June 2004 Gasification Archive

From graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ Tue Jun 1 01:05:25 2004
From: graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:53 2004
Subject: Internal Combustion
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.170525.1200.GRAEME@POWERLINK.CO.NZ>

Dear Matt,

It's always refreshing to have new members join this list to pursue their
interest in gasification. Clearly you have the enthusiasm of an
environmentalist, hence the huge opportunities you see in the application of
gasification technology to dispose of the ever increasing amounts of waste
in our society.

While I can appreciate the tremendous enthusiasm that has been generated
from your reading about this technology, I think it would be a sound idea
for you to actually build a small gasifier in order to gain an appreciation
of what you are currently talking about. I hardly know where to start to
begin answering your questions, so I would suggest you take a moment to scan
the Fluidyne Archive www.fluidynenz.250x.com Here you will find quite a bit
of information regarding gasified power generation and also the design for
an easy to build gasifier for your experiments. This information comes from
our files of past projects and the current larger scale gasifier
development, and I add to it as possible to match discussion needs for this
forum.

From cicbcal at CAL2.VSNL.NET.IN Tue Jun 1 01:21:39 2004
From: cicbcal at CAL2.VSNL.NET.IN (Kollol Dey)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:53 2004
Subject: Gasification By-products (*was* fertilizer by-products)
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.105139.0530.CICBCAL@CAL2.VSNL.NET.IN>

I have read with interest the ideas on how to use tar and char.
1.0 Tar:
Tar from biomass gasifiers is so small in quantity that it has only nuisance
value and nothing else. In the coal carbonisation plants, the quantity of
tar is quite substantial (because of the quantities involved and down stream
processing of coal tar is a practical and viable option.
In India I know of an operating (it operates on and off) updraft gasifier
which produces larger amount of tar (as compared to a down draft gasifier).
The operators collect the tar and once a week distributes it to the local
villagers who use it as a substitute of kerosene to ignite their stoves !
Regarding using the ammonia content in the tar as fertiliser - it appears
quite absurd given the quantities involved in the tar and the millions of
tons of fertiliser required in the fields yearly.Specially when you consider
that a "standard
ammonia" plant today is atleast 1500 TPD capacity and has a matching urea
plant of
at least 2200 TPD with it. Here we are talking in terms of kgs !
I personally agree with the view to reduce the tar generation to the barest
minimum from the gasifier.

2.0 Char.
From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Tue Jun 1 08:32:41 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:53 2004
Subject: FW: Internal Combustion
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.073241.0500.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Good Day, Doug, Matt & All.

Matt, Doug is one of the people I followed, and listened to when I was in
"design mode" (Still listening, and also still in design mode, 6 years later
:)

I agree with his "build a small working unit", as to grasp both the problems
& Success's in working with gasifiers, I have a total of over 6 "full blown"
units, as well as model size units running in the 40's (Table top, so to
speak)

The one thing I do stress however, is the use of a monorator upper
container, IF you are using wood, simply for it's water removal capacity (it
makes it easier to deal with wet wood, hence simpler storage of the
feedstock, on the "mass" level).

Regards & is it raining there also ??

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Graeme Williams
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 12:05 AM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Internal Combustion

Dear Matt,

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Tue Jun 1 09:52:11 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:53 2004
Subject: Internal Combustion
In-Reply-To: <006d01c44796$11326b80$c48f58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.085211.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

At 05:05 PM 6/1/04 +1200, Graeme Williams wrote:
>Dear Matt,
snip
> so I would suggest you take a moment to scan
>the Fluidyne Archive www.fluidynenz.250x.com Here you will find quite a bit
>of information regarding gasified power generation and also the design for
>an easy to build gasifier for your experiments.
>Doug Williams,
>Fluidyne Gasification.

Doug,

My computer could not get through to that site just now. I will try
later. But could you give a more specific address (or directions within
your site) so we can easily get to the "easy to build gasifer".

And is there any cost estimate provided there? (if not, what might one
cost to make in NZ or North America?)

Thanks,

Paul
Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.
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
NOTE: Retired from teaching. Active in Stoves development.
For fastest contact, please call home phone: 309-452-7072

From JMonteroA at ICE.GO.CR Tue Jun 1 09:54:31 2004
From: JMonteroA at ICE.GO.CR (Montero Arguedas Jorge Mario)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:53 2004
Subject: hydrocarbons or heavy metals ?
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.075431.0600.JMONTEROA@ICE.GO.CR>

I couldn' t refrain myself anymore...

where would these heavy metals come from, if you are feeding the gasifier
with organic matter ? heavy metals would be there if you were using coal or
oil, not from organic matter, unless it was heavily polluted.

perhaps you (guys in the list ...) are referring to partially combusted
hydrocarbons which are
different in nature, but equally, very toxic.

Jorge

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: The Gasification Discussion List
> [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]En nombre de Harmon Seaver
> Enviado el: Monday, May 31, 2004 12:57 PM
> Para: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Asunto: Re: [GASL] Fertilizer as a by-product (Toxicity)
>
>
> Disposing of wood ash is no real problem, disposing of ash
> from biosolids as
> Michael was proposing is a serious problem. Heavy metals.
> Biosolids are full of
> them, that's why here in the US, cities, who have been paying
> farmers to let
> them spread them on their land, and who were previously
> incinerating them,
> are very soon going to have a serious disposal problem.
>
>
> On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 05:44:10PM -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
> > Dear Tom;
> >
> > Forget Tars for a minute or so -- let's talk combustion ash.
> >
> > Ash of fire -- or "char" or gasifier.
> >
> > I remember reading one of the problems with the early
> combustion power
> > plant in Vermont was wood ash disposal.
> >
> > What is the problem of simply dispersing wood ash back
> onto/into the ground??
> >
> > The Maya here once practiced -- extensively -- slash and
> burn agriculture.
> > The soil of the yucatan is of extremely poor quality to
> grow anything in.
> > The only "fertilizer" was the ash of the bush felled and
> burned to clear
> > for a "milpa".
> >
> > Karve over at the stove mail list has mentioned that India
> has known for
> > many years that certain bacteria are required to prepare
> minerals to plant
> > absorption routes. That these bacteria can be fed -- to
> greatly thrive --
> > with a little sugar.
> >
> > Maybe mix a little sugar into the ash??
> >
> > Does modern mechanized agricultural techniques consider
> past technologies??
> > Or is it all slam/bam -- old is out -- new is in -- and
> there is only one
> > way to skin this cat.
> >
> > Certainly -- I have seen pure white marl here grow local
> corn in bounty
> > from the milpa methology. The bush is allowed to grow from
> 5 to 8 years --
> > then slash -- burn -- plant.
> >
> > There is no nutrients in the white marl.
> >
> > I would think the only nutrients are coming from the wood ash.
> >
> > Wood ash is a toxic waste in the US -- wood ash is a
> fertilizer in the
> > tropical slash and burn systems.
> >
> > So what gives?? Curious minds want to know ----
> >
> > Also -- char is often automatically taken out from a
> running gasifier --
> > hot. Would hot char make a filter for producer gas to clean
> tars?? Would
> > enough char be coming out in a continuous manner to be able
> to filter all
> > gas produced??
> >
> > Screw feed from chamber to chamber --- out of the gasifier
> -- to a holding
> > chamber where gas is cleaned -- then dumped.
> >
> > Maybe a little steam added for some cracking of tars as
> well?? Or probably
> > -- sufficient humidity left in gas product stream for same??
> >
> > So the char would dry and crack at the same time.
> >
> > The final waste product -- char -- should be like milpa wood ash??
> >
> > There is a lot of charcoal left in milpa wood ash though --
> and that might
> > make it less toxic??
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter / Belize
> >
> >
> > At 07:03 PM 5/31/2004 EDT, LINVENT@AOL.COM wrote:
> > >There are some benefits of using carbon applications to
> the land, but these
> > >deteriorate over time unless appropriate carbon balancing
> elements are used.
> > >Heavy metals and even non-heavy metals like aluminum will
> accumulate in
> > the soil
> > >and cause serious microbiological interference in the
> plant assimilation
> > >pathways. If one takes a look at the economic radius of
> application of a
> > waste
> > >material such as char/ash combination, it is a short lived
> economic event.
> > >Otherwise, the many composting operations around the world
> would have much
> > better
> > >economics. Most of the concepts of using waste or organic
> based systems for
> > >plant nutrition are seriously flawed and do not understand
> the complex
> > nature of
> > >soil/plant systems. A good example of this is the iron
> nutritional pathway.
> > >Innumerable articles, books, reports have been written on
> it and most are
> > off the
> > >point on iron nutrition. Iron nutrition will be
> dramatically upset by using
> > >organics and any metals which are not in the right
> relation to iron in
> > >formation and amounts. A good measuring stick for plant
> nutrition on
> > organic based
> > >programs is the aluminum content in plant leaves.
> > > I admire your excitement, now some learning can set in.
> > >
> > >Sincerely,
> > >Leland T."Tom" Taylor
> > >Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
> > >President
> > >Agronics Inc. 7100-E 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, NM 87107
> phone-505-761-1454,
> > >fax:505-341-0424 e-mail:linvent@aol.com website:agronicsinc.com
> > >
> > >Sincerely,
> > >Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
> > >President
> > >Thermogenics Inc.
> > >Phone: US 505-761-5633, fax:341-0424, Website: thermogenics.com
> > >
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com
> Hoka hey!
>

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Tue Jun 1 05:00:43 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:53 2004
Subject: hydrocarbons or heavy metals ?
In-Reply-To: <545D8126A497834C8B7813C612FF0AC903446BCB@SABEXC07.sabana.ice>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.040043.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

Matt is wanting to gasify biosolids -- the dried sewage sludge from cities --
which contains quite a bit of heavy metals. This is the reason that spreading it
on farmlands as is done now here in the US is being outlawed, because they then
contaminate soil and ground water.

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 07:54:31AM -0600, Montero Arguedas Jorge Mario wrote:
> I couldn' t refrain myself anymore...
>
> where would these heavy metals come from, if you are feeding the gasifier
> with organic matter ? heavy metals would be there if you were using coal or
> oil, not from organic matter, unless it was heavily polluted.
>
> perhaps you (guys in the list ...) are referring to partially combusted
> hydrocarbons which are
> different in nature, but equally, very toxic.
>
> Jorge
>
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: The Gasification Discussion List
> > [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]En nombre de Harmon Seaver
> > Enviado el: Monday, May 31, 2004 12:57 PM
> > Para: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> > Asunto: Re: [GASL] Fertilizer as a by-product (Toxicity)
> >
> >
> > Disposing of wood ash is no real problem, disposing of ash
> > from biosolids as
> > Michael was proposing is a serious problem. Heavy metals.
> > Biosolids are full of
> > them, that's why here in the US, cities, who have been paying
> > farmers to let
> > them spread them on their land, and who were previously
> > incinerating them,
> > are very soon going to have a serious disposal problem.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 05:44:10PM -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
> > > Dear Tom;
> > >
> > > Forget Tars for a minute or so -- let's talk combustion ash.
> > >
> > > Ash of fire -- or "char" or gasifier.
> > >
> > > I remember reading one of the problems with the early
> > combustion power
> > > plant in Vermont was wood ash disposal.
> > >
> > > What is the problem of simply dispersing wood ash back
> > onto/into the ground??
> > >
> > > The Maya here once practiced -- extensively -- slash and
> > burn agriculture.
> > > The soil of the yucatan is of extremely poor quality to
> > grow anything in.
> > > The only "fertilizer" was the ash of the bush felled and
> > burned to clear
> > > for a "milpa".
> > >
> > > Karve over at the stove mail list has mentioned that India
> > has known for
> > > many years that certain bacteria are required to prepare
> > minerals to plant
> > > absorption routes. That these bacteria can be fed -- to
> > greatly thrive --
> > > with a little sugar.
> > >
> > > Maybe mix a little sugar into the ash??
> > >
> > > Does modern mechanized agricultural techniques consider
> > past technologies??
> > > Or is it all slam/bam -- old is out -- new is in -- and
> > there is only one
> > > way to skin this cat.
> > >
> > > Certainly -- I have seen pure white marl here grow local
> > corn in bounty
> > > from the milpa methology. The bush is allowed to grow from
> > 5 to 8 years --
> > > then slash -- burn -- plant.
> > >
> > > There is no nutrients in the white marl.
> > >
> > > I would think the only nutrients are coming from the wood ash.
> > >
> > > Wood ash is a toxic waste in the US -- wood ash is a
> > fertilizer in the
> > > tropical slash and burn systems.
> > >
> > > So what gives?? Curious minds want to know ----
> > >
> > > Also -- char is often automatically taken out from a
> > running gasifier --
> > > hot. Would hot char make a filter for producer gas to clean
> > tars?? Would
> > > enough char be coming out in a continuous manner to be able
> > to filter all
> > > gas produced??
> > >
> > > Screw feed from chamber to chamber --- out of the gasifier
> > -- to a holding
> > > chamber where gas is cleaned -- then dumped.
> > >
> > > Maybe a little steam added for some cracking of tars as
> > well?? Or probably
> > > -- sufficient humidity left in gas product stream for same??
> > >
> > > So the char would dry and crack at the same time.
> > >
> > > The final waste product -- char -- should be like milpa wood ash??
> > >
> > > There is a lot of charcoal left in milpa wood ash though --
> > and that might
> > > make it less toxic??
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter / Belize
> > >
> > >
> > > At 07:03 PM 5/31/2004 EDT, LINVENT@AOL.COM wrote:
> > > >There are some benefits of using carbon applications to
> > the land, but these
> > > >deteriorate over time unless appropriate carbon balancing
> > elements are used.
> > > >Heavy metals and even non-heavy metals like aluminum will
> > accumulate in
> > > the soil
> > > >and cause serious microbiological interference in the
> > plant assimilation
> > > >pathways. If one takes a look at the economic radius of
> > application of a
> > > waste
> > > >material such as char/ash combination, it is a short lived
> > economic event.
> > > >Otherwise, the many composting operations around the world
> > would have much
> > > better
> > > >economics. Most of the concepts of using waste or organic
> > based systems for
> > > >plant nutrition are seriously flawed and do not understand
> > the complex
> > > nature of
> > > >soil/plant systems. A good example of this is the iron
> > nutritional pathway.
> > > >Innumerable articles, books, reports have been written on
> > it and most are
> > > off the
> > > >point on iron nutrition. Iron nutrition will be
> > dramatically upset by using
> > > >organics and any metals which are not in the right
> > relation to iron in
> > > >formation and amounts. A good measuring stick for plant
> > nutrition on
> > > organic based
> > > >programs is the aluminum content in plant leaves.
> > > > I admire your excitement, now some learning can set in.
> > > >
> > > >Sincerely,
> > > >Leland T."Tom" Taylor
> > > >Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
> > > >President
> > > >Agronics Inc. 7100-E 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, NM 87107
> > phone-505-761-1454,
> > > >fax:505-341-0424 e-mail:linvent@aol.com website:agronicsinc.com
> > > >
> > > >Sincerely,
> > > >Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
> > > >President
> > > >Thermogenics Inc.
> > > >Phone: US 505-761-5633, fax:341-0424, Website: thermogenics.com
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > Harmon Seaver
> > CyberShamanix
> > http://www.cybershamanix.com
> > Hoka hey!
> >

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

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 1 10:19:37 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:53 2004
Subject: Thank you.
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20040601084739.02501a20@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.101937.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Many thanks to ALL of you and all of your input and help. Yes I can
certainly see that much experimenting and practical experience are
essential in making _real_ progress. I am low on resources currently, even
for building a cheap gasifier, and my area, which is a dense residential
area isn't a place where I could carry on my experiments without somebody
sticking their nose in and complaining about it! ;) Especially if things
start exploding or smelling bad. ;) I will try to do what I can as I am
eager to get to work and get cracking on this stuff.

I can see already that all of you have so much more practical experience
than I have in this field, immensely more! I admire that and I can see
that I have definitely come to the right place. This mailing list is
different from many I have seen. You are all skilled and talented people
who do less talk and more doing! Right now all I can do is theorize, which
I hope is ok. I would like to put some unconventional ideas in here that
maybe some of you could experiment with before I can, or find out whether
it is worth hacking it in the first place.

I would first like to learn as much as I can about the theory of
gasification and all issues surrounded by it, and draw from some of _your_
experiences, before digging any deeper.

I am most interested in some of the less common gasifier designs out
there, namely the cyclone gasifier. I won't even bother with fluidized bed
as they are not the technically simple solution I am aiming for. I see
that this cyclone gasifier will be the most useful design for me, and I
think my first project will be going straight for that design. It seems
less common of a design, but the fuels that I want to try are of a
different nature than the ones most of the people on this list are
concerned with, such as wood chips, charcoal, pellets, etc. I am going to
concentrate on powdery and liquid waste streams, the really problematic
stuff.

I am going to design and build a system which can dehydrate and powderize
waste first, and then move on to the gasifier. It is not useful for say,
wood chips, but sawdust could be gasified as well as anything that can be
economically made into a powder. I have some very complete and very
detailed schematics from India on how to build a cyclone gasifier. So the
design is laid out for me, I just need the materials. The materials are
readily available, and I think such a system should not suffer some of the
problems that your fixed bed gasifiers have encountered.

In my case, the drying process will turn the fuels into a powder as an
essential part of its operation, so I need to investigate unconventional
designs such as this.

Has anyone here seen or built a cyclone gasifier?

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 1 10:51:16 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:53 2004
Subject: Gasification By-products (*was* fertilizer by-products)
In-Reply-To: <00c001c44798$56284fa0$51b441db@kdey>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.105116.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Aha, an eye opener! :)

My suggestion stemmed from my initial interest in carbonization, charcoal
production instead of gasification, which I believe produces a lot more
tars and of course chars, but, you are right, if so little of these are
produced in gasification, I suppose it makes no sense to try to collect it
for anything other than recycling it back into the gasifier.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 10:51:39 +0530, Kollol Dey <cicbcal@CAL2.VSNL.NET.IN>
wrote:

> I have read with interest the ideas on how to use tar and char.
> 1.0 Tar:
> Tar from biomass gasifiers is so small in quantity that it has only
> nuisance
> value and nothing else. In the coal carbonisation plants, the quantity of
> tar is quite substantial (because of the quantities involved and down
> stream
> processing of coal tar is a practical and viable option.
> In India I know of an operating (it operates on and off) updraft gasifier
> which produces larger amount of tar (as compared to a down draft
> gasifier).
> The operators collect the tar and once a week distributes it to the local
> villagers who use it as a substitute of kerosene to ignite their stoves !
> Regarding using the ammonia content in the tar as fertiliser - it appears
> quite absurd given the quantities involved in the tar and the millions of
> tons of fertiliser required in the fields yearly.Specially when you
> consider
> that a "standard
> ammonia" plant today is atleast 1500 TPD capacity and has a matching urea
> plant of
> at least 2200 TPD with it. Here we are talking in terms of kgs !
> I personally agree with the view to reduce the tar generation to the
> barest
> minimum from the gasifier.
>
> 2.0 Char.
> From personal experience of having set-up and operated a 400 KWe wood
> based
> down draft gasifier, my view is that the char is best recycled into the
> gasifier itself. In fact we were once toying with the idea deliberately
> extracting the char out of the gasifier faster so that - after separating
> the ash from the char by simply screening it - the char can be recycled
> back
> with the wood as feed to the gasifier. The view was that the dry char
> will
> reduce the average moisture content in the feed, and so help the
> gasification process. Unfortunately due to logistic reasons we could not
> try
> this out.
>
> In any case, at the rated (normal) char output, I do not see any reason
> why
> we cannot recycle the small amount of char back to the gasifier after
> separating the ash from it..
>
> Regarding using the char as activated carbon - while this ay be feasible
> when using coconut shall as feed material, our experience is that with
> wood
> the char the quality of activated carbon is very poor - in fact, rarely
> have
> we found the iodine value of wood char ton exceed 600 - as against god
> activated char coal have iodine value of as high as 1200 !
>
> Regards
>
> Kollol Dey.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt@C2I.NET>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 5:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Gasification By-products (*was* fertilizer
> by-products)
>
>
>> On Mon, 31 May 2004 19:48:40 -0400, Matthew wrote in message
>> <opr8v1rez76c175d@localhost>:
>>
>> > So the topic I am bringing up is what to do with the waste streams
>> > produced during gasification. Depending on the conditions, this will
>> > be ash and/or charcoal, and tars in wastewater. Tars, we won't worry
>> > about too much
>>
>> ..flare'em. http://fmb.no/gas/ssrcolor.png ;-)
>>
>> > I thought charcoal addition to soil would be a good idea, but it seems
>> > there are complexities to it which make it far less than feasible!
>> > Scratch that, for now.
>> >
>> > So, what can be done with ash or charcoal?
>> >
>> > Ash: Cement additive
>> >
>> > Charcoal: Activated charcoal
>>
>> ..it burns? ,-) Throw it back in. ;-)
>>
>> > This is a problem which seems to be a major deciding factor in whether
>> > small scale (500kw+) power generation is possible using waste biomass.
>>
>> ....heh. 1/2MW small scale. Attitude. ;-)
>>
>> --
>> ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
>> ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
>> Scenarios always come in sets of three:
>> best case, worst case, and just in case.

