies are stretched thin
as climate cooling drives up demand. Many countries seek to shore up their
energy supplies with nuclear energy, accelerating nuclear proliferation.
Japan, South Korea, and Germany develop nuclear-weapons capabilities, as do
Iran, Egypt, and North Korea. Israel, China, India, and Pakistan also are
poised to use the bomb.

The changes relentlessly hammer the world's "carrying capacity"?the natural
resources, social organizations, and economic networks that support the
population. Technological progress and market forces, which have long
helped boost Earth's carrying capacity, can do little to offset the
crisis?it is too widespread and unfolds too fast.

As the planet's carrying capacity shrinks, an ancient pattern reemerges:
the eruption of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy
supplies. As Harvard archeologist Steven LeBlanc has noted, wars over
resources were the norm until about three centuries ago. When such
conflicts broke out, 25% of a population's adult males usually died. As
abrupt climate change hits home, warfare may again come to define human life.

Over the past decade, data have accumulated suggesting that the
plausibility of abrupt climate change is higher than most of the scientific
community, and perhaps all of the political community, are prepared to
accept. In light of such findings, we should be asking when abrupt change
will happen, what the impacts will be, and how we can prepare?not whether
it will really happen. In fact, the climate record suggests that abrupt
change is inevitable at some point, regardless of human activity. Among
other things, we should:

? Speed research on the forces that can trigger abrupt climate change, how
it unfolds, and how we'll know it's occurring.

? Sponsor studies on the scenarios that might play out, including
ecological, social, economic, and political fallout on key food-producing
regions.

? Identify "no regrets" strategies to ensure reliable access to food and
water and to ensure our national security.

? Form teams to prepare responses to possible massive migration, and food
and water shortages.

? Explore ways to offset abrupt cooling?today it appears easier to warm
than to cool the climate via human activities, so there may be
"geo-engineering" options available to prevent a catastrophic temperature
drop.

In sum, the risk of abrupt climate change remains uncertain, and it is
quite possibly small. But given its dire consequences, it should be
elevated beyond a scientific debate. Action now matters, because we may be
able to reduce its likelihood of happening, and we can certainly be better
prepared if it does. It is time to recognize it as a national security
concern.

The Pentagon's reaction to this sobering report isn't known?in keeping with
his reputation for reticence, Andy Marshall declined to be interviewed. But
the fact that he's concerned may signal a sea change in the debate about
global warming. At least some federal thought leaders may be starting to
perceive climate change less as a political annoyance and more as an issue
demanding action.

If so, the case for acting now to address climate change, long a hard sell
in Washington, may be gaining influential support, if only behind the
scenes. Policymakers may even be emboldened to take steps such as
tightening fuel-economy standards for new passenger vehicles, a measure
that would simultaneously lower emissions of greenhouse gases, reduce
America's perilous reliance on OPEC oil, cut its trade deficit, and put
money in consumers' pockets. Oh, yes?and give the Pentagon's fretful Yoda a
little less to worry about.

From snkm at BTL.NET Sun Feb 22 16:39:17 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: Also in the news -- H2 "reactor"
Message-ID: <SUN.22.FEB.2004.153917.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Research it in depth -- and you will find a steam reformation in action!

Strange -- eh -- two forms of gasification developed over 100 years past --
steam reforming and partial combustion.

One stays "secret" -- and everyone goes to any length to ignore it --

Certainly -- this list -- dedicated to "Gasification" avoid the subject
like the plague!

Why?? Politics is greater than science??

Thus we succumb to a return of primitive existence.

Peter / Belize

http://www.enn.com/news/2004-02-13/s_13123.asp

(Though this article is "fresh" -- it is old news)

Scientists develop a prototype reactor to produce hydrogen efficiently and
cheaply

Friday, February 13, 2004
By Gregg Aamot, Associated Press

MINNEAPOLIS ? Researchers said Thursday that for the first time, they have
produced hydrogen from ethanol in a prototype reactor small enough and
efficient enough to heat small homes and power cars. The development could
help open the way for cleaner-burning technology at home and on the road.

Current methods of producing hydrogen from ethanol require large refineries
and copious amounts of fossil fuels, the University of Minnesota
researchers said.

The reactor is a relatively tiny 2-foot-high apparatus of tubes and wires
that creates hydrogen from corn-based ethanol. A fuel cell, which acts like
a battery, then generates power.

"This points to a way to make renewable hydrogen that may be economical and
available," said Lanny Schmidt, a chemical engineer who led the study. The
work was outlined in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

Hydrogen power itself is hardly a new idea. Hydrogen fuel cells already
propel experimental vehicles and supply power for some buildings. NASA has
used them on spacecraft for decades.

But hydrogen is expensive to make and uses fossil fuels. The researchers
say their reactor will produce hydrogen exclusively from ethanol and do it
cheaply enough so people can buy hydrogen fuel cells for personal use.

They also believe their technology could be used to convert ethanol to
hydrogen at fuel stations when cars that run solely on hydrogen enter the
mass market.

Hydrogen does not emit any pollution or greenhouse gases. But unlike oil or
coal, hydrogen must be produced; there are no natural stores of it waiting
to be pumped or dug out of the ground.

The new technology holds economic potential for Midwest farmers, who are
leaders in the production of corn-based ethanol.

George Sverdrup, a technology manager at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, said he was encouraged by the research.

"When hydrogen takes a foothold and penetrates the marketplace, it will
probably come from a variety of sources and be produced by a variety of
techniques," he said. "So this particular advance and technology that
Minnesota is reporting on would be one component in a big system."