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 1 10:58:20 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:53 2004
Subject: FW: Internal Combustion
In-Reply-To: <opr8w7s2ea6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.105820.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 10:56:52 -0400, Matthew Pottinger
<mpottinger@renewableplanet.ca> wrote:

>
> Now there's an idea. I should definitely start looking at building small
> table top units to gain some experience before building a bigger one. A
> tin can gasifier? :)
>
> That's something I should do, because it's about all I CAN do right now!
> haha
>
> Oh yeah, and it WAS raining, it's been terrible here. Same all the way
> in Manitoba? That's a long way from here!
>
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 07:32:41 -0500, a31ford <a31ford@INETLINK.CA> wrote:
>
>> Good Day, Doug, Matt & All.
>>
>> Matt, Doug is one of the people I followed, and listened to when I was
>> in
>> "design mode" (Still listening, and also still in design mode, 6 years
>> later
>> :)
>>
>> I agree with his "build a small working unit", as to grasp both the
>> problems
>> & Success's in working with gasifiers, I have a total of over 6 "full
>> blown"
>> units, as well as model size units running in the 40's (Table top, so to
>> speak)
>>
>> The one thing I do stress however, is the use of a monorator upper
>> container, IF you are using wood, simply for it's water removal
>> capacity (it
>> makes it easier to deal with wet wood, hence simpler storage of the
>> feedstock, on the "mass" level).
>>
>> Regards & is it raining there also ??
>>
>> Greg Manning,
>>
>> Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: The Gasification Discussion List
>> [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Graeme Williams
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 12:05 AM
>> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
>> Subject: Internal Combustion
>>
>>
>> Dear Matt,
>>
>> It's always refreshing to have new members join this list to pursue
>> their
>> interest in gasification. Clearly you have the enthusiasm of an
>> environmentalist, hence the huge opportunities you see in the
>> application of
>> gasification technology to dispose of the ever increasing amounts of
>> waste
>> in our society.
>>
>> While I can appreciate the tremendous enthusiasm that has been generated
>> from your reading about this technology, I think it would be a sound
>> idea
>> for you to actually build a small gasifier in order to gain an
>> appreciation
>> of what you are currently talking about. I hardly know where to start
>> to
>> begin answering your questions, so I would suggest you take a moment to
>> scan
>> the Fluidyne Archive www.fluidynenz.250x.com Here you will find quite
>> a bit
>> of information regarding gasified power generation and also the design
>> for
>> an easy to build gasifier for your experiments. This information comes
>> from
>> our files of past projects and the current larger scale gasifier
>> development, and I add to it as possible to match discussion needs for
>> this
>> forum.
>>
>> From a personal perspective, I can see that $$ signs are giving you a
>> distorted vision of the work,expense, and time required to turn that
>> enthusiasm into commercial technology reality. We have all at some time
>> or
>> another been like that, but remember gasification is a carrot on a
>> stick and
>> you have to eat a lot of stick to get the carrot!!
>>
>> I will look forward to read of your future endevours.
>>
>> Doug Williams,
>> Fluidyne Gasification.
>
>
>

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From oscar at GEPROP.CU Tue Jun 1 11:12:59 2004
From: oscar at GEPROP.CU (oscar)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:53 2004
Subject: Internal combustion engines for tar-laden gases?? Re:
[GASL] LARGE Lister style engines
In-Reply-To: <opr8vsmkzo6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.171259.0200.OSCAR@GEPROP.CU>

>what makes gasification
>on a commercial scale not feasible?

hmmmm...this is a pretty interesting and highly complex question many times
approached from different points of view on different discussing arena
world-wide... including this list.... but as I see it...many factors are
influencing it, and just for the sake of mention some of them, regarding to
power generation, we have:
-oil prices, even though they are really high now... they have been
hindering the free path of gasification to commercial scale...when having
lower prices not very long ago...
-energy policy has been also influencing it....a formulation of sustainable
energy policy and strategies in addressing this challenge is highly
important....
-manufacturing gasifier, mostly tailored to the needs they are envisaged to
accomplish to, is also and important issue. So far there is not a
standarized design capable of being commerciallized...It seems mass
production is not possible in the short term...

other issues can be taken into account when considering your answer, many of
them are very well known by recognized people attending this list...

regards.

Oscar.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]En nombre de Matthew Pottinger
Enviado el: lunes, 31 de mayo de 2004 22:31
Para: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Asunto: Re: [GASL] Internal combustion engines for tar-laden gases?? Re:
[GASL] LARGE Lister style engines

On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:27:47 -0400, Matthew Pottinger
<mpottinger@renewableplanet.ca> wrote:

>
> Hmm, well I looked up humid air turbines and what it says is that
> efficiency is actually ~3% higher due to cooling of the air flow into
> the turbine, so I am not sure if you are correct there.
>
> Here is the reference:
>
> Converting the heat in a GT exhaust into steam and then converting steam
> into electric power through a conventional steam cycle involves losses
> and inefficiencies which reduce the overall cycle efficiency. One
> feature of a GT is that it already has a turbine creating mechanical
> power from a flowing gas stream, and this power output can be increased
> (within limits) by increasing the mass flow of gas. In the case of an
> IGCC (IGCC) the fuel gas can be cooled by saturating it with steam,
> created by injecting water which evaporates as it cools the gas. This
> increases the mass flow of gas through the GT's turbine. This effect
> can be taken further by injecting steam from the waste heat boiler into
> the GT upstream or in the combustion chamber. Such cycles are known as
> Humid Air Cycles. This different conversion route can produce a rise in
> efficiency of about 3% points compared to a standard IGCC plant,
> depending on the precise cycle parameters. Needs for development are
> still great: there are no commercially available GT's suited to this
> application.
>
> So the water itself does not improve the efficiency, but the COOLING
> does. I think the cooling effect of the water is more important than
> anything else. The gas cleaning stage using water spray will cool the
> gas and allow a higher mass of producer gas into the engine, thus
> increasing power output.
>
> If the gas is cool enough it should not hold too much water, and I am
> not sure of how it will affect efficiency, but I am hoping not too much!
>
> I am really in favour of simpler, low tech solutions rather than high
> tech solutions! This is what we need in this day and age to make these
> technologies accessible to everyone.
>
>
> On Mon, 31 May 2004 21:50:48 +0200, Krzysztof Lis <santo@poczta.fm>
> wrote:
>
>> M> Water injection has been used since WWII. It is used today in some
>> M> large wartsila engines to lower emissions. If you do a search you
>> M> will find that there are many references to this. It is also used
>> M> with gas turbines, also steam injection is often used to improve
>> M> the efficiency of gas turbines.
>>
>> Not exactly... HAT (Humid Air Turbines) work normally without water
>> injection, because 'dry air' has better efficiency than gas / vapor
>> mixture. But addition of water to combustion chamber allows for great
>> increase of power going out from the machine, so it is used on war-
>> ships when really needed (e.g. trying to escape a chasing torpedo).
>>
>> Introducing water to IC engines running on gasoline will help avoiding
>> knocking (tested very recently (less than week ago) on small (650 ccm
>> / 24HP) engine with high compression ratio by a guy I know), but kno-
>> cking is not a problem when thinking about producer / wood gas.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof Lis / Poland
>
>
>

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Tue Jun 1 11:54:03 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:53 2004
Subject: More questions on tarry gases: Was [GASL] Internal combustion
engines for tar-laden gases??
In-Reply-To: <opr8vv5ssg6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.105403.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Summary:

1. When I initially wrote about tarry gases running in "ANY IC engine", I
should have clarified that I meant in "even one type of IC engine" and NOT
meaning "all IC engines." Sorry for the confusion.

2. Nobody indicated even a single engine that can operate very long with
the tarry gases. One mention of massive pre-1930 engines that take too
much metal to make today, but even that was without mention of now much
tars could be tolerated.

3. One very convincing comment: When the gases are very hot, they cannot
produce much energy when asked to "explode" in an IC engine. Makes
sense. But raises a question (below).

4. First New Question: If the hot gases (clean or otherwise) must be
cooled first before becoming of good use, we are probably "wasting" the
heat in those gases. Therefore, IF that is a lot of energy lost, and IF
that heat could have been put into a steam boiler, and IF the "still-hot"
gases were simply combusted for heat (not for mechanical power in an IC
engine), WOULD that make a meaningful difference to improve the otherwise
poor image of steam generation as an inefficient way to use the
gases? [NOTE the number of "IFs" in this question.]

5. Second New Question: After much discussion about the "nasties" and
toxic aspects of the tarry gases (and I am speaking of using CLEAN wood as
the starting point), I would like to know if there are such toxic problems
if the tarry gases are well combusted in heat-generating combustors, (not
in IC engines)?

6. Third New Question: (anticipating favorable answers to #4 and #5
above). Considering the relatively high financial costs associated with
tar-free producer gases, and the relatively low costs of making tarry gases
that could be used in a heat-generator (for example to drive a steam boiler
for electricity generation), what are the comparative cost-benefit results
of the tar-free systems versus the tarry-gas systems? I am sure that size
of the unit is a factor, but where does one system have advantage over the
other. (NOTE: The large coal burning electricity generation
installations are using the heat with boilers, right? And if wood was a
cheap as coal per BTU, would they stay with heat-boiler systems versus IC
systems? And someday, coal will be in short supply and wood could be
competitive for BTU.)

Well, the Gasification List Serve is not expected to be the most
"receptive" list for bringing up such sticky ("tarry") issues that question
the viability of tar-free systems, but it is certainly where the
knowledgeable people are linked together. [Please be gentle, I am just an
amateur who met Tom Reed and got into the super-small pyrolyzing (char
making - tar burning) gasifiers for home stoves.]

Paul

At 05:47 PM 5/31/04 -0400, Matthew Pottinger wrote:
>Ah, I see your point! 50% power reduction? Yeah that is true with gasoline
>engines the power loss is brutal. Diesels don't lose so much power. I see
>your situation now. When I speak of gasification I am speaking purely from
>the perspective of power generation, with very large, yet inexpensive
>heavy duty diesel engines, which will be paying for themselves rapidly.
>
>Vehicle applications are a different beast entirely, especially if the
>vehicle is already bought! Alas a, vehicle investment is almost always a
>loss.
>
>So different situations have different concerns! We just have to find the
>best solutions for each of them.
>
>
>When it comes to a vehicle, I would just use SVO instead of a gasifier, if
>such a supply of waste oil is available. No power loss to mention, and
>much less complex! However you already have a gasoline vehicle in mind.
>Ethanol production in order? :)
>
>Best Regards, Matt
>
>
>
>On Mon, 31 May 2004 11:24:11 -0500, Harmon Seaver
><hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 05:03:36PM -0400, Matthew Pottinger wrote:
>>>Also, take a look at this link:
>>>http://www.wartsila.com/english/pdf/en_direct_water_inj.pdf
>>>
>>>water injection is not only used for temporarily boosting power
>>>it is also being adopted for emissions controls
>>>in these applications, water is used continuously.
>>>
>>>So this is the reason why I think water would not be a problem. It is
>>>widely used it to reduce NOx.
>>
>>
>> Have you looked at what kind of power you get from producer gas? You
>>definitely don't want to do anything that will make it worse. I'd really
>>like to
>>put a gasifier on my '91 Toyota 4x4 pickup, for example. But with the
>>power I've
>>got right now from my 2.4L 4cyl gasoline engine, I can cruise at 75mph,
>>but not
>>much more, and can't even make 50mph up some of the big hills on my way
>>to work
>>without dropping down to 3rd gear. So if I only got 50% of my rated
>>power, which
>>is about what I can expect with a gasifier, my already one hour drive to
>>work
>>would be so horribly slow I'm not sure it's worth it. OTOH, since I know
>>gas
>>prices are going to keep going up, and probably rather rapidly as world
>>situations continue to deteriorate, I'm not sure I have a choice.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:27:47 -0400, Matthew Pottinger
>>><mpottinger@renewableplanet.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Hmm, well I looked up humid air turbines and what it says is that
>>> >efficiency is actually ~3% higher due to cooling of the air flow into
>>> >the turbine, so I am not sure if you are correct there.
>>> >
>>> >Here is the reference:
>>> >
>>> >Converting the heat in a GT exhaust into steam and then converting
>>>steam
>>> >into electric power through a conventional steam cycle involves losses
>>> >and inefficiencies which reduce the overall cycle efficiency. One
>>> >feature of a GT is that it already has a turbine creating mechanical
>>> >power from a flowing gas stream, and this power output can be increased
>>> >(within limits) by increasing the mass flow of gas. In the case of an
>>> >IGCC (IGCC) the fuel gas can be cooled by saturating it with steam,
>>> >created by injecting water which evaporates as it cools the gas. This
>>> >increases the mass flow of gas through the GT's turbine. This effect
>>> >can be taken further by injecting steam from the waste heat boiler into
>>> >the GT upstream or in the combustion chamber. Such cycles are known as
>>> >Humid Air Cycles. This different conversion route can produce a rise
>>>in
>>> >efficiency of about 3% points compared to a standard IGCC plant,
>>> >depending on the precise cycle parameters. Needs for development are
>>> >still great: there are no commercially available GT's suited to this
>>> >application.
>>> >
>>> >So the water itself does not improve the efficiency, but the COOLING
>>> >does. I think the cooling effect of the water is more important than
>>> >anything else. The gas cleaning stage using water spray will cool the
>>> >gas and allow a higher mass of producer gas into the engine, thus
>>> >increasing power output.
>>> >
>>> >If the gas is cool enough it should not hold too much water, and I am
>>> >not sure of how it will affect efficiency, but I am hoping not too
>>>much!
>>> >
>>> >I am really in favour of simpler, low tech solutions rather than high
>>> >tech solutions! This is what we need in this day and age to make these
>>> >technologies accessible to everyone.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >On Mon, 31 May 2004 21:50:48 +0200, Krzysztof Lis <santo@poczta.fm>
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>M> Water injection has been used since WWII. It is used today in some
>>> >>M> large wartsila engines to lower emissions. If you do a search you
>>> >>M> will find that there are many references to this. It is also used
>>> >>M> with gas turbines, also steam injection is often used to improve
>>> >>M> the efficiency of gas turbines.
>>> >>
>>> >>Not exactly... HAT (Humid Air Turbines) work normally without water
>>> >>injection, because 'dry air' has better efficiency than gas / vapor
>>> >>mixture. But addition of water to combustion chamber allows for great
>>> >>increase of power going out from the machine, so it is used on war-
>>> >>ships when really needed (e.g. trying to escape a chasing torpedo).
>>> >>
>>> >>Introducing water to IC engines running on gasoline will help avoiding
>>> >>knocking (tested very recently (less than week ago) on small (650 ccm
>>> >>/ 24HP) engine with high compression ratio by a guy I know), but kno-
>>> >>cking is not a problem when thinking about producer / wood gas.
>>> >>
>>> >>--
>>> >>Best regards,
>>> >> Krzysztof Lis / Poland
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>Matthew Pottinger
>>>
>>>Student
>>>Environmental Technology Program
>>>Durham College
>>>Ontario, Canada
>>>
>>>"Never underestimate people's
>>>ability to suppress inconvenient realities."
>>>
>>>"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't
>>>be
>>>economically feasible."
>>
>>--
>>Harmon Seaver
>>CyberShamanix
>>http://www.cybershamanix.com
>>Hoka hey!
>
>
>
>--
>
>Matthew Pottinger
>
>Student
>Environmental Technology Program
>Durham College
>Ontario, Canada
>
>"Never underestimate people's
>ability to suppress inconvenient realities."
>
>"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
>economically feasible."

Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.
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
NOTE: Retired from teaching. Active in Stoves development.
For fastest contact, please call home phone: 309-452-7072

From Greg.Elder at STELCO.CA Tue Jun 1 12:02:40 2004
From: Greg.Elder at STELCO.CA (Elder, Greg)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: cancel
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.120240.0400.GREG.ELDER@STELCO.CA>

This email communication is intended as a private communication for the sole use of the primary addressee and those individuals listed for copies in the original message. The information contained in this email is private and confidential and if you are not an intended recipient you are hereby notified that copying, forwarding or other dissemination or distribution of this communication by any means is prohibited. If you are not specifically authorized to receive this email and if you believe that you received it in error please notify the original sender immediately. We honour similar requests relating to the privacy of email communications.

Cette communication par courrier electronique est une communication privee a l'usage exclusif du destinataire principal ainsi que des personnes dont les noms figurent en copie. Les renseignements contenus dans ce courriel sont confidentiels et si vous n'etes pas le destinataire prevu, vous etes avise, par les presentes que toute reproduction, tout transfert ou toute autre forme de diffusion de cette communication par quelque moyen que ce soit est interdit. Si vous n'etes pas specifiquement autorise a recevoir ce courriel ou si vous croyez l'avoir recu par erreur, veuillez en aviser l'expediteur original immediatement. Nous respectons les demandes similaires qui touchent la confidentialite des communications par courrier electronique.

From windward at GORGE.NET Tue Jun 1 13:19:35 2004
From: windward at GORGE.NET (Walt Patrick)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: FW: Internal Combustion
In-Reply-To: <003101c447d4$88915040$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.101935.0700.WINDWARD@GORGE.NET>

At 07:32 AM 6/1/04 -0500, Greg wrote:

>The one thing I do stress however, is the use of a monorator upper
>container, IF you are using wood, simply for it's water removal capacity (it
>makes it easier to deal with wet wood, hence simpler storage of the
>feedstock, on the "mass" level).

Would you mind elaborating on what a "monorator upper chamber" is?

with appreciation,

Walt

From CAVM at AOL.COM Tue Jun 1 13:25:57 2004
From: CAVM at AOL.COM (C. Van Milligen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.132557.EDT.>

We have some experience with biosolids from several municipalities. They do
not necessarily contain heavy metals. It depends on the industrial load on
the system. Less industry means cleaner biosolids. In the USA the content of
the biosolids is measured daily so you can get current and historic info on the
issues you will face.

The biosolids will come from their belt presses at about 80% moisture or
slightly less. To gasify it you will have to use your waste heat and more to get
it to below 10% for most systems.

The ash will be a concentration of whatever you started with. If you had
metals in the biosolids they will be concentrated in the ash. It is possible
that the ash would be a good soil amendment if properly handled.

If I had this opportunity I would combust the biosolids in a hot air
electrical generating plant such as Bioten and eliminate a lot of these issues.
However, if you want to gasify them, it can be done.

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

From santo at POCZTA.FM Tue Jun 1 13:20:18 2004
From: santo at POCZTA.FM (Krzysztof Lis)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: More questions on tarry gases: Was [GASL] Internal
combustion engines for tar-laden gases??
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20040601101608.02508300@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.192018.0200.SANTO@POCZTA.FM>

P> 4. First New Question: If the hot gases (clean or otherwise) must
P> be cooled first before becoming of good use, we are probably
P> "wasting" the heat in those gases. Therefore, IF that is a lot of
P> energy lost, and IF that heat could have been put into a steam
P> boiler, and IF the "still-hot" gases were simply combusted for heat
P> (not for mechanical power in an IC engine), WOULD that make a
P> meaningful difference to improve the otherwise poor image of steam
P> generation as an inefficient way to use the gases? [NOTE the
P> number of "IFs" in this question.]

A book "Generatorbetrieb" by St.v.Szenasy shows an example of using
this heat -- you cool those gasses by heating water in some tank, and
then add this water to the generator -- this way of saving energy was
used in "Wisco" generator, which runs on anthracit (coal), very dry
fuel, which doesn't produce much hydrogen. Even better idea would be
to use (if it's possible) produced gas to evaporate this water and
then (at best) overheat this steam, and then send it to the gas gene-
rator.

As for burning hot gas inside boiler or stove or any other burner,
there might be (I think) three difficulties:
- hot gas means large specific volume and large volumetric flows, so
larger (more energy consuming) fan / blower to pump this gas to the
place in which it'll be used (if you use any in your case)
- hot gas = fan with metal blades
- burner might not be suitable for the gas of large specific volume (I
think there might be problem with mixing proper amounts of producer
gas with oxidizer, but burner's aren't my interest).

--
Best regards,
Krzysztof Lis / Poland

From santo at POCZTA.FM Tue Jun 1 13:33:15 2004
From: santo at POCZTA.FM (Krzysztof Lis)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: Internal combustion engines for tar-laden gases?? Re:
[GASL] LARGE Lister style engines
In-Reply-To: <opr8vsglcd6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.193315.0200.SANTO@POCZTA.FM>

M> Hmm, well I looked up humid air turbines and what it says is that
M> efficiency is actually ~3% higher due to cooling of the air flow into the
M> turbine, so I am not sure if you are correct there.

M> Here is the reference:

M> Converting the heat in a GT exhaust into steam and then converting steam
M> into electric power through a conventional steam cycle involves losses and
M> inefficiencies which reduce the overall cycle efficiency. One feature of
M> a GT is that it already has a turbine creating mechanical power from a
M> flowing gas stream, and this power output can be increased (within limits)
M> by increasing the mass flow of gas. In the case of an IGCC (IGCC) the
M> fuel gas can be cooled by saturating it with steam, created by injecting
M> water which evaporates as it cools the gas. This increases the mass flow
M> of gas through the GT's turbine. This effect can be taken further by
M> injecting steam from the waste heat boiler into the GT upstream or in the
M> combustion chamber. Such cycles are known as Humid Air Cycles. This
M> different conversion route can produce a rise in efficiency of about 3%
M> points compared to a standard IGCC plant, depending on the precise cycle
M> parameters. Needs for development are still great: there are no
M> commercially available GT's suited to this application.

M> So the water itself does not improve the efficiency, but the COOLING does.
M> I think the cooling effect of the water is more important than anything
M> else. The gas cleaning stage using water spray will cool the gas and allow
M> a higher mass of producer gas into the engine, thus increasing power
M> output.

M> If the gas is cool enough it should not hold too much water, and I am not
M> sure of how it will affect efficiency, but I am hoping not too much!

Can't find any reference to HAT's I've been taught few months ago.
Anyways -- the reference you mentioned is about using waste heat from
GT combustion gasses to heat water (is it called waste boiler??), and
then adding this steam on the turbine, which is not the same as
putting plain, cold water, into combustion chamber. Probably that's
the difference. I think that it might be this, because some heat from
burning the fuel is used to evaporate that water, so this gives a drop
in efficiency, while using heat which is already lost must give an
increase.

M> I am really in favour of simpler, low tech solutions rather than high tech
M> solutions! This is what we need in this day and age to make these
M> technologies accessible to everyone.

Than use plain IC engine, if you really want, you might try to use
waste heat in one of two ways (dependent on the fuel you're using).
1) two-stage gasifier -- combustion gasses are used to dry the fuel
(if it's very wet)
2) steam addition -- use those gasses to produce steam and add it to
the gasifier (if the fuel is very dry).

--
Best regards,
Krzysztof Lis / Poland

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 1 14:30:00 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
In-Reply-To: <126.425748f6.2dee1625@aol.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.143000.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

We have a lot of places here in Ontario where industrial load is quite
low. Also, our municipalities go to great measures to make sure that heavy
metals are diverted away from the sewage system. I would have to research
further, but I believe Ontario's biosolids can be of fairly low heavy
metal content (don't quote me on it).

I already had in mind the use of waste heat to dehydrate biosolids, manure
and septage. The idea is that the biosolids are sent through a strong
vortex of heated air and come out of the bottom of the vortex both
pulverized and dried. There is equipment available to do this, and it is
also not very complex in design. It's an inverted cone, much like a dust
separator, except the top is capped off and the solids and superheated air
come out of the bottom. Waste heat is used to heat the vortex air, and
additional heat is created through friction. This system does a pretty
good job of pulverizing things, it can even crush rock. Biosolids would be
reduced to micron sized particles, and sent into the gasifier with less
than 10% moisture. The gasifier would be a cyclone gasifier of a similar
inverted cone design as the dryer. No bridging, clogging or pressure drop
as fine powders would do in a fixed bed gasifier. Fixed bed gasifiers are
distinctly bad at processing materials such as this. A cyclone, no problem.

Your info is encouraging. I am also optimistic that the ash can be dealt
with.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 13:25:57 EDT, C. Van Milligen <CAVM@AOL.COM> wrote:

> We have some experience with biosolids from several municipalities.
> They do
> not necessarily contain heavy metals. It depends on the industrial load
> on
> the system. Less industry means cleaner biosolids. In the USA the
> content of
> the biosolids is measured daily so you can get current and historic info
> on the
> issues you will face.
>
> The biosolids will come from their belt presses at about 80% moisture or
> slightly less. To gasify it you will have to use your waste heat and
> more to get
> it to below 10% for most systems.
>
> The ash will be a concentration of whatever you started with. If you had
> metals in the biosolids they will be concentrated in the ash. It is
> possible
> that the ash would be a good soil amendment if properly handled.
>
> If I had this opportunity I would combust the biosolids in a hot air
> electrical generating plant such as Bioten and eliminate a lot of these
> issues.
> However, if you want to gasify them, it can be done.
>
> Neal Van Milligen
> Kentucky Enrichment Inc.
> cavm@aol.com
> www.kentuckyenrichment.com

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 1 14:34:41 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: More questions on tarry gases: Was [GASL] Internal
combustion engines for tar-laden gases??
In-Reply-To: <5210622826.20040601192018@poczta.fm>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.143441.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

I also think a lot about the wasted heat problem. I had the same idea of
simply heating water for co-generation, or, you could use that heat to
drive an absortion chiller, and cool the gases even more! I am sure pretty
cold temperatures could be reached that way, which would reduce the tar
problem even further, and increase power output. The gas would be much
denser at say 0 deg. C than 70-100.

Absortion chillers can be made cheaply can they not? I have seen home made
ones used as ice makers. Energy can also be stored in the ice for long
periods of time.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:20:18 +0200, Krzysztof Lis <santo@poczta.fm> wrote:

> P> 4. First New Question: If the hot gases (clean or otherwise) must
> P> be cooled first before becoming of good use, we are probably
> P> "wasting" the heat in those gases. Therefore, IF that is a lot of
> P> energy lost, and IF that heat could have been put into a steam
> P> boiler, and IF the "still-hot" gases were simply combusted for heat
> P> (not for mechanical power in an IC engine), WOULD that make a
> P> meaningful difference to improve the otherwise poor image of steam
> P> generation as an inefficient way to use the gases? [NOTE the
> P> number of "IFs" in this question.]
>
> A book "Generatorbetrieb" by St.v.Szenasy shows an example of using
> this heat -- you cool those gasses by heating water in some tank, and
> then add this water to the generator -- this way of saving energy was
> used in "Wisco" generator, which runs on anthracit (coal), very dry
> fuel, which doesn't produce much hydrogen. Even better idea would be
> to use (if it's possible) produced gas to evaporate this water and
> then (at best) overheat this steam, and then send it to the gas gene-
> rator.
>
> As for burning hot gas inside boiler or stove or any other burner,
> there might be (I think) three difficulties:
> - hot gas means large specific volume and large volumetric flows, so
> larger (more energy consuming) fan / blower to pump this gas to the
> place in which it'll be used (if you use any in your case)
> - hot gas = fan with metal blades
> - burner might not be suitable for the gas of large specific volume (I
> think there might be problem with mixing proper amounts of producer
> gas with oxidizer, but burner's aren't my interest).
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof Lis / Poland

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From snkm at BTL.NET Tue Jun 1 15:16:13 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.131613.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Re-inventing this wheel -- eh??

Dewa makes filter belt presses specific to "dewatering" (use that as a
search term) municipal sewage "sludge".

Here is an old Url for them -- might not work -- but search.

http://www.dwteng.com/dewabelts.htm

Dewa is in Finland and caters to the european market which has been playing
around with this style of recycling for many years now.

They can dewater sewage sludge down to 50/55% -- which is good enough to
burn in Kevin's furnace -- no toxic ash wastes -- no bad stuff coming out
the chimney either.

Course -- Kevin is in Canada -- I am in Belize -- and Dewa is in Finland.

Your in Canada -- Ontario -- which is a place that only looks to the US for
Technology.

I can say this because for many years I ran a consulting engineering
company in Montreal -- and was always so frustrated when dealing with
clients from Tronto -- that kept insisting that no Canadian engineer was
worth anything -- and all engineers had to be imported from the US.

Is that you to Matt??

Anyway -- your re-inventing this wheel -- search around a little. The
entire technology is well developed in Europe.

But do people from Ontario know that Europe even exists??

You see -- that is my question.

Kevin is an Engineer in nova Scotia -- they don't count either??

Again -- if your heart is set on using Gasifier technology for this
hypothetical project -- just contact Tom off list -- as he has experience
in that domain -- I am quite sure.

The advantage to Tom's systems -- as I have deeply researched in the past
-- is you get the very best quality systems for the biggest bang (kwh) for
the buck!

Check:

http://www.thermogenics.com/

But that is old info -- and the site may not be there.

Just contact Tom off list -- directly. Or Tom -- post your Url to this list??

There used to be an Url for Kevin's furnace as well.

I have all these old urls saved to hard drive for reference.

by the way -- here is one archived url presentation I mounted a few years
ago -- that shows another possible "solution" to this problem.

Go here and download the file -- then open.

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

For those interested in waste heat recovery -- check out the Ormat "ORC's"
-- best out there in my humble opinion.

http://www.ormat.com/

Expensive -- but long life -- 30 years little or no maintenance -- fully
automatic -- quite energy efficient.

Ormat is based in Israel.

Matt -- you got to look at the world -- not just the US -- ok??

Your spinning our wheels here ---

Also -- check out New Zealand --

http://www.fluidynenz

Again -- that from my archives. Doug is the man in charge -- and he already
replied to one or two of your messages.

I believe Doug is involved in a gasifier project in Canada -- maybe even
Ontario??

Nobody likes to blow their own horns on this list -- so let me blow them
for em -- eh??

And Matt -- start thinking planet earth -- eh??

I just saved you months of research and re-inventing wheels -- if your
smart enough to track down the clues.

Good luck to ya -- your going to need a pile of that to. Or a "hot"
consultant.

Peter / Belize

At 02:30 PM 6/1/2004 -0400, Matthew Pottinger wrote:
>We have a lot of places here in Ontario where industrial load is quite
>low. Also, our municipalities go to great measures to make sure that heavy
>metals are diverted away from the sewage system. I would have to research
>further, but I believe Ontario's biosolids can be of fairly low heavy
>metal content (don't quote me on it).
>
>I already had in mind the use of waste heat to dehydrate biosolids, manure
>and septage. The idea is that the biosolids are sent through a strong
>vortex of heated air and come out of the bottom of the vortex both
>pulverized and dried. There is equipment available to do this, and it is
>also not very complex in design. It's an inverted cone, much like a dust
>separator, except the top is capped off and the solids and superheated air
>come out of the bottom. Waste heat is used to heat the vortex air, and
>additional heat is created through friction. This system does a pretty
>good job of pulverizing things, it can even crush rock. Biosolids would be
>reduced to micron sized particles, and sent into the gasifier with less
>than 10% moisture. The gasifier would be a cyclone gasifier of a similar
>inverted cone design as the dryer. No bridging, clogging or pressure drop
>as fine powders would do in a fixed bed gasifier. Fixed bed gasifiers are
>distinctly bad at processing materials such as this. A cyclone, no problem.
>
>Your info is encouraging. I am also optimistic that the ash can be dealt
>with.
>
>
>

From santo at POCZTA.FM Tue Jun 1 15:27:19 2004
From: santo at POCZTA.FM (Krzysztof Lis)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: More questions on tarry gases: Was [GASL] Internal
combustion engines for tar-laden gases??
In-Reply-To: <opr8xhv3fs6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.212719.0200.SANTO@POCZTA.FM>

M> I also think a lot about the wasted heat problem. I had the same idea of
M> simply heating water for co-generation, or, you could use that heat to
M> drive an absortion chiller, and cool the gases even more! I am sure pretty
M> cold temperatures could be reached that way, which would reduce the tar
M> problem even further, and increase power output. The gas would be much
M> denser at say 0 deg. C than 70-100.

M> Absortion chillers can be made cheaply can they not? I have seen home made
M> ones used as ice makers. Energy can also be stored in the ice for long
M> periods of time.

That's (IMHO) quite a good idea. :) When you find out something more
about this, let me know, how does it look like. :D

--
Best regards,
Krzysztof Lis / Poland

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 1 15:52:34 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040601131501.00a2b8f0@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.155234.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Well, I am VERY open to knowledge and technology from _anywhere_. I really
don't care. In fact the gasifier that I am interested in building myself,
the design is from India. Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. You are
jumping to conclusions my man! :)

I am all in favor of non-north american technology, in fact I prefer it
not for where it comes from, but on its technical and economic advantages.

Engines will come from China, cheaper, more rugged, will run on spit! ;)
Gasifier design from India, I REALLY like this design.

Knowledge, from around the world.

Most importantly, the gasifier will _have_ to be built by myself. I want
to have something to say that "I did this, this came from my sweat and
blood and nobody elses"

Whether I am truly successful in a profitable operation is of no
consequence. I will TRY. I will learn in the process. Will I be a
millionaire? Probably not. Will I try? Yes. :) I am stubborn. More than
you know so far. If I at least get a prototype working and nothing else I
will be exctatic.

No reinventing the wheel here, my particular approach will be unique.
Maybe it won't be better, but nobody has done it my way before so how can
we know?

For gasification, I will HAVE to dry it to 10% water. I know how to do it.

I little experience yet, but yes I have looked at all of the options you
have mentioned. I was researching renewable energy long before I started
to prefer gasification. Gasification is a recent interest to me, biomass
energy is not.

I know about ormat. I know supercritical water gasification, stirling
engines, name it, I've spent many sleepless nights researching it. I've
looked at all the steam engines, all the hot air engines. Name one, and I
bet you I know what it is.

The thing with Organic Rankine is that the Cost/Kw is too high to be
acceptable to me. It is good for those who already have large funds.

I am aiming for lowest cost/kw. My goals are ambitious, but not blind. I
know if the cost is too high it will absolutely be impossible. So my quest
is to lower the cost. My goal is ambitious enough without paying $800 per
kw or more for an ormat turbine. I looked at stirling engines also, from
some European AND American manufacturers. The cost is brutally high.
Steam turbines, they are common, by no means do I consider your suggestion
of direct combustion a bad suggestion, but I have looked at it and the
cost of an external combustion engine (steam or otherwise) does not
compare to the cost of an internal combustion engine. A perfectly good
500kw diesel genset can be bought for $25 per kw!!! Massively mass
produced, efficient, financing/leasing options well in place. Come on man!
:)

Genset cost for gasifier: no more than $100 per kw - That is a FACT.

I have plans RIGHT HERE for a gasifier capable of biosolids gasification
that I can build with DIRT CHEAP materials. Some refractory cement, mild
steel for some parts, stainless steel for a very small part of it. Cheap
cheap cheap. People who are denying this must enlighten me.

This thing WAS BUILT in india. I have FULL plans, with all dimensions,
materials included for a 100KWe and a 600KWe gasifier. I simply MUST build
it.

I will take my own unique approaches to reduce costs, but I welcome any
input! I am well aware of the challenges and learning ahead, but when it
comes down to whether I can do this, luck has nothing to do with it.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 13:16:13 -0600, Peter Singfield <snkm@BTL.NET> wrote:

> Re-inventing this wheel -- eh??
>
> Dewa makes filter belt presses specific to "dewatering" (use that as a
> search term) municipal sewage "sludge".
>
> Here is an old Url for them -- might not work -- but search.
>
> http://www.dwteng.com/dewabelts.htm
>
> Dewa is in Finland and caters to the european market which has been
> playing
> around with this style of recycling for many years now.
>
> They can dewater sewage sludge down to 50/55% -- which is good enough to
> burn in Kevin's furnace -- no toxic ash wastes -- no bad stuff coming out
> the chimney either.
>
> Course -- Kevin is in Canada -- I am in Belize -- and Dewa is in Finland.
>
> Your in Canada -- Ontario -- which is a place that only looks to the US
> for
> Technology.
>
> I can say this because for many years I ran a consulting engineering
> company in Montreal -- and was always so frustrated when dealing with
> clients from Tronto -- that kept insisting that no Canadian engineer was
> worth anything -- and all engineers had to be imported from the US.
>
> Is that you to Matt??
>
> Anyway -- your re-inventing this wheel -- search around a little. The
> entire technology is well developed in Europe.
>
> But do people from Ontario know that Europe even exists??
>
> You see -- that is my question.
>
> Kevin is an Engineer in nova Scotia -- they don't count either??
>
> Again -- if your heart is set on using Gasifier technology for this
> hypothetical project -- just contact Tom off list -- as he has experience
> in that domain -- I am quite sure.
>
> The advantage to Tom's systems -- as I have deeply researched in the past
> -- is you get the very best quality systems for the biggest bang (kwh)
> for
> the buck!
>
> Check:
>
> http://www.thermogenics.com/
>
> But that is old info -- and the site may not be there.
>
> Just contact Tom off list -- directly. Or Tom -- post your Url to this
> list??
>
> There used to be an Url for Kevin's furnace as well.
>
> I have all these old urls saved to hard drive for reference.
>
> by the way -- here is one archived url presentation I mounted a few years
> ago -- that shows another possible "solution" to this problem.
>
> Go here and download the file -- then open.
>
> http://tzabcan.com/gas/BriteStar/TechnicalOverview.zip
>
> For those interested in waste heat recovery -- check out the Ormat
> "ORC's"
> -- best out there in my humble opinion.
>
> http://www.ormat.com/
>
> Expensive -- but long life -- 30 years little or no maintenance -- fully
> automatic -- quite energy efficient.
>
> Ormat is based in Israel.
>
> Matt -- you got to look at the world -- not just the US -- ok??
>
> Your spinning our wheels here ---
>
> Also -- check out New Zealand --
>
> http://www.fluidynenz
>
> Again -- that from my archives. Doug is the man in charge -- and he
> already
> replied to one or two of your messages.
>
> I believe Doug is involved in a gasifier project in Canada -- maybe even
> Ontario??
>
> Nobody likes to blow their own horns on this list -- so let me blow them
> for em -- eh??
>
> And Matt -- start thinking planet earth -- eh??
>
> I just saved you months of research and re-inventing wheels -- if your
> smart enough to track down the clues.
>
> Good luck to ya -- your going to need a pile of that to. Or a "hot"
> consultant.
>
>
> Peter / Belize
>
>
>
> At 02:30 PM 6/1/2004 -0400, Matthew Pottinger wrote:
>> We have a lot of places here in Ontario where industrial load is quite
>> low. Also, our municipalities go to great measures to make sure that
>> heavy
>> metals are diverted away from the sewage system. I would have to
>> research
>> further, but I believe Ontario's biosolids can be of fairly low heavy
>> metal content (don't quote me on it).
>>
>> I already had in mind the use of waste heat to dehydrate biosolids,
>> manure
>> and septage. The idea is that the biosolids are sent through a strong
>> vortex of heated air and come out of the bottom of the vortex both
>> pulverized and dried. There is equipment available to do this, and it is
>> also not very complex in design. It's an inverted cone, much like a dust
>> separator, except the top is capped off and the solids and superheated
>> air
>> come out of the bottom. Waste heat is used to heat the vortex air, and
>> additional heat is created through friction. This system does a pretty
>> good job of pulverizing things, it can even crush rock. Biosolids would
>> be
>> reduced to micron sized particles, and sent into the gasifier with less
>> than 10% moisture. The gasifier would be a cyclone gasifier of a similar
>> inverted cone design as the dryer. No bridging, clogging or pressure
>> drop
>> as fine powders would do in a fixed bed gasifier. Fixed bed gasifiers
>> are
>> distinctly bad at processing materials such as this. A cyclone, no
>> problem.
>>
>> Your info is encouraging. I am also optimistic that the ash can be dealt
>> with.
>>
>>
>>

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From arnt at C2I.NET Tue Jun 1 16:14:01 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: FW: Internal Combustion
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20040601101817.00c17f00@mail.gorge.net>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.221401.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 10:19:35 -0700, Walt wrote in message
<4.3.2.7.2.20040601101817.00c17f00@mail.gorge.net>:

> At 07:32 AM 6/1/04 -0500, Greg wrote:
>
> >The one thing I do stress however, is the use of a monorator upper
> >container, IF you are using wood, simply for it's water removal
> >capacity (it makes it easier to deal with wet wood, hence simpler
> >storage of the feedstock, on the "mass" level).
>
> Would you mind elaborating on what a "monorator upper chamber"
> is?