The Minnesota researchers envision people buying ethanol to power the small
fuel cells in their basements. The cell could produce 1 kilowatt of power,
nearly enough for an average home.

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Sun Feb 22 17:03:13 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: The Ultimate Conflict resolution
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040222145221.00970570@btlmail.btl.net>
Message-ID: <SUN.22.FEB.2004.160313.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

Of course, it would be a really cool move of Gaia's balance wheel if Europe
(including Russa) and North America, all the biggest contributors to GW, got
covered by a thick sheet of ice in the next 50 years.
Sort of the ultimate cosmic joke.

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Sun Feb 22 17:15:12 2004
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: The Ultimate Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <SUN.22.FEB.2004.171512.EST.>

In a message dated 2/22/04 3:04:04 PM, hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM writes:

<< Of course, it would be a really cool move of Gaia's balance wheel if Europe
(including Russa) and North America, all the biggest contributors to GW, got
covered by a thick sheet of ice in the next 50 years.
Sort of the ultimate cosmic joke. >>

I am not sure who would be around to laugh as the rest of the world would
also suffer in different ways. It is interesting to watch man with his intellect
and prowess try to figure out nature and then control it.
An interesting point to ponder in all of this is that coal is quite
abundant in Antartica. Perhaps this is a clue to what other climatic changes can
occur and none of the scenarios stated yet may cover this option.

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

From yark at UIUC.EDU Sun Feb 22 20:45:47 2004
From: yark at UIUC.EDU (Tami Bond)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: Energy Conflict, Warming, IPCC
In-Reply-To: <002501c3f962$db0931f0$6401a8c0@TOM>
Message-ID: <SUN.22.FEB.2004.194547.0600.YARK@UIUC.EDU>

Dear TOM (and others)

I respect your viewpoint on conservation, and think it is a valid one. As
devil's advocate, I ask: is it consensus that 'we are pissing away our
energy inheritance'? I think we could find a few people to argue against
the imminent scarcity of fossil resources. If we could rely on coal, we'd
have many decades to figure out a solution. Does anything argue against
using coal as a transition to renewables, *except for* the threat of GW?

In fact, arguments on either side of the GW debate and the fossil-resource
debate are sometimes similar: 'We must take action now before things get
worse, even if we are not 100% certain that we will approach the limit we
fear...' vs 'Perhaps there is a problem, but we will be far better equipped
to deal with it in the future, and now is not the time to clip our wings.'
(These are not of course the only arguments. I am reminded of my 4-yr-old
daughter's reply when she was scolded for using an entire roll of tape in
one hour: 'But SOMETIME it has to be gone!')

To me, it boils down to another question. Gavin added #4 and so did Dan, so
I will add...

(#6) What level of attention should we give to human impacts on natural
resources? And what beliefs about direct impacts must we hold in order to
justify that attention? (In 'natural resources' I include fossil stocks,
the biosphere, AND the atmospheric commons.)

Kevin: The warming by methane is 20x CO2 **over 100 years**-- that means
that methane's warming is MORE powerful than 20x CO2 during its short
lifetime.

Joel: I'd not rest on calling the IPCC a 'consensus document', although
everyone does. I prefer the term 'collaborative.' IMHO, the Summaries,
particularly the SPM (Summary for Policy Makers) are less consensus than
the background material, and one really has to read the entire background
to fully appreciate what is and isn't present. The scientists listed as
reviewers have generally NOT reviewed the entire volume. My view is that
the document is true consensus among lead authors, and among those
reviewers who have had time to make a stink when they don't agree. (Now I
shall get taken out and shot by said community. Nice knowing y'all.) Still,
it really is an impressive process.

Like everything else, IPCC should be taken with a grain of salt. But you
have a good point: while scientists and the state of science are imperfect,
the industrialized world places quite a lot of faith in this process in
general. It may not be a *completely* open process, but there are a number
of careful scientists looking at the question, and a lot of scientific
glory to be gained from 'disproving' the GW hypothesis, and so I think it
will be fairly robust in the long term.

Tami

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Sun Feb 22 22:10:34 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: Energy Conflict, Warming, IPCC
Message-ID: <SUN.22.FEB.2004.231034.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Tami

As a "unit of one", I would comment as follows:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tami Bond" <yark@UIUC.EDU>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>
> I respect your viewpoint on conservation, and think it is a valid one. As
> devil's advocate, I ask: is it consensus that 'we are pissing away our
> energy inheritance'?

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Mon Feb 23 00:40:38 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <MON.23.FEB.2004.014038.0400.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Peter

From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@BTL.NET>
Subject: Re: [GASL] Conflict resolution

> At 01:17 PM 2/22/2004 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> >On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 12:03:16PM -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> >
> >> Thus, if there is "polar warming" and an equivalent of "equatorial
> cooling",
> >> the world average temperature would be the same, so that there would be
no
> >> "net GW."
> >
> > Except there isn't any "equatorial cooling", that's getting hotter as
> well,
> >from what I've read about the problem with the ocean engine.
> >
It was my understanding that El Nino has faded, and that large areas of the
Pacific are cooler now than they were a few years ago.

>
> Antidotally -- from here -- in Central America:
>
> Ten years ago and before -- average high temps seldom exceeded 86 F -- now
> we average 95 plus F for extremely long periods.

Could very well be. Locally here, it is my perception that both winters and
summers are cooler than in the past. The summers seem cooler, with fewer hot
extremes, and the winters seem to have a lower average temperature, but with
fewer cold extremes.
>
Peter, the references you give here are tremendously enlightening. Thanks
for your effort.