..it collests the water and tar vapors as a liquid, where I just burn
them. http://fmb.no/gas/ssrcolor.png versus
http://www.hotel.ymex.net/~s-20222/gengas/monorator-eng.html

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

From oscar at GEPROP.CU Tue Jun 1 16:29:14 2004
From: oscar at GEPROP.CU (oscar)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
In-Reply-To: <opr8xlhwnh6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.222914.0200.OSCAR@GEPROP.CU>

....this might be of help to you... or perhaps you know them already... but
there is canadian firm based in Winnepeg Manitoba having wide experience on
gasifying waste from that city...it is called SunGas Energy... Have you
already had any contact with them on gasification technology...??? As far as
I know they have been working on a real interesting one... The company
website is: www.sungasenergy.com In fact Dough William from New Zeland, who
has already been answering some of your queries, can help you even more..
they are really close.. make a try if you haven't already... and see what
you got...

kind regards.

Oscar.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]En nombre de Matthew Pottinger
Enviado el: martes, 01 de junio de 2004 21:53
Para: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Asunto: Re: [GASL] Gasification of biosolids

I am all in favor of non-north american technology, in fact I prefer it
not for where it comes from, but on its technical and economic advantages.

Engines will come from China, cheaper, more rugged, will run on spit! ;)
Gasifier design from India, I REALLY like this design.

Knowledge, from around the world.

Most importantly, the gasifier will _have_ to be built by myself. I want
to have something to say that "I did this, this came from my sweat and
blood and nobody elses"

No reinventing the wheel here, my particular approach will be unique.
Maybe it won't be better, but nobody has done it my way before so how can
we know?

For gasification, I will HAVE to dry it to 10% water. I know how to do it.

The thing with Organic Rankine is that the Cost/Kw is too high to be
acceptable to me. It is good for those who already have large funds.

Genset cost for gasifier: no more than $100 per kw - That is a FACT.

This thing WAS BUILT in india. I have FULL plans, with all dimensions,
materials included for a 100KWe and a 600KWe gasifier. I simply MUST build
it.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 13:16:13 -0600, Peter Singfield <snkm@BTL.NET> wrote:

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 1 16:47:08 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
In-Reply-To: <126.425748f6.2dee1625@aol.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.164708.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

It is interesting to note that they are encountering regulatory problems
due to the size of their plants. If a power plant is larger than 2 MW then
the Utility is not obligated to buy the power.

Under 2 MW (which is the range I will be operating.... NO CHOICE!)
The utility is required to purchase the power.

They say that a plant under 2MW is not economically feasible.

Their plants cost in the ballpark of $50 million.

Yah, like *I* am going to raise even a percentage of that.
No, I am thinking more on the size of a genset that a small business or
factory would use.

My strategy: A quest to lower the cost of a small (less than 2MW) plant.
They say it is not economical. Free fuel? I think we can find a way to
make that economical.

Time will only tell. I will only get a gasifier that cheap if I can build
one myself. No escaping that.

> ....this might be of help to you... or perhaps you know them already...
> >but
> there is canadian firm based in Winnepeg Manitoba having wide experience
> >on
> gasifying waste from that city...it is called SunGas Energy... Have you
> already had any contact with them on gasification technology...??? As
> far >as
> I know they have been working on a real interesting one... The company
> website is: www.sungasenergy.com In fact Dough William from New Zeland,
> >who
> has already been answering some of your queries, can help you even more..
> they are really close.. make a try if you haven't already... and see what
> you got...

> kind regards.

Oscar.

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Tue Jun 1 17:03:06 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: More questions on tarry gases: Was [GASL] Internal
combustion engines for tar-laden gases??
In-Reply-To: <1945378418.20040601212719@poczta.fm>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.160306.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 09:27:19PM +0200, Krzysztof Lis wrote:
> M> I also think a lot about the wasted heat problem. I had the same idea of
> M> simply heating water for co-generation, or, you could use that heat to
> M> drive an absortion chiller, and cool the gases even more! I am sure pretty
> M> cold temperatures could be reached that way, which would reduce the tar
> M> problem even further, and increase power output. The gas would be much
> M> denser at say 0 deg. C than 70-100.
>
> M> Absortion chillers can be made cheaply can they not? I have seen home made
> M> ones used as ice makers. Energy can also be stored in the ice for long
> M> periods of time.
>
> That's (IMHO) quite a good idea. :) When you find out something more
> about this, let me know, how does it look like. :D

I've had this same idea, using gas absorbtion for cooling the producer gas,
also for using for intercoolers with turbos on IC engines. Here's a couple of
pages showing how to make your own:

http://www.ggw.org/~cac/IcyBall/HomeBuilt/HomeBuilt.html
http://www.ggw.org/~cac/IcyBall/HomeBuilt/HallPlans/IB_Directions.html

Cool, eh?

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

From arnt at C2I.NET Tue Jun 1 17:04:32 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
In-Reply-To: <opr8xlhwnh6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.230432.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 15:52:34 -0400, Matthew wrote in message
<opr8xlhwnh6c175d@localhost>:

> Genset cost for gasifier: no more than $100 per kw - That is a FACT.

..show us. ;-)

> I have plans RIGHT HERE for a gasifier capable of biosolids
> gasification that I can build with DIRT CHEAP materials. Some
> refractory cement, mild steel for some parts, stainless steel for a
> very small part of it. Cheap cheap cheap. People who are denying this
> must enlighten me.
>
> This thing WAS BUILT in india.

.."WAS"? What happened? AFAIK, an Indian automaker still
massproduces some 1948 design from the UK, so, it the gasifier
was anywhere near successful, it oughtta be in production too.

> I have FULL plans, with all dimensions,
> materials included for a 100KWe and a 600KWe gasifier. I simply MUST
> build it.

..these are the ones I think of?

> I will take my own unique approaches to reduce costs, but I welcome
> any input! I am well aware of the challenges and learning ahead, but
> when it comes down to whether I can do this, luck has nothing to do
> with it.

..as luck has it, that depends on how much you depend on it. ;-)

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

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 1 17:14:59 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
In-Reply-To: <opr8xlhwnh6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.171459.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

One more thing about small power plants: In Ontario, plants under 10MW are
not subject to environmental screening by the Ministry of the Environment.
Small plants are less heavily regulated than large plants. Less
aggravation there at least.

Now I don't see (yet) where these hidden costs are that make a small power
plant unprofitable. I have factored in the maintenance costs and have been
conservative in all figures. Maintenance costs aren't stopping it. A major
factor is the cost of fuel. If the source is close by, that isn't stopping
it either. The capital cost per kw of a small plant CAN be extremely low
if you are willing to purchase used equipment or a chinese diesel as the
engine.

Induction generators also lower the cost. No synchronizing equipment and
protection equipment is less. Voltage and frequency are governed by the
grid. Interconnection of a small plant is simpler than a small one. The
number possible siting locations for a small plant is also larger and it
has less significant effect on the power grid.

Fuel cost becomes the major deciding factor on whether there is a profit
or not. That seems clear and concise to me. Find a nearby source of fuel
in large enough quantities, at low enough cost, and you are in business.

What gives?

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 1 17:22:56 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
In-Reply-To: <opr8xo2une6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.172256.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

In reply to those who are in disbelief about the low cost of diesel
gensets that can be used in a small power plant, take a look (canadian
prices)

http://www.poweronthego.ca/our_used_generators.htm

This is ONLY an example. Cheap engines/generators are everywhere. What is
up with this $700 per kw stuff? Forget that. Not when there are $50 per kw
diesels in massive amounts throughout the world. Tell me a reason not to
use them.

The Gasifier itself. Is it going to cost $650 per kw for the gasifier
alone? Surely it can be built more cheaply than that. I make the radical
suggestion that you could build a gasifier for MAXIMUM the price of the
genset itself, doubling the cost to 100 per kw.

ok lets be conservative and say the gasifier, made of mild steel and
refractory materials is going to cost THREE times as much as the diesel
genset itself. OK, $200 per kw. That doesn't scare me.

Some experts tell me, is it not possible to build a gasifier for this
much? what adds such cost to be hundreds upon hundreds of dollars per kw?

Still ambitious, Matt

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 1 17:43:30 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: The cost of a small power plant
In-Reply-To: <20040531154517.GA4430@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.174330.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Now, I have shown you how CHEAP the smaller ones are.
Look at these prices.

Now when we start getting into the 2MW range, look at the price of a 2MW
power plant.

CATERPILLAR 1750KW, 025Z06705, Year 2000, 252 HRS. $ 275,000

That is not intimidating at all. Especially if starting at much smaller
sizes before moving up to this.

These are utility grade power modules, all ready to install and hook up to
the grid and export power, all synchronizing and protective equipment
included.... for...... tada! $157 per kw. American.

Diesels de-rate, what 20% on a gasifier? If need be, we can go cheaper
than these, these gensets are pretty new.

How much will the gasifier add? $50 per kw? 100?
--

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 1 18:20:19 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
In-Reply-To: <20040601230432.70f934d9.arnt@c2i.net>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.182019.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

In fact, the gasifier design I speak of is not a relic of the past, it is
in YOUR links I believe, if this is your page.

here is a link

http://fmb.no/arnt/elspa/stand-alone.html

I am very interested in the bottom design, the cyclone.

No, I do not rely on luck very much. (though some is nice!)

I depend on my success in completing such a design through time and effort.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 23:04:32 +0200, Arnt Karlsen <arnt@C2I.NET> wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 15:52:34 -0400, Matthew wrote in message
> <opr8xlhwnh6c175d@localhost>:
>
>> Genset cost for gasifier: no more than $100 per kw - That is a FACT.
>
> ..show us. ;-)
>
>> I have plans RIGHT HERE for a gasifier capable of biosolids
>> gasification that I can build with DIRT CHEAP materials. Some
>> refractory cement, mild steel for some parts, stainless steel for a
>> very small part of it. Cheap cheap cheap. People who are denying this
>> must enlighten me.
>>
>> This thing WAS BUILT in india.
>
> .."WAS"? What happened? AFAIK, an Indian automaker still
> massproduces some 1948 design from the UK, so, it the gasifier
> was anywhere near successful, it oughtta be in production too.
>
>> I have FULL plans, with all dimensions,
>> materials included for a 100KWe and a 600KWe gasifier. I simply MUST
>> build it.
>
> ..these are the ones I think of?
>
>> I will take my own unique approaches to reduce costs, but I welcome
>> any input! I am well aware of the challenges and learning ahead, but
>> when it comes down to whether I can do this, luck has nothing to do
>> with it.
>
> ..as luck has it, that depends on how much you depend on it. ;-)
>
> --
> ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
> ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
> Scenarios always come in sets of three:
> best case, worst case, and just in case.

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From snkm at BTL.NET Tue Jun 1 18:20:48 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.162048.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 05:14 PM 6/1/2004 -0400, Matthew Pottinger wrote:
>Fuel cost becomes the major deciding factor on whether there is a profit
>or not. That seems clear and concise to me. Find a nearby source of fuel
>in large enough quantities, at low enough cost, and you are in business.
>
>What gives?
>
>Matthew Pottinger
>

For gasifiers -- it's called "FUEL CONDITIONING"

Build one -- make it operate -- you'll soon find out about fuel
conditioning being the single greatest problem for succesful operation.

Gasifiers are extremely demanding for fuel of perfect specs. Has to be
chunks from this size to this size -- no more no less.

Has to be just such and such humidity.

Else -- lot's of problems -- to much tars -- etc -- etc.

Probably can do this if you pelletize the filter press sewage sludge to one
uniform humidity and size.

By the time your finished -- 50 million for two megs will be about right!!

Did you download the Brite Star system??

Peter

From snkm at BTL.NET Tue Jun 1 18:20:49 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.162049.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

I import small amounts of village level diesel gensets directly from China
to Belize.

3 kwh complete unit -- cost is $480 US.

About $550 landed.

That is this year's prices -- they went up by over 40% -- due to copper and
cast iron price increases.

These are extremely rugged systems -- four pole 1800 rpm heavy power plant
generators -- very sturdy German designed single cylinder diesels.

As sugar cane grows so well -- so easily here -- I am interested in
converting to strong rum as fuel.

The engine will live four times longer running on alcohol -- a clean fuel
-- to begin with.

Another solution for sewage that is competitive is generation of methane
and a by product of fertilizer.

No problem running engines on that fuel.

Karve operates out of India and does work in this domain.

Tom has also worked up a system using a very specialized bacteria.

For my part -- down here in 3rd world -- the concern is more on just
keeping some lights burning -- rather than doing business in a collapsing
1st world economy.

Peter

At 05:22 PM 6/1/2004 -0400, Matthew Pottinger wrote:
>In reply to those who are in disbelief about the low cost of diesel
>gensets that can be used in a small power plant, take a look (canadian
>prices)
>
>http://www.poweronthego.ca/our_used_generators.htm
>
>This is ONLY an example. Cheap engines/generators are everywhere. What is
>up with this $700 per kw stuff? Forget that. Not when there are $50 per kw
>diesels in massive amounts throughout the world. Tell me a reason not to
>use them.
>
>The Gasifier itself. Is it going to cost $650 per kw for the gasifier
>alone? Surely it can be built more cheaply than that. I make the radical
>suggestion that you could build a gasifier for MAXIMUM the price of the
>genset itself, doubling the cost to 100 per kw.
>
>ok lets be conservative and say the gasifier, made of mild steel and
>refractory materials is going to cost THREE times as much as the diesel
>genset itself. OK, $200 per kw. That doesn't scare me.
>
>Some experts tell me, is it not possible to build a gasifier for this
>much? what adds such cost to be hundreds upon hundreds of dollars per kw?
>
>Still ambitious, Matt
>
>
>--
>
>Matthew Pottinger
>
>Student
>Environmental Technology Program
>Durham College
>Ontario, Canada
>
>"Never underestimate people's
>ability to suppress inconvenient realities."
>
>"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
>economically feasible."
>

From arnt at C2I.NET Tue Jun 1 18:50:03 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: The cost of a small power plant
In-Reply-To: <opr8xqms1s6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUN.2004.005003.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 17:43:30 -0400, Matthew wrote in message
<opr8xqms1s6c175d@localhost>:

> Now, I have shown you how CHEAP the smaller ones are.
> Look at these prices.
>
>
> Now when we start getting into the 2MW range, look at the price of a
> 2MW power plant.
>
> CATERPILLAR 1750KW, 025Z06705, Year 2000, 252 HRS. $ 275,000
>
> That is not intimidating at all. Especially if starting at much
> smaller sizes before moving up to this.

.. ;-)

> These are utility grade power modules, all ready to install and hook
> up to the grid and export power, all synchronizing and protective
> equipment included.... for...... tada! $157 per kw. American.
>
> Diesels de-rate, what 20% on a gasifier? If need be, we can go cheaper
> than these, these gensets are pretty new.
>
> How much will the gasifier add? $50 per kw? 100?

..you're looking at a base figure, 4,5, maybe 6 digits for the first
milliwatt, then your looking at a scale-up rate far less than "linear".

..for my first commersial rig, I charge 2 million NoK for R&D & design,
then 1mill per MWe, this is viable from 150 kWe up. Below 25kWe,
you're ok as an hobbyist, between those, you're headed for bankruptsy
and social security unless you're properly funded by _long_ term
investors. You _don't_ want _any_ get-rich-quick schemer's money.

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

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 1 18:54:42 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.185442.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Yeah I actually had read about the brightstar process before, and I had
downloaded the .zip file that you posted before I even joined the message
list!

Their process uses pyrolytic gasification doesn't it? That is an avenue
that I was very recently exploring. Pyrolytic Gasification produces a
higher BTU syngas than air fed gasification. You are left with maybe
10-15% char. It is pyrolysis at high temperatures. This fuel can then be
converted to liquid fuels.

Main problem with pyrolytic gasification: Design a reactor which can take
the heat. Usually requires special materials.

You want to get as much heat into the reactor as possible, which requires
some serious ingenuity. Looks like they have it!

Now for a _cheap_ system of the same sort. I gave myself a headache trying
to think of how to transfer heat.

More heat resistant materials don't transfer heat very well, such as
stainless steel.

Materials which transfer heat very well such as aluminum and copper will
corrode. So how to solve it?

You say that fuel conditioning adds too much cost. Pyrolytic gasification
requires little fuel conditioning compared to regular gasification

I, however will focus on trying to solve the problem of the fuel
conditioning, I will try to lower the cost as much as possible.

UNLESS, a *cheap* pyrolytic gasification design exists somewhere.
A pyrolytic gasifier could be made out of a 55 gal. steel drum. That would
not last very long however, and it would have to be a batch system, very
tedious!

Ethanol is a very good route to take! I hope it goes well!

Haha, I know what you mean about the 1st world collapsing, it does seem
that way recently. If this "peak oil" thing is correct. I, however think
that people have always been screaming the end of civilization and they
were always wrong. This is nothing new, look at the y2k hype. There is no
doubt, however, that things are going to change big time very soon. The
way we do things will have to change. I wish to be a part of that change.
Things will become more difficult for all of us and we will be forced into
sustainability. I do not see collapse, I see opportunity. Now, if the 1st
world DID collapse, that does not hurt renewable energy. Even a collapsed
society needs energy and will produce waste.

New ways of looking at things open up new opportunities.

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race,
but it just wouldn't be economically feasible."

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Tue Jun 1 19:18:00 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: Monorator Upper (WAS RE: FW: Internal Combustion)
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20040601101817.00c17f00@mail.gorge.net>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.181800.0500.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Good day Walt and all,

Sorry about that, I was talking with Matt in private earlier, and had given
him the link, thinking it had got to the list...

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

Is the original paper I found on it, I've seen others, but none in-depth as
this one.

In a nutshell, a monorator is a style of upper container, that can
"draw-off" most of the condensed water before the feedstock enters the
throat, thereby allowing the gasifiers vertical throat heat (above the
throat) to continue the water condensation/reduction process (it is somewhat
a runaway effect, IF the feedstock mass above the throat is too great for
the throat size) (downdraft units).

I've gone this route, and I'm VERY happy that I have, as the need to have a
pre-dried feedstock is eliminated, storage concerns are gone, the woodchips
I'm using are simply in piles on the ground, the only time is when we do a
sorting, then the chips get augered into the primary hopperbottom bin (2
week supply @ -40c).

A Monorator is actually quite simple to build, or retrofit to an existing
downdraft gasifier, the only main criteria is that you want the outside wall
of the monorator as cool as practically possible, with out the chance of
freezing the condensed water, the central core of the monorator should be as
hot as possible, and the internal screen should be rust resistant (304ss or
equiv..).

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Walt Patrick
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 12:20 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: FW: Internal Combustion

At 07:32 AM 6/1/04 -0500, Greg wrote:

>The one thing I do stress however, is the use of a monorator upper
>container, IF you are using wood, simply for it's water removal capacity
(it
>makes it easier to deal with wet wood, hence simpler storage of the
>feedstock, on the "mass" level).

Would you mind elaborating on what a "monorator upper chamber" is?

with appreciation,

Walt

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Tue Jun 1 19:25:27 2004
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: oil pricing/reserves
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.192527.EDT.>

Dear Gas Listers:
A real eye opening article in Science Magazine, Vol. 304, No. 5674 pg.
1114, 21 May states the real issues with petroleum reserves. Once you read this
article, you will get a better idea of the real condition of world reserves
and why sleep is not to be lost over running out of oil.

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

From arnt at C2I.NET Tue Jun 1 19:41:41 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
In-Reply-To: <opr8xn0u0a6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUN.2004.014141.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 16:47:08 -0400, Matthew wrote in message
<opr8xn0u0a6c175d@localhost>:

> It is interesting to note that they are encountering regulatory
> problems due to the size of their plants. If a power plant is larger
> than 2 MW then the Utility is not obligated to buy the power.
>
> Under 2 MW (which is the range I will be operating.... NO CHOICE!)
> The utility is required to purchase the power.
>
> They say that a plant under 2MW is not economically feasible.
>
> Their plants cost in the ballpark of $50 million.

.. ;-)

..in the GNU/Linux world we call it FUD. ;-)

> Yah, like *I* am going to raise even a percentage of that.

..quit whining and do those percentages first. ;-)

> No, I am thinking more on the size of a genset that a small business
> or factory would use.

.. ;-)

> My strategy: A quest to lower the cost of a small (less than 2MW)
> plant. They say it is not economical. Free fuel? I think we can find a
> way to make that economical.

..negative cost fuel can be had, if you fire say MSW.

> Time will only tell. I will only get a gasifier that cheap if I can
> build one myself. No escaping that.