> I have been tracking sea surface temperatures for three years from the
> chart at this Url:
>
> http://www.wunderground.com/tropical/
>
> I can compare any two dates over a 3 year period -- there is no question
> that tropical sea temperatures are increasing!
>
I haven't been following El Nino or La Nina, but they seem to have a
significant up and down swings. I don't know how they would relate to your
observations.

del...
>
> Kevin "scores" by continual question asking -- and it can become a royal
> pain in the butt.

Peter, this thread started off with differing opinions on the possibility of
GW and GC. GW and GC were being used more or less interchangeably with
Global Climate Change. Some felt that biomass combustion was adding to the
problem. Some felt that permafrost CH4 was a major impending problem. Some
thought that the problem was particulate carbon from biomass combustion. So,
what is the problem?
>
...del...>
> It simply astounds me that he has to ask questions -- rather than simply
> draw from past information on these areas and actually contribute
> information and references.

This thread got going because others had strongly differing views. Sometimes
a pointed question is a better way to suggest a different direction than is
a bald statement, no matter how factually correct.
>
> If this topic was of more importance -- I would spend the few hours going
> through my archive files searching out complete detailing on ocean
currents
> -- etc.
>
The topic is indeed important. Thanks indeed for your efforts in presenting
readily accessible information.

> But here is just a five minute search --
>
...some great URL's deleted....
>
> I could keep on going --
>
I am sure that you could. Thanks for your efforts.

...del...>
> The facts are steadily accumulating that we are indeed in deep trouble!!
>
What kind of deep trouble do you feel we are in? If you could impose some
focus on your issues of greatest concern, it would be most helpful in
addressing them.

...del...>
> Now Kevin -- let me ask you one question.
>
> If you knew -- beyond any shadow of a doubt -- that the next ice age will
> be here before twenty more years have passed (remember the scientific
> article I sent you from the US military site that postulated exactly that
> -- sent to you less than one month ago Kevin!!) -- just what would you
> personally do about it -- eh??
>
> Let's hear you "contribute"!!! You answer a question. What would you
> suggest the people living in the polar areas do??

OK: Heres my answer. :-)
I would try to find out how the coming of an Ice Age would actually effect
the polar regions. On the simplistic assumption that living conditions in
the polar regions are about as bad as they can ge now, and that an Ice Age
would not make them colder or worse, I would tentatively suggest that the
Eskimo's do a crash course in the history of their forefathers, to learn how
they lived in the 4,000 years before the White Man came, and then tool up to
live that way again.

If that answer was inappropriate, I would then suggest that they move South.

So, on a sale of 1 to 100, how do you score my answer? If you don't feel I
did adequately well, please provide a more correct answer.
>
...del...>
> Again -- a hypothetical situation:
>
> The ice age is a sure thing before 20 years passes. Now -- just what can
> you do??
>
That is indeed an interesting scenario. Your question is thought provoking.
I don't know much about Ice Ages and how rapidly and severely they come on.
It could be very fast, in that dead Mastedons were found still with grass in
their mouths. If there was a reasonable expectation that it would come that
quickly, then I'd move South. I don't think that would be the case. What I
would expect is shorter summers and longer winters. I'd buy a bunch of
fencing, and learn how to raise Yaks. (Either that, or become involved with
a Lady Friend who is already doing this. :-) I'd learn how to grow short and
cool season food crops. I'd buy a bunch of electric or hydraulic chain saws
that I could run off a mobile biogas/diesel engine, to minimize dependance
on fossil fuels. Later on, if diesel became excessively expensive, I'd
probably switch over to a Spark Ignition engine system and biomass gas....
Wow!! this is indeed an interesting scenario. A lot of it could be
implemented sensibly with a "no regrets" approach.

> Surely -- not just ask more questions!!
>
Sorry I can only give you a partial answer. I wish I had the time to lay out
a coherent plan.

> So you save your Email messages?? Look up the US military "possible"
> projection of an ice age in 20 years time that I sent you!!
>
> Give this list that Url.
>
> Demonstrate you can contribute!!
>
As my Good Friend, Red Green says: "Keep your stick on the ice. We're all in
this together."

Best Wishes,

Kevin

From coda at ECN.NL Mon Feb 23 05:00:59 2004
From: coda at ECN.NL (Coda,mw B.)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: Guideline for Tar & Particle testing
Message-ID: <MON.23.FEB.2004.110059.0100.CODA@ECN.NL>

The "Tar Guideline" method, accounting for sampling, post-sampling and
analysis of tars in biomass producer gases , is currently on the way to get
the status of a European official Standard (CEN Standard). An CEN Task
Force, gathering technical experts throughout Europe, is working on that and
it is expected to deliver the official Standard by the end of 2005.

The status of the method so far is quite advanced, and to reach the status
of Standard data on accuracy and reproducibility of the measurement method
are now gathered by means of Round Robin Tests on analysis and sampling
methods. Currently, these activities are dealt with in a EU funded project.
However, several parties in Europe have already used the "Guideline", such
as gasifiers manufacturers, but also research institutions. Indeed, the main
application of the method is the Comparison of tar measurement data between
developers of gasification technology, thus allowing manufacturers of
gasifiers, gas cleaning systems and gas engine or turbine generator sets to
better specify the technical performance of these subsystems and to better
define tolerances, providing better guarantees to end users .

The Guideline can be seen also as a 'Mother method' for valuation/validation
of other tar measurement methods, which, as Claus already pointed out, can
be simpler and less time consuming, and suitable for many operational
applications.
For example, it has been shown that SPA and the Guideline method match very
well in the range of tars phenol-pyrene.
The strenght of the Guideline method is, however, that it covers both
gravimetric tars and GC detectable tars, and that can be applied differently
to downdraft, updraft and fluidised bed gasifiers over a wide range of
(temperature) conditions.

Beatrice Coda

Co-ordinator of EU project "Tar Measurement Standard"
ECN- Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands
ZG 1755 Petten- The Netherlands
coda@ecn.nl
www.ecn.nl; www.tarweb.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Claus Hindsgaul [mailto:claush@MEK.DTU.DK]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 4:12 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Guideline for Tar & Particle testing

fre, 2004-02-20 kl. 15:39 skrev a31ford:
> I guess what I'm asking, is "Are there any of you that are following
> this method" ??

Claus

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Feb 23 08:07:05 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: In less than 20 years???
Message-ID: <MON.23.FEB.2004.070705.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Are the modern nations of mankind waking up??

Will the search for reasonable alternative sources of energy start anew??

Will the present mind set change so that support of biomass power over
petro-power becomes reality??

Only "The Shadow" knows for sure.

Peter / Belize

NOW THE PENTAGON TELLS BUSH: CLIMATE CHANGE WILL DESTROY US

By Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York

The Observer Sunday, February 22, 2004

- Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war - Britain will be
'Siberian' in less than 20 years - Threat to the world is greater
than terrorism

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global
catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The
Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath
rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020.
Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will
erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the
planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat
to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The
threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the
few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes
the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which
has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said
that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has
insisted national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser
Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military
thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a
sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military
under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US
national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA
consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group,
and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and
would challenge United States national security in ways that should
be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year
widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major
upheaval for millions.

Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large
body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked
science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did
not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four
months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the
threat of climate change.

Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could
prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real
and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United
States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic
change.

A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to
voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive
to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The
Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about
the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance
appeared increasingly out of touch.

One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about
some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony
Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's
position on the issue as indefensible.

Among those scientists present at the White House talks were
Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to
the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate
scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said
that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point'
in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.

Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological
Office -- and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate
change to that of terrorism -- said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out
that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.'

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the
Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored.

'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this
sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single
highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko,
liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate
change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has
to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen
to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.

'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across
the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars.
It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on
this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.

Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a
higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic'
shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder
to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years
ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine,
disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.

Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid
climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,'
he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because
there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over
the threat.'

Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a
disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the
process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another
five years,' he said.

'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are
unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels
would be worthwhile.'

So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may
prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is
known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists
disillusioned with Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry
uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.

The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid
Kerry's cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a
secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security
called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed 'Yoda' by Pentagon
insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being
behind the Department of Defence's push on ballistic-missile defence.

Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said
that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the
White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. 'It is yet
another example of why this government should stop burying its head
in the sand on this issue.'

Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered
energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate
change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. 'This
administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful
of large energy and oil companies,' he added.
.............

THE GUARDIAN'S GLOBAL WARMING SPECIAL TRACKING SECTION:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/0,12374,782494,00.html

From marshbros at MCBRIDEBC.COM Mon Feb 23 08:42:46 2004
From: marshbros at MCBRIDEBC.COM (Phil Marsh)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: The Ultimate Conflict resolution
In-Reply-To: <20.2337c2f9.2d6a83f0@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MON.23.FEB.2004.054246.0800.>

Leland:

It is interesting that you mention this since as a Canadian military
pilot I spent may years flying in Canada's far north. 1000km from the
north pole is a island called Axel Heiberg Island and on it are
fossilized tree stumps. These are known as the Fossil Forests of Axel
Heiberg. These are dated at 45 million years and yet according to plate
tectonics the island has not shifted appreciably north or south during
that time. 45 million years ago while it still may have been dark for 5
months of the year this was crocodile county, currently the area is
rather to cold for me to enjoy hanging out at the beach for any length
of time. I for one fully support global warming, nothing personal but it
is cold up here.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG] On Behalf Of LINVENT@AOL.COM
Sent: February 22, 2004 2:15 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] The Ultimate Conflict resolution

In a message dated 2/22/04 3:04:04 PM, hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM writes:

<< Of course, it would be a really cool move of Gaia's balance wheel if
Europe
(including Russa) and North America, all the biggest contributors to GW,
got
covered by a thick sheet of ice in the next 50 years.
Sort of the ultimate cosmic joke. >>

I am not sure who would be around to laugh as the rest of the world
would
also suffer in different ways. It is interesting to watch man with his
intellect
and prowess try to figure out nature and then control it.
An interesting point to ponder in all of this is that coal is quite
abundant in Antartica. Perhaps this is a clue to what other climatic
changes can
occur and none of the scenarios stated yet may cover this option.

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

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Feb 23 10:22:40 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: Mixing Politics with Science
Message-ID: <MON.23.FEB.2004.092240.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Ahh -- but here is the real problem!

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/23/opinion/23MON3.html?th

Uses and Abuses of Science

Published: February 23, 2004

Although the Bush administration is hardly the first to politicize science,
no administration in recent memory has so shamelessly distorted scientific
findings for policy reasons or suppressed them when they conflict with
political goals. This is the nub of an indictment delivered last week by
more than 60 prominent scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates. Their
statement was accompanied by a report published by the Union of Concerned
Scientists, listing cases where the administration has manipulated science
on environmental and other issues.

President Bush's supporters promptly denounced the statement and the report
as an overdrawn and politically motivated work issued in an election year
by an advocacy group known for its liberal disposition. Tellingly, however,
neither Mr. Bush's friends nor the White House denied that any of the
incidents listed in the report ? all had been reported before in
newspapers, trade magazines and scientific journals ? had occurred. The
best they could muster was a lame rejoinder from Dr. John Marburger III,
Mr. Bush's science adviser, who said that these were disconnected episodes
reflecting normal bureaucratic disagreements, none of them adding up to a
"a pattern" of distortion or disrespect for science.