..true. Start off small, my first gasifier is, I'd say 200-300kW
thermal, it was all flared, the fan was driven by a mower engine
running on my gas.

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

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 1 19:42:55 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: oil pricing/reserves
In-Reply-To: <165.2fa3dde6.2dee6a67@aol.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.194255.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

I agree, I am not losing sleep over fossil fuels running out any time
soon. Some oil wells are actually filling themselves up as we speak (no I
am not kidding). Oil reserves are larger than peak oil hysterites and OPEC
would like you to know. Coal and peat reserves are mind bogglingly
massive. Don't know too much about natural gas. I have to admit that I was
worried when I first heard of "peak oil". I am not, however, worried at
the moment. Besides, if energy prices go up, I for one, welcome it whole
heartedly! Yay for higher prices. Force the buggers (all of us) to switch
to something better. Get off of this addiction.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:25:27 EDT, <LINVENT@AOL.COM> wrote:

> Dear Gas Listers:
> A real eye opening article in Science Magazine, Vol. 304, No. 5674
> pg.
> 1114, 21 May states the real issues with petroleum reserves. Once you
> read this
> article, you will get a better idea of the real condition of world
> reserves
> and why sleep is not to be lost over running out of oil.
>
> 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

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From arnt at C2I.NET Tue Jun 1 19:57:48 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
In-Reply-To: <opr8xsb5el6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUN.2004.015748.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 18:20:19 -0400, Matthew wrote in message
<opr8xsb5el6c175d@localhost>:

>
> In fact, the gasifier design I speak of is not a relic of the past, it
> is in YOUR links I believe, if this is your page.
>
> here is a link
>
> http://fmb.no/arnt/elspa/stand-alone.html
>
> I am very interested in the bottom design, the cyclone.

..that's a cyclone, not a gasifier. Those can be made very cheaply,
ceramics or steel, polishing the inside is okay, but you don't wanna
use any shiny expensive SS or titanium here, as these rely on the
surface oxide layer to avoid that expensive 10 minute kaboom.

> No, I do not rely on luck very much. (though some is nice!)
>
> I depend on my success in completing such a design through time and
> effort.

..er, you wanna minimize your expenditure, best way is do your
homework first, _before_ touching any metal.

> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 23:04:32 +0200, Arnt Karlsen <arnt@C2I.NET> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 15:52:34 -0400, Matthew wrote in message
> > <opr8xlhwnh6c175d@localhost>:
> >
> >> Genset cost for gasifier: no more than $100 per kw - That is a
> >FACT.
> >
> > ..show us. ;-)

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

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 1 20:12:33 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
In-Reply-To: <20040602015748.56a3040b.arnt@c2i.net>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.201233.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Aha! ;) Nonononono, look again, it *IS* a gasifier! The cyclone comes
after the gasifier, but the bottom gasifier is both a cyclone AND a
gasifier. It is designed for gasifying powdery biomass such as sawdust. I
have done much reading on these.

Interesting that you say cyclones are inexpensive to make. Look CLOSELY.
It IS a gasifier!!!!! :) Not bad huh? There is more documentation on this
type of gasifier.

It is NOT very well known, I bet my life savings that not many people on
this list know it, as they are ALL doing fixed bed gasifiers, the normal
type you are all familiar with.

Look again, look again!!!

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 01:57:48 +0200, Arnt Karlsen <arnt@C2I.NET> wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 18:20:19 -0400, Matthew wrote in message
> <opr8xsb5el6c175d@localhost>:
>
>>
>> In fact, the gasifier design I speak of is not a relic of the past, it
>> is in YOUR links I believe, if this is your page.
>>
>> here is a link
>>
>> http://fmb.no/arnt/elspa/stand-alone.html
>>
>> I am very interested in the bottom design, the cyclone.
>
> ..that's a cyclone, not a gasifier. Those can be made very cheaply,
> ceramics or steel, polishing the inside is okay, but you don't wanna
> use any shiny expensive SS or titanium here, as these rely on the
> surface oxide layer to avoid that expensive 10 minute kaboom.
>
>> No, I do not rely on luck very much. (though some is nice!)
>>
>> I depend on my success in completing such a design through time and
>> effort.
>
> ..er, you wanna minimize your expenditure, best way is do your
> homework first, _before_ touching any metal.
>
>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 23:04:32 +0200, Arnt Karlsen <arnt@C2I.NET> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 15:52:34 -0400, Matthew wrote in message
>> > <opr8xlhwnh6c175d@localhost>:
>> >
>> >> Genset cost for gasifier: no more than $100 per kw - That is a
>> >FACT.
>> >
>> > ..show us. ;-)
>
> --
> ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
> ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
> Scenarios always come in sets of three:
> best case, worst case, and just in case.

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 1 20:24:51 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.202451.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Hey all, I know I am not the most experienced person on the list here
(understatement), however, from discussing things with you, I realize that
you all overlook what I am saying in regards to the uniqueness of my
proposal on how to gasify materials such as biosolids.

You say that fuel conditioning is a big problem, moisture is a big
problem, gas quality is a big problem.

I have been suggesting the cyclone gasifier for biosolids application, yet
so far nobody has said ANYTHING about it. I am in contact with a company
which offers a simple system for dehydrating biosolids. Their system will
dehydrate to 10% moisture content. The biosolids (or manure), become
pulverized to *UNIFORM* predictable sized particles.

These are SMALL particles, a powder, a dust.

The gasifiers everyone is discussing here can NOT handle these.

The gasifier I am suggesting REQUIRES these "dust like" inputs.
it is ESPECIALLY important that the fuel is small particle for a cyclone
gasifier, and it is important that it is dry.

The vortex dehydrator fulfills these exact requirements for fuel
conditioning. Do you see what I mean?

THIS is what I was enthusiastic about all this time.
I want to build THIS system and no other.

Do you see the system I am proposing?
What do you think?

1. Uniform fuel size
2. Very small particle size
2. Dry fuel
3. A gasifier that is WELL KNOWN to be good at gasifying such conditioned
fuel.

A cyclone gasifier also reduces the amount of tars and ash entrained in
the gas, it acts as both a gasifier and a gas cleaner.

The gas from this gasifier is apparently cleaner to begin with.

Continuous operating is simplied.
Fuel conditioning is simplified

This can handle things other than biosolids.

Any fuel can be pulverized by the fuel conditioning system and fed.

I EMPHASIZE that you have not been discussing this particular system with
me at all.

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race,
but it just wouldn't be economically feasible."

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Tue Jun 1 20:25:06 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: The cost of a small power plant
In-Reply-To: <opr8xqms1s6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.192506.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 05:43:30PM -0400, Matthew Pottinger wrote:

(snip)

> Diesels de-rate, what 20% on a gasifier? If need be, we can go cheaper
> than these, these gensets are pretty new.
>

No, more like 40%-50%.

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

From arnt at C2I.NET Tue Jun 1 20:28:05 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
In-Reply-To: <opr8xpoiba6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUN.2004.022805.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 17:22:56 -0400, Matthew wrote in message
<opr8xpoiba6c175d@localhost>:

> In reply to those who are in disbelief about the low cost of diesel
> gensets that can be used in a small power plant, take a look (canadian
> prices)
>
> http://www.poweronthego.ca/our_used_generators.htm

.. ;-)

> This is ONLY an example. Cheap engines/generators are everywhere. What
> is up with this $700 per kw stuff? Forget that. Not when there are $50
> per kw diesels in massive amounts throughout the world. Tell me a
> reason not to use them.
>
> The Gasifier itself. Is it going to cost $650 per kw for the gasifier
> alone? Surely it can be built more cheaply than that. I make the
> radical suggestion that you could build a gasifier for MAXIMUM the
> price of the genset itself, doubling the cost to 100 per kw.

..in mass production for specific uses, agreed. We're not there yet.

> ok lets be conservative and say the gasifier, made of mild steel and
> refractory materials is going to cost THREE times as much as the
> diesel genset itself. OK, $200 per kw. That doesn't scare me.
>
> Some experts tell me, is it not possible to build a gasifier for this
> much?

..nooo? You would'nt believe what some people can do and
has done with _other_ peoples money. ;-)

> what adds such cost to be hundreds upon hundreds of dollars per
> kw?

..getting the process right the first time you try something new in your
design in your process of weeding out bugs, and documenting the
merits of design. Keep in mind, thermochemical gasification has a
400 year history of failures, and being "the new kid in the field"
is _not_ gonna help you, so shut up and show us. ;-)

> Still ambitious, Matt

> "We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't
> be economically feasible."

..some Bushist "think" tank quote?

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

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 1 20:45:09 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier - Reference Links
In-Reply-To: <002801c4470a$eceebb10$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.204509.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

This cyclone gasifier would work, now what must be coupled to it is a fuel
conditioning system. I know what that conditioning system is. It is a
vortex pulverizer/dehydrator. Anyone used that for gasification before?

Arnt, this one was under your nose, and I'm telling you don't know what
you had here.
http://fmb.no/arnt/elspa/stand-alone.html

Exploratory experimental and theoretical studies of cyclone gasification
of wood powder
http://epubl.luth.se/1402-1544/1999/16/

CFD simulation on Cyclone Gasification of Wood Powder
http://www.hpc2n.umu.se/projects/focus/cfd.pdf

Evaluation of a cyclone gasifier design to be used for biomass fuelled gas
turbines
http://epubl.luth.se/1402-1544/2001/39/index-en.html

Gabra, M. Pettersson, E. Backman, R. Kjellstr?m, B
Evaluation of Cyclone Gasifier Performance for Gasification of sugar Cane
Residue- Part 1 Gasification of Bagasse
Biomass & Bioenergy, Vol. 21, pp 251-369, 2001

More links? Do a search on Cyclone Gasification

It is exceedingly rare in comparison to conventional gasifier designs.

I find it exceedingly useful, hopefully you guys will see what I am
talking about.

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From arnt at C2I.NET Tue Jun 1 20:48:26 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
In-Reply-To: <opr8xxi7hb6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUN.2004.024826.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 20:12:33 -0400, Matthew wrote in message
<opr8xxi7hb6c175d@localhost>:

>
>
> Aha! ;) Nonononono, look again, it *IS* a gasifier! The cyclone comes
> after the gasifier, but the bottom gasifier is both a cyclone AND a
> gasifier. It is designed for gasifying powdery biomass such as
> sawdust. I have done much reading on these.

..duh. Note to self; _read_ your stuff. See that 1.6mm SS304 cone?
possibly why it fails, you wanna use mild steel there, or even ceramics
held in place by steel. Cyclone gasifiers can be seen as a form of
"entrained bed" gasifier, after the particles has been beat up small
enough to float off the wall.

..another flaw in the figure is the tee pipe spool on top, where I'd run
a straight pipe at least 5 the pipe diameter before entering any bend.

> Interesting that you say cyclones are inexpensive to make. Look
> CLOSELY. It IS a gasifier!!!!! :) Not bad huh? There is more
> documentation on this type of gasifier.

..link?

> It is NOT very well known, I bet my life savings that not many people
> on this list know it, as they are ALL doing fixed bed gasifiers, the
> normal type you are all familiar with.

..bah ;-). This between my gasifier and a K?lle, is a viable concept.

> Look again, look again!!!
>
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 01:57:48 +0200, Arnt Karlsen <arnt@C2I.NET> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 18:20:19 -0400, Matthew wrote in message
> > <opr8xsb5el6c175d@localhost>:
> >
> >>
> >> In fact, the gasifier design I speak of is not a relic of the past,
> >it> is in YOUR links I believe, if this is your page.
> >>
> >> here is a link
> >>
> >> http://fmb.no/arnt/elspa/stand-alone.html
> >>
> >> I am very interested in the bottom design, the cyclone.
> >
> > ..that's a cyclone, not a gasifier. Those can be made very cheaply,
> > ceramics or steel, polishing the inside is okay, but you don't wanna
> > use any shiny expensive SS or titanium here, as these rely on the
> > surface oxide layer to avoid that expensive 10 minute kaboom.
> >
> >> No, I do not rely on luck very much. (though some is nice!)
> >>
> >> I depend on my success in completing such a design through time and
> >> effort.
> >
> > ..er, you wanna minimize your expenditure, best way is do your
> > homework first, _before_ touching any metal.
> >
> >> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 23:04:32 +0200, Arnt Karlsen <arnt@C2I.NET>
> >wrote:>
> >> > On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 15:52:34 -0400, Matthew wrote in message
> >> > <opr8xlhwnh6c175d@localhost>:
> >> >
> >> >> Genset cost for gasifier: no more than $100 per kw - That is a
> >> >FACT.
> >> >
> >> > ..show us. ;-)
> >
> > --
> > ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
> > ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
> > Scenarios always come in sets of three:
> > best case, worst case, and just in case.
>
>
>

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

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 1 20:58:37 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: Cyclone vs Entrained bed gasifier
In-Reply-To: <20040602024826.4d2a38ff.arnt@c2i.net>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.205837.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Hey Arnt, yes I noticed the similarity with an entrained bed gasifier, I
can see the advantages of a cyclone gasifier. It would most likely be
cheaper to build, as you say, cyclone separators are cheap to build, this
is simply a cyclone separator, just make sure air/fuel ratio is correct
and flow speed is correct.

One difference with this is that char/ash/some tar is removed immediately
out of the bottom of the cyclone. Cleaner gas to begin with.

Maybe I have something here? ;)

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 1 21:18:58 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:54 2004
Subject: The cost of a small power plant
In-Reply-To: <20040602002506.GC2666@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.211858.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Source: http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/T0512E/T0512e08.htm

2.1.4 Resulting power output
Assuming that the engine modifications described above are correctly
implemented, decrease in maximum power output of petrol engines without
turbo or supercharging can be limited to about 30 percent. Turbo or
supercharged combustion running engines on producer gas can have power
outputs equal to those in petrol operation.

Derating of direct injection diesel engines in dual fuel operation can
usually be limited to 15 - 20 percent (80 percent producer gas, 20 percent
diesel fuel).

I will look for more sources, but I am sure this one is correct!
Encouraging no?

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:25:06 -0500, Harmon Seaver
<hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 05:43:30PM -0400, Matthew Pottinger wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> Diesels de-rate, what 20% on a gasifier? If need be, we can go cheaper
>> than these, these gensets are pretty new.
>>
>
> No, more like 40%-50%.
>
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com
> Hoka hey!

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From snkm at BTL.NET Tue Jun 1 21:22:24 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:55 2004
Subject: The cost of a small power plant
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.192224.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

Wonder what a total rebuild costs for one of these suckers??

Matt -- if I run a diesel on alcohol I can go a long ways between oil changes.

Conversely -- you have to change oil very often when using producer gas --
it is a dirty kind of fuel.

Wonder what just the lube bill for one of those cats is per month -- and
all very expensive -- best quality -- diesel engine oil.

I'd say rebuilds are four times more common when running producer gas than
diesel fuel -- so put that in your "estimates" as well --

And oh -- don't forget down time!!

Certainly -- you have to figure at least two units -- one for back up at
all times.

Let's see -- to get your 2 meg -- counting derating -- and having
reasonable "availability" -- figure four such units.

Poof -- there goes the first million -- eh??

Really -- get quotes on total rebuilds -- talk to Cat -- they have
experience I am sure in regards to producer gas and can tell you how many
hours between over hauls.

Then figure in oil changes --

Poof -- there goes another million -- but every year though!!

wow -- cheap is cheap is cheap -- eh??

And you have not even began to figure in the costs of the gasifier -- and
operating that!!

Tom can certainly detail out that with great specifics.

But hey -- Tom is a busy man -- and your beginning to sound like a
"possible" waste of time.

After you have blown 10 or so million -- and it still aint working as
advertised -- and your "infesters" are looking for you with tar and
feathers -- you probably will wish you went at it in another way.

Called learning the hard way --

Research -- and research honestly!!

But best of all -- get the money -- then contact Tom -- then
buy/pay/install his system -- and maybe -- just maybe -- you'll avoid tar
and feathers.

Tell us -- what is the price per kwh you figure you can be getting for the
power you produce??

Say 8 cents US per kwh??

2 megs steady -- which is max -- and difficult to average out for the year
-- but just dreaming -- is

2 megs = 2000 kwh * .08 = $160 US per hour.

you probably will never get 8 cents -- and never average 2 megs sales --

But just for fun -- figure out what your cost of operation per hour for
four big Cats and gasifiers (you need to double those up to if you want
reliable supply) is costing you per hour to operate.

I doubt you will get away with less than 2 million investment -- how many
big cats bulldozers can you buy with 2 million -- and what can you charge
per hour for their services??

Maintenance will work out just about the same.

Matt -- the people on this list are very good at what they do when it comes
to gasifiers -- and these days it is a real rough ride to turn a penny.

Unless like Arnt points out -- you get paid real big bucks for solving a
pollution problem by using that as fuel.

As in some one paying you big bucks to "take-away" the sewage!

Kevin's design can burn raw municipal garbage -- with metal cans -- fridges
-- stoves -- you name it all mixed in -- car tires -- and sewage sludge as
well.

It comes out as slag. Good for road fill --

Turbines like Ormat use do not require oil changes -- rebuilds -- etc --
for 30 years or more!!

course -- if your into a quicky con job on some "infesters" -- who cares!!

We have had more than a few such on this list in the past -- huge amounts
of money blown -- right up into the 100's of millions of dollars and more
categories.

So not saying it can't be done -- just pointing out this is not of interest
-- scam jobs -- to this list.

Eventually the price of energy will go up so that these style projects can
be productive. But we do not know when.

Sure -- at present the sharks are playing with crude prices. But any
depression or recession that comes down the road ends up causing a huge
surplus of crude -- and prices go way back down.

I figure another 50 years at least before we see real oil price increases
due to real shortages.

Then gasifiers might be viable.

But they still have to do better than conventional thermal plants!!

Conventional (combustion) thermal plants -- steam -- when built large
enough to overcome scale of economics (say plus 50 megs and up) can be had
for less than $1500 US per kwh -- live for 50 plus years -- have very low
maintenance/operation costs (per kwh produced) and over all efficiencies
from 50% up!!

Hurst Boilers -- using a German design gasifier -- play in the two meg
range -- use low pressure steam -- but still touch 10% over all efficiencies.

These units hooked to conventional steam turbines live for a long time with
minimal maintenance.

They handle any kind of fuel -- to 55% humidity.

Contact Hurtz -- they have all kinds of installations in Canada -- very
popular at big saw mills -- go look one such set up over -- cause that is
your real competition!

I mean -- just what is the proposed life expectentcy of the gasifier/IC
engine set up your proposing.

1 year?? 2 years??

One should figure for at least 20 years -- more is preferable -- before it
is a junk pile.

Ask Cat how many "hours" between rebuilds -- and at what cost -- for diesel
fueled operation.

Then ask them for producer gas fueled operation.

There are no free rides ---

Peter

At 07:25 PM 6/1/2004 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 05:43:30PM -0400, Matthew Pottinger wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>> Diesels de-rate, what 20% on a gasifier? If need be, we can go cheaper
>> than these, these gensets are pretty new.
>>
>
> No, more like 40%-50%.
>
>
>--
>Harmon Seaver
>CyberShamanix
>http://www.cybershamanix.com
>Hoka hey!
>

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 1 21:24:05 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:55 2004
Subject: The cost of a small power plant (engine derating)
In-Reply-To: <20040602002506.GC2666@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.212405.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

No I am sure you are thinking petrol engines. The higher the compression
ratio, the less significant the power loss. Turbocharging also helps
apparently.

Some diesels are converted to spark, and the compression ratio is lowered,
in that case, you would be correct!

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:25:06 -0500, Harmon Seaver
<hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM> wrote:

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 1 21:53:24 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:55 2004
Subject: The cost of a small power plant
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040601191955.00a53ea0@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.215324.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

You are very right. I did not include oil changes or rebuilds. My
calculations assumed scrapping the engine once every year. It turned out
ok. Oil changes were not included. Big mistake. Forget rebuilds though.
Engines of this low cost are disposable, no mistake there. ;) No show
stopper. Oil changes, I must check. Could be brutal.

Maybe this will always only just be a hobby. I'm still going to build my
cyclone gasifier & vortex dehydrator/pulverizer! :) Commercial or not.

Availability? Buy an even cheaper unit as backup.

No millions involved in the sizes I am thinking no matter how you look at
it. I would have to buy TEN one meg units to get to a million.

My calculations that turned out of profit take into account that I can
scrap the engine every year, but oil changes..... hmmm on producer gas? :)

You have one there, but not when it comes to the cost of the equipment I
still don't think!