We respectfully urge Dr. Marburger to look again. On global warming alone,
the administration belittled, misrepresented, altered or quashed multiple
reports suggesting a clear link between greenhouse gas emissions and the
burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil. A study detailing the impact of
mercury emissions from power plants was sanitized to industry
specifications. Another study suggesting that a Congressional clean-air
bill would achieve greater pollution reductions than Mr. Bush's own plan,
at approximately the same cost, was withheld. It does not take much effort
to find a pattern of suppressing inconvenient facts that might force Mr.
Bush's friends in the oil, gas and coal industries to spend more on
pollution control.

The report details similar shenanigans involving other agencies, including
Agriculture, Interior and even, on reproductive health issues, the Centers
for Disease Control. It also criticizes the administration for stacking
advisory committees with industry representatives and disbanding panels
that provided unwanted advice. Collected in one place, this material gives
a portrait of governmentwide insensitivity to scientific standards that,
unless corrected, will further undermine the administration's credibility
and the morale of its scientists.

From billkichman at COMCAST.NET Mon Feb 23 10:33:03 2004
From: billkichman at COMCAST.NET (Bill Kichman)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: Steam reforming of biomass
Message-ID: <MON.23.FEB.2004.103303.0500.BILLKICHMAN@COMCAST.NET>

Is steam reforming something that is practical for a technically-oriented
individual to attempt to implement? I am interested in using wood chips to
make burnable gas, possibly for use in a vehicle, in addition to generating
electricity and heating buildings with waste heat.
Where can I find examples or additional information how these are
constructed?

R. William Kichman, P.E.
Kichman Engineering Associates
103 Old Furnace Road
Cornwall, PA 17016-0643
tel/fax 717/270-0714

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Mon Feb 23 11:23:12 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: The Ultimate Conflict resolution
In-Reply-To: <20.2337c2f9.2d6a83f0@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MON.23.FEB.2004.102312.0600.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 05:15:12PM -0500, LINVENT@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/22/04 3:04:04 PM, hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM writes:
>
> << Of course, it would be a really cool move of Gaia's balance wheel if Europe
> (including Russa) and North America, all the biggest contributors to GW, got
> covered by a thick sheet of ice in the next 50 years.
> Sort of the ultimate cosmic joke. >>
>
> I am not sure who would be around to laugh as the rest of the world would
> also suffer in different ways.

Ah, but Gaia would be laughing. Humans very seldom "get it" anyway, that's
another cosmic joke.

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

From joacim at YMEX.NET Mon Feb 23 19:53:07 2004
From: joacim at YMEX.NET (Joacim Persson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: The Ultimate Conflict resolution
In-Reply-To: <20040222220313.GA7010@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.24.FEB.2004.015307.0100.JOACIM@YMEX.NET>

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Harmon Seaver wrote:

> Of course, it would be a really cool move of Gaia's balance wheel if Europe
> (including Russa) and North America, all the biggest contributors to GW, got
> covered by a thick sheet of ice in the next 50 years.

Then they (we) all head south looking for a warm place to sleep, armed to
the teeth. It would be messy.

Reminds of the fear of "fimbulvetur" (the great winter) in Nordic
mythology; the three years of constant winter preceeding the final battle.
"Fimbul" also means "long boring speech" in Icelandic. "The eternal winter
of having to listen to long boring speeches"? horrific indeed. ;)

The future is never known in advance, hardly even the present or past is known.
Prepare for the worst but hope for the best.

Joacim

From snkm at BTL.NET Mon Feb 23 20:26:10 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: The Ultimate Conflict resolution
Message-ID: <MON.23.FEB.2004.192610.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Couple of comments:

Interesting history in this area of the Yucatan.

During the war of the Castes the Spanish encourages an army of rebel
soldiers (post their defeat in the US) to come and look after their Indian
problem around here.

Promised they could keep a good share of all the lands they could conquer
back!

7000 Rebel soldiers -- lately retired from the American Civil -- two months
later -- just 11 Marched back out!!

The Maya were not to impressed with the Rebel yell!!

And:

Prepare for the worst -- the best always looks after itself.

It will be a real hoot watching people from the great North Lands trying to
fight and feed themselves through the great jungles here.

I'd say stop at Mexico City --

I was always a country boy when living in Canada -- and would kid with the
guys in the city about subjects like this.

I'd say --

"What would you guys do if everything stopped and the food stopped coming
to the city."

They's always say:

"We would go out to your place in the country and take what food we can find!"

I'd answer:

"Fine -- my place will be easy to locate -- it will have a big "Free Food
Here" sign out front."

"Then when you all come marching up the trail I'll pick you off one by one
-- and never run out of fresh meat!"

During the War of the Castes 100,000 residents of Merida were forced into
immediate refugee status. Most of those "City" Maya -- were the wild
Indians were "Bush" Maya.

Of the 100,000 that left -- barely 500 survived to reach Belize. Where they
founded a number of villages.

They mostly died from diseases and starvation. Men woman and children.

I live in one of them Xaibe -- which in Maya means "Crossing of the roads"

By the way -- search all the history books in the US you want -- you will
not find anything on the War of the Castes.

It's the only Indian uprising where the Indians won -- big time!!

You know -- can't have modern american children reading about that -- eh??
(or other subjects -- like evolution -- and we wonder why technical jobs
are out sourcing -- eh??)