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:22:24 -0600, Peter Singfield <snkm@BTL.NET> wrote:

> Wonder what a total rebuild costs for one of these suckers??
>
> Matt -- if I run a diesel on alcohol I can go a long ways between oil
> changes.
>
> Conversely -- you have to change oil very often when using producer gas
> --
> it is a dirty kind of fuel.
>
> Wonder what just the lube bill for one of those cats is per month -- and
> all very expensive -- best quality -- diesel engine oil.
>
> I'd say rebuilds are four times more common when running producer gas
> than
> diesel fuel -- so put that in your "estimates" as well --
>
> And oh -- don't forget down time!!
>
> Certainly -- you have to figure at least two units -- one for back up at
> all times.
>
> Let's see -- to get your 2 meg -- counting derating -- and having
> reasonable "availability" -- figure four such units.
>
> Poof -- there goes the first million -- eh??
>
> Really -- get quotes on total rebuilds -- talk to Cat -- they have
> experience I am sure in regards to producer gas and can tell you how many
> hours between over hauls.
>
> Then figure in oil changes --
>
> Poof -- there goes another million -- but every year though!!
>
> wow -- cheap is cheap is cheap -- eh??
>
> And you have not even began to figure in the costs of the gasifier -- and
> operating that!!
>
> Tom can certainly detail out that with great specifics.
>
> But hey -- Tom is a busy man -- and your beginning to sound like a
> "possible" waste of time.
>
> After you have blown 10 or so million -- and it still aint working as
> advertised -- and your "infesters" are looking for you with tar and
> feathers -- you probably will wish you went at it in another way.
>
> Called learning the hard way --
>
> Research -- and research honestly!!
>
> But best of all -- get the money -- then contact Tom -- then
> buy/pay/install his system -- and maybe -- just maybe -- you'll avoid tar
> and feathers.
>
> Tell us -- what is the price per kwh you figure you can be getting for
> the
> power you produce??
>
> Say 8 cents US per kwh??
>
> 2 megs steady -- which is max -- and difficult to average out for the
> year
> -- but just dreaming -- is
>
> 2 megs = 2000 kwh * .08 = $160 US per hour.
>
> you probably will never get 8 cents -- and never average 2 megs sales --
>
> But just for fun -- figure out what your cost of operation per hour for
> four big Cats and gasifiers (you need to double those up to if you want
> reliable supply) is costing you per hour to operate.
>
> I doubt you will get away with less than 2 million investment -- how many
> big cats bulldozers can you buy with 2 million -- and what can you charge
> per hour for their services??
>
> Maintenance will work out just about the same.
>
> Matt -- the people on this list are very good at what they do when it
> comes
> to gasifiers -- and these days it is a real rough ride to turn a penny.
>
> Unless like Arnt points out -- you get paid real big bucks for solving a
> pollution problem by using that as fuel.
>
> As in some one paying you big bucks to "take-away" the sewage!
>
> Kevin's design can burn raw municipal garbage -- with metal cans --
> fridges
> -- stoves -- you name it all mixed in -- car tires -- and sewage sludge
> as
> well.
>
> It comes out as slag. Good for road fill --
>
> Turbines like Ormat use do not require oil changes -- rebuilds -- etc --
> for 30 years or more!!
>
> course -- if your into a quicky con job on some "infesters" -- who
> cares!!
>
> We have had more than a few such on this list in the past -- huge amounts
> of money blown -- right up into the 100's of millions of dollars and more
> categories.
>
> So not saying it can't be done -- just pointing out this is not of
> interest
> -- scam jobs -- to this list.
>
> Eventually the price of energy will go up so that these style projects
> can
> be productive. But we do not know when.
>
> Sure -- at present the sharks are playing with crude prices. But any
> depression or recession that comes down the road ends up causing a huge
> surplus of crude -- and prices go way back down.
>
> I figure another 50 years at least before we see real oil price increases
> due to real shortages.
>
> Then gasifiers might be viable.
>
> But they still have to do better than conventional thermal plants!!
>
> Conventional (combustion) thermal plants -- steam -- when built large
> enough to overcome scale of economics (say plus 50 megs and up) can be
> had
> for less than $1500 US per kwh -- live for 50 plus years -- have very low
> maintenance/operation costs (per kwh produced) and over all efficiencies
> from 50% up!!
>
> Hurst Boilers -- using a German design gasifier -- play in the two meg
> range -- use low pressure steam -- but still touch 10% over all
> efficiencies.
>
> These units hooked to conventional steam turbines live for a long time
> with
> minimal maintenance.
>
> They handle any kind of fuel -- to 55% humidity.
>
> Contact Hurtz -- they have all kinds of installations in Canada -- very
> popular at big saw mills -- go look one such set up over -- cause that is
> your real competition!
>
> I mean -- just what is the proposed life expectentcy of the gasifier/IC
> engine set up your proposing.
>
> 1 year?? 2 years??
>
> One should figure for at least 20 years -- more is preferable -- before
> it
> is a junk pile.
>
> Ask Cat how many "hours" between rebuilds -- and at what cost -- for
> diesel
> fueled operation.
>
> Then ask them for producer gas fueled operation.
>
> There are no free rides ---
>
> Peter
>
>
> At 07:25 PM 6/1/2004 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 05:43:30PM -0400, Matthew Pottinger wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>> Diesels de-rate, what 20% on a gasifier? If need be, we can go cheaper
>>> than these, these gensets are pretty new.
>>>
>>
>> No, more like 40%-50%.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Harmon Seaver
>> CyberShamanix
>> http://www.cybershamanix.com
>> Hoka hey!
>>

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From arnt at C2I.NET Tue Jun 1 22:01:36 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:55 2004
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier - Reference Links
In-Reply-To: <opr8xy1jwn6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUN.2004.040136.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 20:45:09 -0400, Matthew wrote in message
<opr8xy1jwn6c175d@localhost>:

> This cyclone gasifier would work, now what must be coupled to it is a
> fuel conditioning system. I know what that conditioning system is. It
> is a vortex pulverizer/dehydrator. Anyone used that for gasification
> before?
>
> Arnt, this one was under your nose,

..you got that right. ;-)

> and I'm telling you don't know what you had here.
> http://fmb.no/arnt/elspa/stand-alone.html

..pushing your luck? ;-)
I _am_ aware of the the cyclone gasifier concept, and the K?lle
gasifier uses a cyclone to recycle charcoal dust. I use one to
"throw" water outta my gas in my final cooling bath outlet.

..in my early "compact gear" period, I used a watercooled cyclone
to cool and clean gas coming straight out of my gasifier, the
problem was it didn't cool the gas much, but it did boil up the
water pretty good. ;-)

..the cyclone gasifier somewhat overlaps into my and K?lle's
gasifiers, and closes the gaps between them, AFAICT. My
gasifier burns wet wood, chicken manure and pelletized sewer
http://solstice.crest.org/discussion/gasification/199903/msg00055.html
K?lle's burns crushed charcoal and ditto dust, the cyclone gasifier
can crush and burn the charcoal I can produce.

..charcoal production, depends on how my gasifier is controlled,
I just auger out what I want, within limits, ofcourse. ,-)

..my and K?lle's gasifiers are largely stable, quickly fired up, K?lle
did it in 30 seconds (and I'm gonna beat that!) and autocontrolled,
the cyclone can probably use either to relight itself on flare-outs
(to use jet turbine terminology), I need to read up abit on this too.

..under my nose. Heh. ;-)

..my next flare is a cyclone burner affair that I plan to make from
scrap tin tubing and an oil drum packed in clay, "light it and keep
it going 'till the tin's gone", makes an insitu fired ceramic cyclone
flare, if it works. ;-)

> Exploratory experimental and theoretical studies of cyclone
> gasification of wood powder
> http://epubl.luth.se/1402-1544/1999/16/
>
>
> CFD simulation on Cyclone Gasification of Wood Powder
> http://www.hpc2n.umu.se/projects/focus/cfd.pdf
>
>
> Evaluation of a cyclone gasifier design to be used for biomass fuelled
> gas turbines
> http://epubl.luth.se/1402-1544/2001/39/index-en.html

..nothing further on this thesis? I find an one page summary
dated 2001-11-14, by a Hassan Salman, not these below.

> Gabra, M. Pettersson, E. Backman, R. Kjellstr?m, B
> Evaluation of Cyclone Gasifier Performance for Gasification of sugar
> Cane Residue- Part 1 Gasification of Bagasse
> Biomass & Bioenergy, Vol. 21, pp 251-369, 2001
>
>
> More links? Do a search on Cyclone Gasification
>
> It is exceedingly rare in comparison to conventional gasifier designs.
>
> I find it exceedingly useful, hopefully you guys will see what I am
> talking about.

..sure, keep in mind those glorious 400 years, and show us. ;-)

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

From phoenix98604 at EARTHLINK.NET Wed Jun 2 00:39:37 2004
From: phoenix98604 at EARTHLINK.NET (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:55 2004
Subject: Cyclone vs Entrained bed gasifier
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.213937.0700.PHOENIX98604@EARTHLINK.NET>

Matthew,

I have been reading all your "reports" about the cyclone gasifier being the
"end of all gasifier designs" and sort of chuckling.

Anyone who goes from biomass such a wood particles to producer gas in one
step without exposure to high temperatures or using a design with excellent
insulation will need to build a very sturdy gasifier to handle all the tar
it will collect very quickly.

There are quite a few "old timers" on this list who can tell you firsthand
about tar and its' effects. Tar generated from biomass gasification is a
bitch and enthusiasm with tunnel vision doesn't reduce the problem.

Use your keystroke energy to build a small gasifier and then report your
experiences.

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

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Tue Jun 1 22:10:03 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:55 2004
Subject: The cost of a small power plant
In-Reply-To: <opr8x0lwus6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.211003.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 09:18:58PM -0400, Matthew Pottinger wrote:
>
>
> Source: http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/T0512E/T0512e08.htm
>
> 2.1.4 Resulting power output
> Assuming that the engine modifications described above are correctly
> implemented, decrease in maximum power output of petrol engines without
> turbo or supercharging can be limited to about 30 percent. Turbo or
> supercharged combustion running engines on producer gas can have power
> outputs equal to those in petrol operation.
>
> Derating of direct injection diesel engines in dual fuel operation can
> usually be limited to 15 - 20 percent (80 percent producer gas, 20 percent
> diesel fuel).
>

I think you're misreading this -- if you are dual-fueling like that, you are
using as much diesel as necessary to get full power, if that is even possible.
If you are pumping producer gas into the air intake, it might not be possible
for the engine to get enough oxygen to produce full power no matter how much
diesel is being injected at the same time.
If you convert the diesel to spark (or smartplugs possibly) and aren't
supplying any fuel but producer gas, the engine will be more efficient than an
unmodified petrol engine, but still not likely to give you more than 60% of
rated hp.
The other aspect of this is engine life and reliability. Trying to run any
engine 24/365 will likely result in needing an engine rebuild before the year is
out -- especially if you run it at it's rated hp, or even 3/4. Makes most sense
to hook it to an 1800rpm generator head and make it last longer. So if the
engine is rated at 75hp @ 3600rpm, like my little Nissan 2.2L diesel, and I run
it at about 1800-1850, it will last a lot longer, but also only produce, what,
about 35-40hp? So I should be able to run it almost totally on producer gas and
only need a tiny amount of diesel to ignite the charge.
But I'll bet it still will need a total rebuild at least once a year.

>
> I will look for more sources, but I am sure this one is correct!
> Encouraging no?
>
>
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:25:06 -0500, Harmon Seaver
> <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 05:43:30PM -0400, Matthew Pottinger wrote:
> >
> >(snip)
> >
> >>Diesels de-rate, what 20% on a gasifier? If need be, we can go cheaper
> >>than these, these gensets are pretty new.
> >>
> >
> > No, more like 40%-50%.
> >
> >
> >--
> >Harmon Seaver
> >CyberShamanix
> >http://www.cybershamanix.com
> >Hoka hey!
>
>
>
> --
>
> Matthew Pottinger
>
> Student
> Environmental Technology Program
> Durham College
> Ontario, Canada
>
> "Never underestimate people's
> ability to suppress inconvenient realities."
>
> "We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
> economically feasible."

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

From graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ Tue Jun 1 22:06:41 2004
From: graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:55 2004
Subject: ReGasification of Biosolids.
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUN.2004.140641.1200.GRAEME@POWERLINK.CO.NZ>

Mat and Oscar,

Biosolids such as sewage sludge are a hazardus waste stream and you are not
allowed to handle them without a permit, and a very expensive insurance
poticy if you are doing emission testing, Some administeraters are very
helpful and others less so, and more than a few cannot understand the
differance between gasification and incineration which is being stopped in
most developed countries.

You also will require these tests to be conducted by a registered emission
specialist and we only found one in Canada. Our sewage test were conducted
under the control of the Biosystems Engineering Dept, at the University of
Manitoba.

Heavy metals in these wastes may vary but you still have to design a process
that removes them from the final emission. Sewage sludge has a problem with
murcury and like many other toxic materials needs a very high temperature
reducing atmosphere free of oxygen for separation.. In powder or granulare
form, any fuel tends to incinerate in an oxidising atmosphere making lots of
heat but this then leaves no char for reduction, so cyclonic gasification
such as the Indian design would not be a good starting of point for your
project.

The project in Winnipeg Canada that Oscar refers to is Fluidyne technology
being built under licence. Like many new companies the team is on a huge
learning curve, and over enthusiasm is very hard to control. I have asked
them to slow down untill we have the current MK2 Mega Class gasifier
operational, until then a web site is not justified, so don't waste your
time looking for it.

As to why gasification is expensive, the only way for you to find out is to
keep spending you pocket money on free information,and add a few years of
lost income from a real job to appreciate the cost of development. What I
can say that if we had a market for gasifiers which allowed continuous
manufacturing to take place, then we would see a cost reduction right across
the whole activity. Until then it's one very tiny step at time.
Regards,
Doug Williams,
Fluidyne Gasification.

----- Original Message -----
From: "oscar" <oscar@GEPROP.CU>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Gasification of biosolids

> ....this might be of help to you... or perhaps you know them already...
but
> there is canadian firm based in Winnepeg Manitoba having wide experience
on
> gasifying waste from that city...it is called SunGas Energy... Have you
> already had any contact with them on gasification technology...??? As far
as
> I know they have been working on a real interesting one... The company
> website is: www.sungasenergy.com In fact Dough William from New Zeland,
who
> has already been answering some of your queries, can help you even more..
> they are really close.. make a try if you haven't already... and see what
> you got...
>
> kind regards.
>
> Oscar.
>
>

From arnt at C2I.NET Tue Jun 1 22:14:07 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:55 2004
Subject: Cyclone vs Entrained bed gasifier
In-Reply-To: <opr8xznzyx6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUN.2004.041407.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 20:58:37 -0400, Matthew wrote in message
<opr8xznzyx6c175d@localhost>:

> Hey Arnt, yes I noticed the similarity with an entrained bed gasifier,
> I can see the advantages of a cyclone gasifier. It would most likely
> be cheaper to build, as you say, cyclone separators are cheap to
> build, this is simply a cyclone separator, just make sure air/fuel
> ratio is correct and flow speed is correct.
>
> One difference with this is that char/ash/some tar is removed
> immediately out of the bottom of the cyclone. Cleaner gas to begin
> with.
>
> Maybe I have something here? ;)

.._maybe_. Read up on cyclone sizing, chanses are you might be able
to either find litterature on sizing cyclone burners too, and _possibly_
inch out funding to research and model cyclone gasifiers. ;-)

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

From arnt at C2I.NET Tue Jun 1 22:21:34 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:55 2004
Subject: The cost of a small power plant (engine derating)
In-Reply-To: <opr8x0uft06c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUN.2004.042134.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 21:24:05 -0400, Matthew wrote in message
<opr8x0uft06c175d@localhost>:

> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:25:06 -0500, Harmon Seaver
> <hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 05:43:30PM -0400, Matthew Pottinger wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > > Diesels de-rate, what 20% on a gasifier? If need be, we can go
> > > cheaper than these, these gensets are pretty new.
> > >
> >
> > No, more like 40%-50%.
>
> No I am sure you are thinking petrol engines. The higher the
> compression ratio, the less significant the power loss. Turbocharging
> also helps apparently.
>
> Some diesels are converted to spark, and the compression ratio is
> lowered, in that case, you would be correct!

..keep in mind that you must compare what actually burns in the
engine cylinder; air plus fuel. For typical gasifier gases, the
cylinder charge heat value is around 70% of the same engine
burning air plus gasoline vapors or diesel oil spray vapors.

..this cylinder charge "loss" can be recovered by supercharging
the engine.

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

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Tue Jun 1 22:24:07 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:55 2004
Subject: The cost of a small power plant
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040601191955.00a53ea0@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.212407.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 07:22:24PM -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
>
> Tell us -- what is the price per kwh you figure you can be getting for the
> power you produce??
>
> Say 8 cents US per kwh??
>

No way! Not likely. More like 3 cents. Here in WI, with our net metering
law, we can get retail rate for what we produce if our genset is no bigger than
20kw. Anything bigger than that and they only have to pay us "avoided rate" or
wholesale rate, and we'd be doing well if it was 3 cents.

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

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Tue Jun 1 22:39:05 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:55 2004
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <opr8xx3pfe6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.213905.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 08:24:51PM -0400, Matthew Pottinger wrote:

(snip)
> dehydrate to 10% moisture content. The biosolids (or manure), become
> pulverized to *UNIFORM* predictable sized particles.

Mentioning manure, I'm wondering if by "biosolids" you mean the dried sludge
cake or raw sewage? If you're dealing with manure and/or raw sewage, it would be
far more effective, I'd think, if you ran a methane digester rather than a
gasifier.
If you're dealing with the dried sludge, at least what they are producing
here, it's already dry enough -- and, of course, the methane is already long
gone.

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

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 1 22:47:57 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:55 2004
Subject: The cost of a small power plant
In-Reply-To: <opr8x17avx6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.224757.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Steam power plants wouldn't be bad, I agree with the long lifespan part,
but then there are boiler regulations, boiler maintenance, safety issues,
lower efficiency at small scales etc.

Wouldn't that combustion unit classify as incineration though?

Ok, well, your warnings are well respected. I am not going to dive into
anything. What I plan on is small bench scale experiments for the next
four years, so no haste here on my part at all Peter! :) I like to think
about a higher end goal though. Keep it in mind, keep the fires burning.
It will drive me to experiment more.

I will first concentrate on this mysterious tar you all talk about. First
I need to know how to measure tars, and then I will try different ways of
eliminating them.

I can easily create a small pyrolytic gasifier to test tar cleaning with.
What I don't understand is why tars can't be completely removed using just
water. Can't one simply set up a large bubble column or series of them to
capture the tars and dust? Can't it capture nearly 100%?

Once captured in the water, tars can be destroyed by microbial
remediation. Something like they use to destroy gasoline or oil spills.
Tar free gasifier is one step. Increase reliability more by doing this
also.

http://www.dawginc.com/industrial-cleaners-degreasers/microbial-hydrocarbon-remediation.asp

Peter, I do not see how producer gas would greatly diminish engine
reliability if it were sufficiently cleaned, and as I said diesels are
cheap enough to buy a new one each year.