Search the I-net and you'll find this:

Reed, Nelson,
La guerra de castas en Yucata'n.
Ediciones Era. Me'xico. Novena reimpresio'n, 1995.
ISBN: 968-411-192-4

Excellent book -- also in English -- amazon has it. Search it out.

Anyway -- advise you stop at Mexico City -- in your reaving -- eh??

Belize has some very interesting ancient history that is also not found in
any institute of education in the US (or Canada) -- real mind blowing.

Caracol -- up in our Maya Mountains range -- was a true Shangrila -- for
instance. Been there -- if your talking global ending -- that is the place
to "live" through it in style.

Nothing about gasification -- gee --

Peter / Belize

At 01:53 AM 2/24/2004 +0100, Joacim Persson wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>
>> Of course, it would be a really cool move of Gaia's balance wheel if
Europe
>> (including Russa) and North America, all the biggest contributors to GW,
got
>> covered by a thick sheet of ice in the next 50 years.
>
>Then they (we) all head south looking for a warm place to sleep, armed to
>the teeth. It would be messy.
>
>Reminds of the fear of "fimbulvetur" (the great winter) in Nordic
>mythology; the three years of constant winter preceeding the final battle.
>"Fimbul" also means "long boring speech" in Icelandic. "The eternal winter
>of having to listen to long boring speeches"? horrific indeed. ;)
>
>The future is never known in advance, hardly even the present or past is
known.
>Prepare for the worst but hope for the best.
>
>Joacim
>

From wynn at IC.ORG Tue Feb 24 00:35:58 2004
From: wynn at IC.ORG (Wynn)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: Woodchip driers?
Message-ID: <TUE.24.FEB.2004.003558.0500.WYNN@IC.ORG>

Hello All,
As i understand it, woodchip fed to a gassifier should be low moisture
content.
Has anyone come up with a relatively cheap design to air or solar dry chips?

Wynn

From cicbcal at CAL2.VSNL.NET.IN Tue Feb 24 01:19:27 2004
From: cicbcal at CAL2.VSNL.NET.IN (Kollol Dey)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: Woodchip driers?
Message-ID: <TUE.24.FEB.2004.114927.0530.CICBCAL@CAL2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Dear Wynn,

Can you please elaborate or rather be more specific as to what you mean by
"a relatively cheap design" - are you meaning a design which is less capital
intensive or one which is cheaper in operating cost?(less energy or
operating on cheaper source of energy).

Regards

K.Dey.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wynn" <wynn@IC.ORG>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 11:05 AM
Subject: [GASL] Woodchip driers?

> Hello All,
> As i understand it, woodchip fed to a gassifier should be low moisture
> content.
> Has anyone come up with a relatively cheap design to air or solar dry
chips?
>
> Wynn

From wynn at IC.ORG Tue Feb 24 12:01:41 2004
From: wynn at IC.ORG (Wynn)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: Woodchip driers?
Message-ID: <TUE.24.FEB.2004.120141.0500.WYNN@IC.ORG>

Dear Kollol,
Cheap, as in [my current thinking] hardware cloth and 2x4s. Cheap, as in
solar energy heat input, or ambient breezes only. And manual, or simple
mechanical devices to assist in moving, turning, etc. the chips. Some
sort of roof to avoid rewetting from rain/snow. Input storage [Pile?]
thru drying region, to dry storage [silo?] with easy gravity fill of
gassifier bin.

Any suggestions?

Thanks,
Wynn

From sigma at IX.NETCOM.COM Tue Feb 24 12:43:02 2004
From: sigma at IX.NETCOM.COM (Len Walde)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: Woodchip driers?
Message-ID: <TUE.24.FEB.2004.094302.0800.SIGMA@IX.NETCOM.COM>

Wynn:

Search Google for solar dryers+ Africa and you should find some effective
and cheap to build dryer designs. The designs I found, some time ago, were
for guava and fish but should work fine for what you have in mind.

Good Luck,

Len

Sigma Energy Engineering, Inc.
Renewable Energy, Process Engineering
Serving Agriculture, Industry & Commerce
through "Symbiotic Recycling" tm
Est. 1985

Ph: 925-254-7633
E-mail: sigma@ix.netcom.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wynn" <wynn@IC.ORG>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 9:01 AM
Subject: [GASL] Woodchip driers?

> Dear Kollol,
> Cheap, as in [my current thinking] hardware cloth and 2x4s. Cheap, as in
> solar energy heat input, or ambient breezes only. And manual, or simple
> mechanical devices to assist in moving, turning, etc. the chips. Some
> sort of roof to avoid rewetting from rain/snow. Input storage [Pile?]
> thru drying region, to dry storage [silo?] with easy gravity fill of
> gassifier bin.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
> Wynn
>

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Tue Feb 24 13:34:26 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: FW: Woodchip driers?
Message-ID: <TUE.24.FEB.2004.123426.0600.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Wynn,

I'll give you some hints, if you are dealing with wood chips,

1) Most tree chippers in north America are of the method of "Shear" where as
the chips are truly sheared from the log generally on a 22.5 or 33.3 degree
angle. These chips are thin (generally under 1/4" thick) and are usually had
from "whole tree" chipping (as in the branches & leaves ALSO get chipped).
This poses a problem for most homemade gasifiers, as that the really fine
stuff ends up clogging feeders, bridging in the hopper or gasifier, or at
worst "channeling" with the gasifier itself, causing a host of other
problems.

2) Most of the European units are called "hoggers" where as the unit
produces "Cubes" NOT chips (They actually look like little boxes) these are
generally gotten from strictly trunk or large branch stock only, AND what I
have seen, & heard, is that generally the branches & leafy stuff is done in
a separate run (as to get different piles of stock)

3) If one adopts the European method of doing separate runs (even with a
chipper) at least the leafy content is removed and the actual "trunk" chips
are much easier to deal with, HOWEVER, if you are like me, and get most of
your chips from the local tree service people, or the companies that clear
electric poles & lines, you will have to deal with "what you get" (generally
everything, chips, leafy bits, & twigs/sticks) all of this will generally
cause great fits late in the evening, when your gasifier goes "Channel" when
you least want it to, and hours of work, to get it running correctly.

4) FYI sake, I have a drum that "sorts" the bulk content into 3 sizes, (
1-leafy, then 2-chips, then 3-too big, in the process of sorting, I find
that the drum action (on an average summer day of about 70F will remove 20%
MC from a very wet pile of "muck" the entire process from when the chips are
feed into the drum, until the chips are ready for going to the silo is less
than 3 minutes. the only thing using electricity at this point of sorting is
a 1/4hp 110vac motor (like what would come out of a furnace). There is no
air movement other than the drum turning, (about 20rpm) I would be happy to
send you some pictures and a "how I would make it (the drum) next time
write-up if you are interested.

5) I find that there is NO sense in drying more than you can use in about
one month, as it simply adds to the reduction process (and cost/or labor) to
dry them or finding a dry location for them (400 CuYd of chips is quite a
lot of space) I simply keep low piles (no higher than 5ft) and cheap tarps
simply to keep the bulk of the rain off.

Oh, I guess the fact that I'm running a "Monorator Style" upper container on
my gasifier WOULD have an effect of why most of the chips I run are 45%mc
and I have no problems with it. (our local conditions are that I simply
uncover a pile, drive the front end loader into it, and start filling the
sorter, ALL of this being done in MINUS (-2 to -40 f), therefore "drying"
is imposable, as it is simply too cold in the first place, this is the
reason for the monorator.

If, and only IF, you are using your unit in the cold, I would suggest NOT
drying (save the time & effort) and use a monorator upper container on your
gasifier instead.

If you are also using your unit in the midst of summer, then YES I would
agree with drying SOMEWHAT....

Read up on a monorator... :)

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Wynn
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 11:02 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Woodchip driers?

Any suggestions?

Thanks,
Wynn

From jsmeenk at IASTATE.EDU Wed Feb 25 15:17:04 2004
From: jsmeenk at IASTATE.EDU (Jerod Smeenk)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: Fwd: Re: [GASL] Guideline for Tar & Particle testing
Message-ID: <WED.25.FEB.2004.141704.0600.JSMEENK@IASTATE.EDU>

All ~ We have been using the European protocol to quantify tars in our
producer gas streams (fluid bed gasification) at Iowa State University for
a couple years. I agree with Claus's assessment of the advanced nature of
the analysis. The methods are relatively time intensive and require a wet
lab to perform the analyses. We are developing a gravimetric method that
utilizes a disposable piece of plastic tubing, in place of an impinger
train, to capture condensed tars. The tubing is immersed in a pressure
cooker water bath operated at 105C. A particulate free gas sample is
passed through the tubing where all hydrocarbons that condense above 105C
are collected. After sampling, the tubing is extracted, weighed, and
disposed. This method enables fast, easy quantification of 'heavy' tars
while avoiding moisture condensation issues and use of solvents. We hope
to submit a paper for publishing that compares the gravimetric tubing
method with the European protocol.

Jerod Smeenk
Iowa State University

> >From popserve Fri Feb 20 10:14:00 2004
>X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5
>Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 16:12:21 +0100
>Reply-To: Claus Hindsgaul <claush@MEK.DTU.DK>
>Sender: The Gasification Discussion List <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>From: Claus Hindsgaul <claush@MEK.DTU.DK>
>Organization: DTU: CHEC/KT + MEK
>Subject: Re: [GASL] Guideline for Tar & Particle testing
>Comments: To: a31ford <a31ford@INETLINK.CA>
>To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
>X-PMX-Version: 4.1.1.86173
>X-Perlmx-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIIII, Probability=8%, Report='NOSPAM_INC 0,
>QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT 0, SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE 0, REFERENCES 0.000, IN_REP_TO 0'
>
>fre, 2004-02-20 kl. 15:39 skrev a31ford:
> > I guess what I'm asking, is "Are there any of you that are following
> > this method" ??
>
>The tar guideline is a relatively advanced (thus expensive) method to
>use for measuring tars. It goes great lengths to capture all tars with
>high accuracy and low detection level. I think it is very good as a
>standard for evaluation plants and consistently comparing numbers
>between different plants. Here in Europe (where it was developed) it is
>used for just that.
>
>But if you want to optimise your plant and measure approximate tar
>levels for different operational parameters or fuels on your plant, you
>may be better off looking for something simpler that require less of
>your money and time. Possibly inspired by elements from the guideline.
>
>Claus
>
>--
>Ph.D. Student Claus Hindsgaul
>CHEC, Dept. Chemical Eng. (KT), DTU
>and Biomass Gasification Group, Dept. Mechanical Eng. (MEK), DTU
>DTU Building 229 room 114, Phone +45 4525 2831
>http://bgg.mek.dtu.dk/ and http://www.kt.dtu.dk/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerod Smeenk Phone: (515) 294-6402
Iowa State University Fax: (515) 294-3261
1043 Black Engineering E-mail: jsmeenk@iastate.edu
Ames, IA 50011

From luiz.pellegrini at POLI.USP.BR Wed Feb 25 16:44:10 2004
From: luiz.pellegrini at POLI.USP.BR (Luiz Felipe Pellegrini)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: Gasification process for sugarcane bagasse
Message-ID: <WED.25.FEB.2004.184410.0300.LUIZ.PELLEGRINI@POLI.USP.BR>

Hi to all,

Last year, I have worked on a simple gasification model in order to evaluate the potential of improving the power generation in sugarcane mills. My work, as many of you already know, showed a great potential to increase power generation. Unfortunately, I was not able to elaborate an economic analysis of this potential, especially because of the lack of information regarding sugarcane bagasse gasification. In this sense, I would like to ask the list for some information on the status of the process of gasifying sugarcane bagasse (time for implementation, problems found, restrictions) and costs involved (hardware and operation).