My I've written a lot! Time for bed! :)
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 21:53:24 -0400, Matthew Pottinger
<mpottinger@renewableplanet.ca> wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:22:24 -0600, Peter Singfield <snkm@BTL.NET> wrote:
>
>> Wonder what a total rebuild costs for one of these suckers??
>>
>> Matt -- if I run a diesel on alcohol I can go a long ways between oil
>> changes.
>>
>> Conversely -- you have to change oil very often when using producer gas
>> --
>> it is a dirty kind of fuel.
>>
>> Wonder what just the lube bill for one of those cats is per month -- and
>> all very expensive -- best quality -- diesel engine oil.
>>
>> I'd say rebuilds are four times more common when running producer gas
>> than
>> diesel fuel -- so put that in your "estimates" as well --
>>
>> And oh -- don't forget down time!!
>>
>> Certainly -- you have to figure at least two units -- one for back up at
>> all times.
>>
>> Let's see -- to get your 2 meg -- counting derating -- and having
>> reasonable "availability" -- figure four such units.
>>
>> Poof -- there goes the first million -- eh??
>>
>> Really -- get quotes on total rebuilds -- talk to Cat -- they have
>> experience I am sure in regards to producer gas and can tell you how
>> many
>> hours between over hauls.
>>
>> Then figure in oil changes --
>>
>> Poof -- there goes another million -- but every year though!!
>>
>> wow -- cheap is cheap is cheap -- eh??
>>
>> And you have not even began to figure in the costs of the gasifier --
>> and
>> operating that!!
>>
>> Tom can certainly detail out that with great specifics.
>>
>> But hey -- Tom is a busy man -- and your beginning to sound like a
>> "possible" waste of time.
>>
>> After you have blown 10 or so million -- and it still aint working as
>> advertised -- and your "infesters" are looking for you with tar and
>> feathers -- you probably will wish you went at it in another way.
>>
>> Called learning the hard way --
>>
>> Research -- and research honestly!!
>>
>> But best of all -- get the money -- then contact Tom -- then
>> buy/pay/install his system -- and maybe -- just maybe -- you'll avoid
>> tar
>> and feathers.
>>
>> Tell us -- what is the price per kwh you figure you can be getting for
>> the
>> power you produce??
>>
>> Say 8 cents US per kwh??
>>
>> 2 megs steady -- which is max -- and difficult to average out for the
>> year
>> -- but just dreaming -- is
>>
>> 2 megs = 2000 kwh * .08 = $160 US per hour.
>>
>> you probably will never get 8 cents -- and never average 2 megs sales --
>>
>> But just for fun -- figure out what your cost of operation per hour for
>> four big Cats and gasifiers (you need to double those up to if you want
>> reliable supply) is costing you per hour to operate.
>>
>> I doubt you will get away with less than 2 million investment -- how
>> many
>> big cats bulldozers can you buy with 2 million -- and what can you
>> charge
>> per hour for their services??
>>
>> Maintenance will work out just about the same.
>>
>> Matt -- the people on this list are very good at what they do when it
>> comes
>> to gasifiers -- and these days it is a real rough ride to turn a penny.
>>
>> Unless like Arnt points out -- you get paid real big bucks for solving a
>> pollution problem by using that as fuel.
>>
>> As in some one paying you big bucks to "take-away" the sewage!
>>
>> Kevin's design can burn raw municipal garbage -- with metal cans --
>> fridges
>> -- stoves -- you name it all mixed in -- car tires -- and sewage sludge
>> as
>> well.
>>
>> It comes out as slag. Good for road fill --
>>
>> Turbines like Ormat use do not require oil changes -- rebuilds -- etc --
>> for 30 years or more!!
>>
>> course -- if your into a quicky con job on some "infesters" -- who
>> cares!!
>>
>> We have had more than a few such on this list in the past -- huge
>> amounts
>> of money blown -- right up into the 100's of millions of dollars and
>> more
>> categories.
>>
>> So not saying it can't be done -- just pointing out this is not of
>> interest
>> -- scam jobs -- to this list.
>>
>> Eventually the price of energy will go up so that these style projects
>> can
>> be productive. But we do not know when.
>>
>> Sure -- at present the sharks are playing with crude prices. But any
>> depression or recession that comes down the road ends up causing a huge
>> surplus of crude -- and prices go way back down.
>>
>> I figure another 50 years at least before we see real oil price
>> increases
>> due to real shortages.
>>
>> Then gasifiers might be viable.
>>
>> But they still have to do better than conventional thermal plants!!
>>
>> Conventional (combustion) thermal plants -- steam -- when built large
>> enough to overcome scale of economics (say plus 50 megs and up) can be
>> had
>> for less than $1500 US per kwh -- live for 50 plus years -- have very
>> low
>> maintenance/operation costs (per kwh produced) and over all efficiencies
>> from 50% up!!
>>
>> Hurst Boilers -- using a German design gasifier -- play in the two meg
>> range -- use low pressure steam -- but still touch 10% over all
>> efficiencies.
>>
>> These units hooked to conventional steam turbines live for a long time
>> with
>> minimal maintenance.
>>
>> They handle any kind of fuel -- to 55% humidity.
>>
>> Contact Hurtz -- they have all kinds of installations in Canada -- very
>> popular at big saw mills -- go look one such set up over -- cause that
>> is
>> your real competition!
>>
>> I mean -- just what is the proposed life expectentcy of the gasifier/IC
>> engine set up your proposing.
>>
>> 1 year?? 2 years??
>>
>> One should figure for at least 20 years -- more is preferable -- before
>> it
>> is a junk pile.
>>
>> Ask Cat how many "hours" between rebuilds -- and at what cost -- for
>> diesel
>> fueled operation.
>>
>> Then ask them for producer gas fueled operation.
>>
>> There are no free rides ---
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> At 07:25 PM 6/1/2004 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 05:43:30PM -0400, Matthew Pottinger wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>>> Diesels de-rate, what 20% on a gasifier? If need be, we can go cheaper
>>>> than these, these gensets are pretty new.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, more like 40%-50%.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Harmon Seaver
>>> CyberShamanix
>>> http://www.cybershamanix.com
>>> Hoka hey!
>>>
>
>
>

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Tue Jun 1 23:13:35 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:55 2004
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <opr8xx3pfe6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.221335.0500.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Matt, I find this last post, to the point of almost "Taunting" I'm not a
mean person, don't get me wrong, BUT I will be the first person to state the
following.....

" Do NOT think that the people on this list are dumb, and that for some
reason you know more than others... there are professors, engineers, people
that have 20+ years of ONLY working with gasifiers..."

If anything, you might simply find the following.... "I will most likely be
the only person, that will take the time to reply to this message, simply
because it sounds so offensive, the rest of the list will simply hit the
"Ignore" button......"

FOR YOUR INFORMATION:

Cyclonic Gasification, BEEN there, Done that, DTU is the model:
http://bgg.mek.dtu.dk/publications/pdf/amst02_v2_82.pdf

Small particle, well, I'll let the rest of the list run with that one :)

Any Takers ? or did he get the full Ignore treatment for this one ?

Oh, BTW as far as building cyclones... here
http://cnets.net/~eclectic/woodworking/cyclone/index.cfm

Quite a detailed site on the how's & why's.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Matthew Pottinger
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 7:25 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier

You say that fuel conditioning is a big problem, moisture is a big
problem, gas quality is a big problem.

These are SMALL particles, a powder, a dust.

The gasifiers everyone is discussing here can NOT handle these.

The gasifier I am suggesting REQUIRES these "dust like" inputs.
it is ESPECIALLY important that the fuel is small particle for a cyclone
gasifier, and it is important that it is dry.

The vortex dehydrator fulfills these exact requirements for fuel
conditioning. Do you see what I mean?

THIS is what I was enthusiastic about all this time.
I want to build THIS system and no other.

Do you see the system I am proposing?
What do you think?

1. Uniform fuel size
2. Very small particle size
2. Dry fuel
3. A gasifier that is WELL KNOWN to be good at gasifying such conditioned
fuel.

A cyclone gasifier also reduces the amount of tars and ash entrained in
the gas, it acts as both a gasifier and a gas cleaner.

The gas from this gasifier is apparently cleaner to begin with.

Continuous operating is simplied.
Fuel conditioning is simplified

This can handle things other than biosolids.

Any fuel can be pulverized by the fuel conditioning system and fed.

I EMPHASIZE that you have not been discussing this particular system with
me at all.

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race,
but it just wouldn't be economically feasible."

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 1 23:16:54 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:55 2004
Subject: Microbial remediation of tars
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.231654.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Hey all, have any of you done any work on this?
I know tars should be eliminated at the gasifier end, however, is it not
best to do gas cleanup anyway in ADDITION to prevention. Double the
protection right?

If water is used to scrub the tars, or if they are condensed by a
combination of cooling/filtering and water scrubbing, I see water
scrubbing as an inexpensive way to get rid of whatever tar you have left
in the gas. Now that watery emulsion of tar isn't going to be good to feed
back into the gasifier, so why not destroy it with microbes?

There are a wide variety of strains of microbes which can do this. Have
you looked at it?

I will try it in my experiments. It's called bioremediation! :)
Now if only I had an inexpensive way of testing for tars.

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race,
but it just wouldn't be economically feasible."

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 1 23:23:23 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:55 2004
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <003701c4484f$98396110$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.232323.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Um, I apologize, but I by no means was implying that anyone on this list
was dumb, quite the contrary. I am merely in search of knowledge from you
people. You are a little too quick to be offended by a curious newcomer.

I do not understand how you would take it this way.

I wanted discussion on what people thought of cyclone gasifiers, they are
definitely new to me! They look attractive for what I want to use them for.

Now, if I am being offensive, well, this list isn't for me. I'll move
elsewhere, or keep to myself in that case.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 22:13:35 -0500, a31ford <a31ford@inetlink.ca> wrote:

>
> Matt, I find this last post, to the point of almost "Taunting" I'm not a
> mean person, don't get me wrong, BUT I will be the first person to state
> the
> following.....
>
> " Do NOT think that the people on this list are dumb, and that for some
> reason you know more than others... there are professors, engineers,
> people
> that have 20+ years of ONLY working with gasifiers..."
>
> If anything, you might simply find the following.... "I will most likely
> be
> the only person, that will take the time to reply to this message, simply
> because it sounds so offensive, the rest of the list will simply hit the
> "Ignore" button......"
>
>
> FOR YOUR INFORMATION:
>
> Cyclonic Gasification, BEEN there, Done that, DTU is the model:
> http://bgg.mek.dtu.dk/publications/pdf/amst02_v2_82.pdf
>
> Small particle, well, I'll let the rest of the list run with that one :)
>
> Any Takers ? or did he get the full Ignore treatment for this one ?
>
>
> Oh, BTW as far as building cyclones... here
> http://cnets.net/~eclectic/woodworking/cyclone/index.cfm
>
> Quite a detailed site on the how's & why's.
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Gasification Discussion List
> [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Matthew Pottinger
> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 7:25 PM
> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Cyclone Gasifier
>
>
> Hey all, I know I am not the most experienced person on the list here
> (understatement), however, from discussing things with you, I realize
> that
> you all overlook what I am saying in regards to the uniqueness of my
> proposal on how to gasify materials such as biosolids.
>
> You say that fuel conditioning is a big problem, moisture is a big
> problem, gas quality is a big problem.
>
> I have been suggesting the cyclone gasifier for biosolids application,
> yet
> so far nobody has said ANYTHING about it. I am in contact with a company
> which offers a simple system for dehydrating biosolids. Their system will
> dehydrate to 10% moisture content. The biosolids (or manure), become
> pulverized to *UNIFORM* predictable sized particles.
>
> These are SMALL particles, a powder, a dust.
>
> The gasifiers everyone is discussing here can NOT handle these.
>
> The gasifier I am suggesting REQUIRES these "dust like" inputs.
> it is ESPECIALLY important that the fuel is small particle for a cyclone
> gasifier, and it is important that it is dry.
>
> The vortex dehydrator fulfills these exact requirements for fuel
> conditioning. Do you see what I mean?
>
> THIS is what I was enthusiastic about all this time.
> I want to build THIS system and no other.
>
> Do you see the system I am proposing?
> What do you think?
>
> 1. Uniform fuel size
> 2. Very small particle size
> 2. Dry fuel
> 3. A gasifier that is WELL KNOWN to be good at gasifying such conditioned
> fuel.
>
> A cyclone gasifier also reduces the amount of tars and ash entrained in
> the gas, it acts as both a gasifier and a gas cleaner.
>
> The gas from this gasifier is apparently cleaner to begin with.
>
> Continuous operating is simplied.
> Fuel conditioning is simplified
>
> This can handle things other than biosolids.
>
> Any fuel can be pulverized by the fuel conditioning system and fed.
>
> I EMPHASIZE that you have not been discussing this particular system with
> me at all.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Matthew Pottinger
>
> Student
> Environmental Technology Program
> Durham College
> Ontario, Canada
>
> "Never underestimate people's
> ability to suppress inconvenient realities."
>
> "We could avoid the extinction of the human race,
> but it just wouldn't be economically feasible."
>

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 1 23:24:52 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:55 2004
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <opr8x6c9lk6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.232452.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

------- Forwarded message -------
From: Matthew Pottinger <mpottinger@renewableplanet.ca>
To: a31ford <a31ford@inetlink.ca>, "GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG"
<GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Subject: Re: Cyclone Gasifier
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 23:23:23 -0400

>
> Um, I apologize, but I by no means was implying that anyone on this list
> was dumb, quite the contrary. I am merely in search of knowledge from
> you people. You are a little too quick to be offended by a curious
> newcomer.
>
> I do not understand how you would take it this way.
>
> I wanted discussion on what people thought of cyclone gasifiers, they
> are definitely new to me! They look attractive for what I want to use
> them for.
>
> Now, if I am being offensive, well, this list isn't for me. I'll move
> elsewhere, or keep to myself in that case.
>
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 22:13:35 -0500, a31ford <a31ford@inetlink.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> Matt, I find this last post, to the point of almost "Taunting" I'm not
>> a
>> mean person, don't get me wrong, BUT I will be the first person to
>> state the
>> following.....
>>
>> " Do NOT think that the people on this list are dumb, and that for some
>> reason you know more than others... there are professors, engineers,
>> people
>> that have 20+ years of ONLY working with gasifiers..."
>>
>> If anything, you might simply find the following.... "I will most
>> likely be
>> the only person, that will take the time to reply to this message,
>> simply
>> because it sounds so offensive, the rest of the list will simply hit the
>> "Ignore" button......"
>>
>>
>> FOR YOUR INFORMATION:
>>
>> Cyclonic Gasification, BEEN there, Done that, DTU is the model:
>> http://bgg.mek.dtu.dk/publications/pdf/amst02_v2_82.pdf
>>
>> Small particle, well, I'll let the rest of the list run with that one :)
>>
>> Any Takers ? or did he get the full Ignore treatment for this one ?
>>
>>
>> Oh, BTW as far as building cyclones... here
>> http://cnets.net/~eclectic/woodworking/cyclone/index.cfm
>>
>> Quite a detailed site on the how's & why's.
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: The Gasification Discussion List
>> [mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]On Behalf Of Matthew Pottinger
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 7:25 PM
>> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
>> Subject: Cyclone Gasifier
>>
>>
>> Hey all, I know I am not the most experienced person on the list here
>> (understatement), however, from discussing things with you, I realize
>> that
>> you all overlook what I am saying in regards to the uniqueness of my
>> proposal on how to gasify materials such as biosolids.
>>
>> You say that fuel conditioning is a big problem, moisture is a big
>> problem, gas quality is a big problem.
>>
>> I have been suggesting the cyclone gasifier for biosolids application,
>> yet
>> so far nobody has said ANYTHING about it. I am in contact with a company
>> which offers a simple system for dehydrating biosolids. Their system
>> will
>> dehydrate to 10% moisture content. The biosolids (or manure), become
>> pulverized to *UNIFORM* predictable sized particles.
>>
>> These are SMALL particles, a powder, a dust.
>>
>> The gasifiers everyone is discussing here can NOT handle these.
>>
>> The gasifier I am suggesting REQUIRES these "dust like" inputs.
>> it is ESPECIALLY important that the fuel is small particle for a cyclone
>> gasifier, and it is important that it is dry.
>>
>> The vortex dehydrator fulfills these exact requirements for fuel
>> conditioning. Do you see what I mean?
>>
>> THIS is what I was enthusiastic about all this time.
>> I want to build THIS system and no other.
>>
>> Do you see the system I am proposing?
>> What do you think?
>>
>> 1. Uniform fuel size
>> 2. Very small particle size
>> 2. Dry fuel
>> 3. A gasifier that is WELL KNOWN to be good at gasifying such
>> conditioned
>> fuel.
>>
>> A cyclone gasifier also reduces the amount of tars and ash entrained in
>> the gas, it acts as both a gasifier and a gas cleaner.
>>
>> The gas from this gasifier is apparently cleaner to begin with.
>>
>> Continuous operating is simplied.
>> Fuel conditioning is simplified
>>
>> This can handle things other than biosolids.
>>
>> Any fuel can be pulverized by the fuel conditioning system and fed.
>>
>> I EMPHASIZE that you have not been discussing this particular system
>> with
>> me at all.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Matthew Pottinger
>>
>> Student
>> Environmental Technology Program
>> Durham College
>> Ontario, Canada
>>
>> "Never underestimate people's
>> ability to suppress inconvenient realities."
>>
>> "We could avoid the extinction of the human race,
>> but it just wouldn't be economically feasible."
>>
>
>
>

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From a31ford at INETLINK.CA Tue Jun 1 23:41:24 2004
From: a31ford at INETLINK.CA (a31ford)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:55 2004
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <opr8x6c9lk6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <TUE.1.JUN.2004.224124.0500.A31FORD@INETLINK.CA>

Matt, As I said, I'm not a mean person, who knows it might be that I had a
bad day at work today, and thought there was an "edge" to you post..... I
have no idea. (treat this as a "OK, I could be wrong") :)

Anyhow, FYI I'm running a dual cyclone cleaner (not gasifier) downstream of
the gasifier, the first one does 30 micron and up, the second is 10 micron
and up.

as far as you cyclone gasifier, take a peak at the link from DTU, they are
really ahead of most of us in cyclones (as far as I know), simply because
Denmark spends lots on tech research in this field.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Pottinger [mailto:mpottinger@renewableplanet.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 10:23 PM
To: a31ford; GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: Cyclone Gasifier

I do not understand how you would take it this way.

I wanted discussion on what people thought of cyclone gasifiers, they are
definitely new to me! They look attractive for what I want to use them for.

Now, if I am being offensive, well, this list isn't for me. I'll move
elsewhere, or keep to myself in that case.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 22:13:35 -0500, a31ford <a31ford@inetlink.ca> wrote:

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ Tue Jun 1 23:38:24 2004
From: graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:55 2004
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUN.2004.153824.1200.GRAEME@POWERLINK.CO.NZ>

Mat,

I suggest you take a break and come back in a day or two. Clearly your mind
is in overdrive and you are missing an opportunity to get answers from
people who understand gasification in all the ways it can be achieved.

There is little value in discussing any type of gasification until you know
how these process work, not from a book or web site, but actually doing it.
As for cyclonic gasifiers, these are old hat stuff and little better than
updraught systems when it comes to gas quality.
You should also look at the Indian design again and ponder the grate shown
in the bottom of the gasifier, not exactly needed for powdered fuels.

Our own work on cyclonic gasification started back in about !978-9
providing assistance to a N.Z. Government project, and continues to the
present as a ongoing development programme. Nothing in the literature can
even approach the design demands for a gasifier that you aspire towards,
and it would be in use if it could be proven to work.

It should also be pointed out to you that only a few of us on this forum are
dealing with commercial realities, and are fully aware of the systems out
there to support what needs to be done with fuel conditioning. It's O.K. to
use cheap used engines, even better to recycle scrap steel, it's a place to
start for every one, but not a valid argument to compare costs for
commercially implemented projects.

As a word of caution, more than a small amount of written material on
gasifiers originates from funded research that has no obligation to reach
commercial standards of performance. It is not in the best interest of their
authors to present any thing less than a good result, because they hope it
can qualify for more funding.
Have a good sleep.

Doug Williams,
Fluidyne Gasification.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Pottinger" <mpottinger@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 12:24 PM
Subject: [GASL] Cyclone Gasifier

> Hey all, I know I am not the most experienced person on the list here
> (understatement), however, from discussing things with you, I realize that
> you all overlook what I am saying in regards to the uniqueness of my
> proposal on how to gasify materials such as biosolids.
>
> You say that fuel conditioning is a big problem, moisture is a big
> problem, gas quality is a big problem.
>
> I have been suggesting the cyclone gasifier for biosolids application, yet
> so far nobody has said ANYTHING about it. I am in contact with a company
> which offers a simple system for dehydrating biosolids. Their system will
> dehydrate to 10% moisture content. The biosolids (or manure), become
> pulverized to *UNIFORM* predictable sized particles.
>
> These are SMALL particles, a powder, a dust.
>
> The gasifiers everyone is discussing here can NOT handle these.
>
> The gasifier I am suggesting REQUIRES these "dust like" inputs.
> it is ESPECIALLY important that the fuel is small particle for a cyclone
> gasifier, and it is important that it is dry.
>
> The vortex dehydrator fulfills these exact requirements for fuel
> conditioning. Do you see what I mean?
>
> THIS is what I was enthusiastic about all this time.
> I want to build THIS system and no other.
>
> Do you see the system I am proposing?
> What do you think?
>
> 1. Uniform fuel size
> 2. Very small particle size
> 2. Dry fuel
> 3. A gasifier that is WELL KNOWN to be good at gasifying such conditioned
> fuel.
>
> A cyclone gasifier also reduces the amount of tars and ash entrained in
> the gas, it acts as both a gasifier and a gas cleaner.
>
> The gas from this gasifier is apparently cleaner to begin with.
>
> Continuous operating is simplied.
> Fuel conditioning is simplified
>
> This can handle things other than biosolids.
>
> Any fuel can be pulverized by the fuel conditioning system and fed.
>
> I EMPHASIZE that you have not been discussing this particular system with
> me at all.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Matthew Pottinger
>
> Student
> Environmental Technology Program
> Durham College
> Ontario, Canada
>
> "Never underestimate people's
> ability to suppress inconvenient realities."
>
> "We could avoid the extinction of the human race,
> but it just wouldn't be economically feasible."
>

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Wed Jun 2 07:56:49 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:55 2004
Subject: More questions on tarry gases: Was [GASL] Internal
combustion engines for tar-laden gases??
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUN.2004.055649.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Paul and All:

All of your points below point to the necessity of producing RAW gas with
<100 ppm tar which then gets around these problems. This has been solved by
the CGP IISC laboratory in Bangalore India (see my announcement of book
BIOMASS TO ENERGY, available from BEF) and by Community Power Corporation of
Denver (www.gocpc.com) by adding additional air in the char zone of the
gasifier to convert charcoal that would otherwise be unconsumed AND to burn
up the tars.