I thank you all in advance.

Luiz F. Pellegrini
Escola Polit?cnica - USP

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Wed Feb 25 17:02:24 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:38 2004
Subject: FW: Woodchip driers?
In-Reply-To: <000f01c3fb04$d55ba5a0$0200a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <WED.25.FEB.2004.160224.0600.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Stovers,

Greg (message left below) mentions his "monorator" . Well, if you do
not know what a monorator is, and if you have any interest in using fuels
that are with HIGH moisture (especially if in a cold climate for some
months), then go to this site that I found via Google. The article is
dated 21 July 1945 -- yes., nearly 60 years ago. We have so much to
learn from those who led the world in gasification during WWII.

http://www.hotel.ymex.net/~s-20222/gengas/monorator-eng.html#fig6

And Greg, please tell me (us) more about hoggers and where they are used
/made?? in North America. I want "chunkies" of wood, not shreds.

Thanks, Greg, for a great message.

Paul

At 12:34 PM 2/24/04 -0600, a31ford wrote:
>Wynn,
>
>I'll give you some hints, if you are dealing with wood chips,
>
>1) Most tree chippers in north America are of the method of "Shear" where as
>the chips are truly sheared from the log generally on a 22.5 or 33.3 degree
>angle. These chips are thin (generally under 1/4" thick) and are usually had
>from "whole tree" chipping (as in the branches & leaves ALSO get chipped).
>This poses a problem for most homemade gasifiers, as that the really fine
>stuff ends up clogging feeders, bridging in the hopper or gasifier, or at
>worst "channeling" with the gasifier itself, causing a host of other
>problems.
>
>2) Most of the European units are called "hoggers" where as the unit
>produces "Cubes" NOT chips (They actually look like little boxes) these are
>generally gotten from strictly trunk or large branch stock only, AND what I
>have seen, & heard, is that generally the branches & leafy stuff is done in
>a separate run (as to get different piles of stock)
>
>3) If one adopts the European method of doing separate runs (even with a
>chipper) at least the leafy content is removed and the actual "trunk" chips
>are much easier to deal with, HOWEVER, if you are like me, and get most of
>your chips from the local tree service people, or the companies that clear
>electric poles & lines, you will have to deal with "what you get" (generally
>everything, chips, leafy bits, & twigs/sticks) all of this will generally
>cause great fits late in the evening, when your gasifier goes "Channel" when
>you least want it to, and hours of work, to get it running correctly.
>
>4) FYI sake, I have a drum that "sorts" the bulk content into 3 sizes, (
>1-leafy, then 2-chips, then 3-too big, in the process of sorting, I find
>that the drum action (on an average summer day of about 70F will remove 20%
>MC from a very wet pile of "muck" the entire process from when the chips are
>feed into the drum, until the chips are ready for going to the silo is less
>than 3 minutes. the only thing using electricity at this point of sorting is
>a 1/4hp 110vac motor (like what would come out of a furnace). There is no
>air movement other than the drum turning, (about 20rpm) I would be happy to
>send you some pictures and a "how I would make it (the drum) next time
>write-up if you are interested.
>
>5) I find that there is NO sense in drying more than you can use in about
>one month, as it simply adds to the reduction process (and cost/or labor) to
>dry them or finding a dry location for them (400 CuYd of chips is quite a
>lot of space) I simply keep low piles (no higher than 5ft) and cheap tarps
>simply to keep the bulk of the rain off.
>
>Oh, I guess the fact that I'm running a "Monorator Style" upper container on
>my gasifier WOULD have an effect of why most of the chips I run are 45%mc
>and I have no problems with it. (our local conditions are that I simply
>uncover a pile, drive the front end loader into it, and start filling the
>sorter, ALL of this being done in MINUS (-2 to -40 f), therefore "drying"
>is imposable, as it is simply too cold in the first place, this is the
>reason for the monorator.
>
>If, and only IF, you are using your unit in the cold, I would suggest NOT
>drying (save the time & effort) and use a monorator upper container on your
>gasifier instead.
>
>If you are also using your unit in the midst of summer, then YES I would
>agree with drying SOMEWHAT....
>
>Read up on a monorator... :)
>
>Greg Manning,
>Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: The Gasification Discussion List
>[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Wynn
>Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 11:02 AM
>To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
>Subject: Woodchip driers?
>
>
>Dear Kollol,
>Cheap, as in [my current thinking] hardware cloth and 2x4s. Cheap, as in
>solar energy heat input, or ambient breezes only. And manual, or simple
>mechanical devices to assist in moving, turning, etc. the chips. Some
>sort of roof to avoid rewetting from rain/snow. Input storage [Pile?]
>thru drying region, to dry storage [silo?] with easy gravity fill of
>gassifier bin.
>
>Any suggestions?
>
>Thanks,
> Wynn

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

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

February 2004 Gasification Archive