Fixing a problem is better than patch on patch.

TOM REED
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders@ILSTU.EDU>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 9:54 AM
Subject: [GASL] More questions on tarry gases: Was [GASL] Internal
combustion engines for tar-laden gases??

> Summary:
>
> 1. When I initially wrote about tarry gases running in "ANY IC engine", I
> should have clarified that I meant in "even one type of IC engine" and NOT
> meaning "all IC engines." Sorry for the confusion.
>
> 2. Nobody indicated even a single engine that can operate very long with
> the tarry gases. One mention of massive pre-1930 engines that take too
> much metal to make today, but even that was without mention of now much
> tars could be tolerated.
>
> 3. One very convincing comment: When the gases are very hot, they cannot
> produce much energy when asked to "explode" in an IC engine. Makes
> sense. But raises a question (below).
>
> 4. First New Question: If the hot gases (clean or otherwise) must be
> cooled first before becoming of good use, we are probably "wasting" the
> heat in those gases. Therefore, IF that is a lot of energy lost, and IF
> that heat could have been put into a steam boiler, and IF the "still-hot"
> gases were simply combusted for heat (not for mechanical power in an IC
> engine), WOULD that make a meaningful difference to improve the otherwise
> poor image of steam generation as an inefficient way to use the
> gases? [NOTE the number of "IFs" in this question.]
>
> 5. Second New Question: After much discussion about the "nasties" and
> toxic aspects of the tarry gases (and I am speaking of using CLEAN wood as
> the starting point), I would like to know if there are such toxic problems
> if the tarry gases are well combusted in heat-generating combustors, (not
> in IC engines)?
>
> 6. Third New Question: (anticipating favorable answers to #4 and #5
> above). Considering the relatively high financial costs associated with
> tar-free producer gases, and the relatively low costs of making tarry
gases
> that could be used in a heat-generator (for example to drive a steam
boiler
> for electricity generation), what are the comparative cost-benefit results
> of the tar-free systems versus the tarry-gas systems? I am sure that size
> of the unit is a factor, but where does one system have advantage over the
> other. (NOTE: The large coal burning electricity generation
> installations are using the heat with boilers, right? And if wood was a
> cheap as coal per BTU, would they stay with heat-boiler systems versus IC
> systems? And someday, coal will be in short supply and wood could be
> competitive for BTU.)
>
> Well, the Gasification List Serve is not expected to be the most
> "receptive" list for bringing up such sticky ("tarry") issues that
question
> the viability of tar-free systems, but it is certainly where the
> knowledgeable people are linked together. [Please be gentle, I am just an
> amateur who met Tom Reed and got into the super-small pyrolyzing (char
> making - tar burning) gasifiers for home stoves.]
>
> Paul
>
> At 05:47 PM 5/31/04 -0400, Matthew Pottinger wrote:
> >Ah, I see your point! 50% power reduction? Yeah that is true with
gasoline
> >engines the power loss is brutal. Diesels don't lose so much power. I see
> >your situation now. When I speak of gasification I am speaking purely
from
> >the perspective of power generation, with very large, yet inexpensive
> >heavy duty diesel engines, which will be paying for themselves rapidly.
> >
> >Vehicle applications are a different beast entirely, especially if the
> >vehicle is already bought! Alas a, vehicle investment is almost always a
> >loss.
> >
> >So different situations have different concerns! We just have to find the
> >best solutions for each of them.
> >
> >
> >When it comes to a vehicle, I would just use SVO instead of a gasifier,
if
> >such a supply of waste oil is available. No power loss to mention, and
> >much less complex! However you already have a gasoline vehicle in mind.
> >Ethanol production in order? :)
> >
> >Best Regards, Matt
> >
> >
> >
> >On Mon, 31 May 2004 11:24:11 -0500, Harmon Seaver
> ><hseaver@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM> wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 05:03:36PM -0400, Matthew Pottinger wrote:
> >>>Also, take a look at this link:
> >>>http://www.wartsila.com/english/pdf/en_direct_water_inj.pdf
> >>>
> >>>water injection is not only used for temporarily boosting power
> >>>it is also being adopted for emissions controls
> >>>in these applications, water is used continuously.
> >>>
> >>>So this is the reason why I think water would not be a problem. It is
> >>>widely used it to reduce NOx.
> >>
> >>
> >> Have you looked at what kind of power you get from producer gas? You
> >>definitely don't want to do anything that will make it worse. I'd really
> >>like to
> >>put a gasifier on my '91 Toyota 4x4 pickup, for example. But with the
> >>power I've
> >>got right now from my 2.4L 4cyl gasoline engine, I can cruise at 75mph,
> >>but not
> >>much more, and can't even make 50mph up some of the big hills on my way
> >>to work
> >>without dropping down to 3rd gear. So if I only got 50% of my rated
> >>power, which
> >>is about what I can expect with a gasifier, my already one hour drive to
> >>work
> >>would be so horribly slow I'm not sure it's worth it. OTOH, since I know
> >>gas
> >>prices are going to keep going up, and probably rather rapidly as world
> >>situations continue to deteriorate, I'm not sure I have a choice.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:27:47 -0400, Matthew Pottinger
> >>><mpottinger@renewableplanet.ca> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >Hmm, well I looked up humid air turbines and what it says is that
> >>> >efficiency is actually ~3% higher due to cooling of the air flow into
> >>> >the turbine, so I am not sure if you are correct there.
> >>> >
> >>> >Here is the reference:
> >>> >
> >>> >Converting the heat in a GT exhaust into steam and then converting
> >>>steam
> >>> >into electric power through a conventional steam cycle involves
losses
> >>> >and inefficiencies which reduce the overall cycle efficiency. One
> >>> >feature of a GT is that it already has a turbine creating mechanical
> >>> >power from a flowing gas stream, and this power output can be
increased
> >>> >(within limits) by increasing the mass flow of gas. In the case of
an
> >>> >IGCC (IGCC) the fuel gas can be cooled by saturating it with steam,
> >>> >created by injecting water which evaporates as it cools the gas.
This
> >>> >increases the mass flow of gas through the GT's turbine. This effect
> >>> >can be taken further by injecting steam from the waste heat boiler
into
> >>> >the GT upstream or in the combustion chamber. Such cycles are known
as
> >>> >Humid Air Cycles. This different conversion route can produce a rise
> >>>in
> >>> >efficiency of about 3% points compared to a standard IGCC plant,
> >>> >depending on the precise cycle parameters. Needs for development are
> >>> >still great: there are no commercially available GT's suited to this
> >>> >application.
> >>> >
> >>> >So the water itself does not improve the efficiency, but the COOLING
> >>> >does. I think the cooling effect of the water is more important than
> >>> >anything else. The gas cleaning stage using water spray will cool the
> >>> >gas and allow a higher mass of producer gas into the engine, thus
> >>> >increasing power output.
> >>> >
> >>> >If the gas is cool enough it should not hold too much water, and I am
> >>> >not sure of how it will affect efficiency, but I am hoping not too
> >>>much!
> >>> >
> >>> >I am really in favour of simpler, low tech solutions rather than high
> >>> >tech solutions! This is what we need in this day and age to make
these
> >>> >technologies accessible to everyone.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >On Mon, 31 May 2004 21:50:48 +0200, Krzysztof Lis <santo@poczta.fm>
> >>> >wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >>M> Water injection has been used since WWII. It is used today in
some
> >>> >>M> large wartsila engines to lower emissions. If you do a search
you
> >>> >>M> will find that there are many references to this. It is also
used
> >>> >>M> with gas turbines, also steam injection is often used to
improve
> >>> >>M> the efficiency of gas turbines.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>Not exactly... HAT (Humid Air Turbines) work normally without
water
> >>> >>injection, because 'dry air' has better efficiency than gas /
vapor
> >>> >>mixture. But addition of water to combustion chamber allows for
great
> >>> >>increase of power going out from the machine, so it is used on
war-
> >>> >>ships when really needed (e.g. trying to escape a chasing torpedo).
> >>> >>
> >>> >>Introducing water to IC engines running on gasoline will help
avoiding
> >>> >>knocking (tested very recently (less than week ago) on small (650
ccm
> >>> >>/ 24HP) engine with high compression ratio by a guy I know), but
kno-
> >>> >>cking is not a problem when thinking about producer / wood gas.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>--
> >>> >>Best regards,
> >>> >> Krzysztof Lis / Poland
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>
> >>>Matthew Pottinger
> >>>
> >>>Student
> >>>Environmental Technology Program
> >>>Durham College
> >>>Ontario, Canada
> >>>
> >>>"Never underestimate people's
> >>>ability to suppress inconvenient realities."
> >>>
> >>>"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't
> >>>be
> >>>economically feasible."
> >>
> >>--
> >>Harmon Seaver
> >>CyberShamanix
> >>http://www.cybershamanix.com
> >>Hoka hey!
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >Matthew Pottinger
> >
> >Student
> >Environmental Technology Program
> >Durham College
> >Ontario, Canada
> >
> >"Never underestimate people's
> >ability to suppress inconvenient realities."
> >
> >"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
> >economically feasible."
>
> Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.
> 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
> NOTE: Retired from teaching. Active in Stoves development.
> For fastest contact, please call home phone: 309-452-7072

From psanders at ILSTU.EDU Wed Jun 2 01:17:46 2004
From: psanders at ILSTU.EDU (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:55 2004
Subject: Absortion chillers using our heat
In-Reply-To: <opr8xhv3fs6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUN.2004.001746.0500.PSANDERS@ILSTU.EDU>

Matt brought up another interesting question. I am not sure what he means
by an "Absortion chillers" (except when I think of propane
refrigerators). But he said "cheaply" and that caught my attention. Matt
and others, can you provide info, please?

Perhaps this topic is not for the "Gasifier people" as much as it is for
the "Stoves List Serve people", so I am posting this message there
also. (if you are on both list, like I am, you get to see it twice, and
decide where to send your reply.)

Paul

At 02:34 PM 6/1/04 -0400, Matthew Pottinger wrote:
>I also think a lot about the wasted heat problem. I had the same idea of
>simply heating water for co-generation, or, you could use that heat to
>drive an absortion chiller, and cool the gases even more! I am sure pretty
>cold temperatures could be reached that way, which would reduce the tar
>problem even further, and increase power output. The gas would be much
>denser at say 0 deg. C than 70-100.
>
>Absortion chillers can be made cheaply can they not? I have seen home made
>ones used as ice makers. Energy can also be stored in the ice for long
>periods of time.
>
>
>
>On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:20:18 +0200, Krzysztof Lis <santo@poczta.fm> wrote:
>
>>P> 4. First New Question: If the hot gases (clean or otherwise) must
>>P> be cooled first before becoming of good use, we are probably
>>P> "wasting" the heat in those gases. Therefore, IF that is a lot of
>>P> energy lost, and IF that heat could have been put into a steam
>>P> boiler, and IF the "still-hot" gases were simply combusted for heat
>>P> (not for mechanical power in an IC engine), WOULD that make a
>>P> meaningful difference to improve the otherwise poor image of steam
>>P> generation as an inefficient way to use the gases? [NOTE the
>>P> number of "IFs" in this question.]
>>
>>A book "Generatorbetrieb" by St.v.Szenasy shows an example of using
>>this heat -- you cool those gasses by heating water in some tank, and
>>then add this water to the generator -- this way of saving energy was
>>used in "Wisco" generator, which runs on anthracit (coal), very dry
>>fuel, which doesn't produce much hydrogen. Even better idea would be
>>to use (if it's possible) produced gas to evaporate this water and
>>then (at best) overheat this steam, and then send it to the gas gene-
>>rator.
>>
>>As for burning hot gas inside boiler or stove or any other burner,
>>there might be (I think) three difficulties:
>>- hot gas means large specific volume and large volumetric flows, so
>>larger (more energy consuming) fan / blower to pump this gas to the
>>place in which it'll be used (if you use any in your case)
>>- hot gas = fan with metal blades
>>- burner might not be suitable for the gas of large specific volume (I
>>think there might be problem with mixing proper amounts of producer
>>gas with oxidizer, but burner's aren't my interest).
>>
>>--
>>Best regards,
>> Krzysztof Lis / Poland
>
>
>
>--
>
>Matthew Pottinger
>
>Student
>Environmental Technology Program
>Durham College
>Ontario, Canada
>
>"Never underestimate people's
>ability to suppress inconvenient realities."
>
>"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
>economically feasible."

From jean-henry.ferrasse at UNIV.U-3MRS.FR Wed Jun 2 02:11:45 2004
From: jean-henry.ferrasse at UNIV.U-3MRS.FR (Jean Henry FERRASSE)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:55 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUN.2004.081145.0200.JEANHENRY.FERRASSE@UNIV.U3MRS.FR>

All,
dewatering sludge to 50% by mechanical way only ? Very surprising. How many
by-products do they add?
It is ten year now I'm working with sewage sludge, drying, gasification....
If you get 30% for municipal, it is excellent, for more you need drying....
and even if you can cut the cost by strong air speed, you 'll have air to
treat because ssludge drying STICKS.
Some particular ssludge, paper's industry can go up to 50% because of the
fibers, but it is very rare.
Regarding heavy metals in WWSS or biomass, there are many studies dealing
with balances, look further.

By the way the problem is not to built a gasifier, the problem is to get
clean overall exhaust :
no tars first & POLLUTANT at the end. If you don't measure them (minimum
is 2 IR, 1 CG), you could have excellent results regarding carbon balance.
The better world you want to let, does not need NOx & Co either! This is
the point that will be definitly make the difference between direct
combustion and gasifiaction.

To end, it is now ten years a lab here is studying cyclone gasifier, it is
working properly, but the need for circulating air is important....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@BTL.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Gasification of biosolids

> Re-inventing this wheel -- eh??
>
> Dewa makes filter belt presses specific to "dewatering" (use that as a
> search term) municipal sewage "sludge".
>
> Here is an old Url for them -- might not work -- but search.
>
> http://www.dwteng.com/dewabelts.htm
>
> Dewa is in Finland and caters to the european market which has been
playing
> around with this style of recycling for many years now.
>
> They can dewater sewage sludge down to 50/55% -- which is good enough to
> burn in Kevin's furnace -- no toxic ash wastes -- no bad stuff coming out
> the chimney either.
>
> Course -- Kevin is in Canada -- I am in Belize -- and Dewa is in Finland.
>
> Your in Canada -- Ontario -- which is a place that only looks to the US
for
> Technology.
>
> I can say this because for many years I ran a consulting engineering
> company in Montreal -- and was always so frustrated when dealing with
> clients from Tronto -- that kept insisting that no Canadian engineer was
> worth anything -- and all engineers had to be imported from the US.
>
> Is that you to Matt??
>
> Anyway -- your re-inventing this wheel -- search around a little. The
> entire technology is well developed in Europe.
>
> But do people from Ontario know that Europe even exists??
>
> You see -- that is my question.
>
> Kevin is an Engineer in nova Scotia -- they don't count either??
>
> Again -- if your heart is set on using Gasifier technology for this
> hypothetical project -- just contact Tom off list -- as he has experience
> in that domain -- I am quite sure.
>
> The advantage to Tom's systems -- as I have deeply researched in the past
> -- is you get the very best quality systems for the biggest bang (kwh) for
> the buck!
>
> Check:
>
> http://www.thermogenics.com/
>
> But that is old info -- and the site may not be there.
>
> Just contact Tom off list -- directly. Or Tom -- post your Url to this
list??
>
> There used to be an Url for Kevin's furnace as well.
>
> I have all these old urls saved to hard drive for reference.
>
> by the way -- here is one archived url presentation I mounted a few years
> ago -- that shows another possible "solution" to this problem.
>
> Go here and download the file -- then open.
>
> http://tzabcan.com/gas/BriteStar/TechnicalOverview.zip
>
> For those interested in waste heat recovery -- check out the Ormat "ORC's"
> -- best out there in my humble opinion.
>
> http://www.ormat.com/
>
> Expensive -- but long life -- 30 years little or no maintenance -- fully
> automatic -- quite energy efficient.
>
> Ormat is based in Israel.
>
> Matt -- you got to look at the world -- not just the US -- ok??
>
> Your spinning our wheels here ---
>
> Also -- check out New Zealand --
>
> http://www.fluidynenz
>
> Again -- that from my archives. Doug is the man in charge -- and he
already
> replied to one or two of your messages.
>
> I believe Doug is involved in a gasifier project in Canada -- maybe even
> Ontario??
>
> Nobody likes to blow their own horns on this list -- so let me blow them
> for em -- eh??
>
> And Matt -- start thinking planet earth -- eh??
>
> I just saved you months of research and re-inventing wheels -- if your
> smart enough to track down the clues.
>
> Good luck to ya -- your going to need a pile of that to. Or a "hot"
> consultant.
>
>
> Peter / Belize
>
>
>
> At 02:30 PM 6/1/2004 -0400, Matthew Pottinger wrote:
> >We have a lot of places here in Ontario where industrial load is quite
> >low. Also, our municipalities go to great measures to make sure that
heavy
> >metals are diverted away from the sewage system. I would have to research
> >further, but I believe Ontario's biosolids can be of fairly low heavy
> >metal content (don't quote me on it).
> >
> >I already had in mind the use of waste heat to dehydrate biosolids,
manure
> >and septage. The idea is that the biosolids are sent through a strong
> >vortex of heated air and come out of the bottom of the vortex both
> >pulverized and dried. There is equipment available to do this, and it is
> >also not very complex in design. It's an inverted cone, much like a dust
> >separator, except the top is capped off and the solids and superheated
air
> >come out of the bottom. Waste heat is used to heat the vortex air, and
> >additional heat is created through friction. This system does a pretty
> >good job of pulverizing things, it can even crush rock. Biosolids would
be
> >reduced to micron sized particles, and sent into the gasifier with less
> >than 10% moisture. The gasifier would be a cyclone gasifier of a similar
> >inverted cone design as the dryer. No bridging, clogging or pressure drop
> >as fine powders would do in a fixed bed gasifier. Fixed bed gasifiers are
> >distinctly bad at processing materials such as this. A cyclone, no
problem.
> >
> >Your info is encouraging. I am also optimistic that the ash can be dealt
> >with.
> >
> >
> >

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Wed Jun 2 02:26:05 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:55 2004
Subject: Absortion chillers using our heat
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20040602001120.0252b330@mail.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUN.2004.022605.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Here is a link. It is based on the same concept as the propane burner
fridges. Ammonia is evaporated from an ammonia absorbing salt in one end,
and is condensed at the other end located in the ice box. When the heat
source is removed from the absorbing end and is allowed to cool off, it
begins to absorb the ammonia once again, and the ammonia in the reservior
located in the ice box evaporates and absorbs heat from its surroundings
creating ice.

http://homepower.com/files/solarice.pdf

Theirs cost $510 to build. This one is solar powered, so the solar
collection equipment makes it a little more expensive.

I am suprised I had a good idea on here! It seems I am full of bad ones
recently! :) Maybe there is a problem with this one also, hah! ;Q

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:17:46 -0500, Paul S. Anderson <psanders@ilstu.edu>
wrote:

> Matt brought up another interesting question. I am not sure what he
> means by an "Absortion chillers" (except when I think of propane
> refrigerators). But he said "cheaply" and that caught my attention.
> Matt and others, can you provide info, please?
>
> Perhaps this topic is not for the "Gasifier people" as much as it is for
> the "Stoves List Serve people", so I am posting this message there
> also. (if you are on both list, like I am, you get to see it twice, and
> decide where to send your reply.)
>
> Paul
>
> At 02:34 PM 6/1/04 -0400, Matthew Pottinger wrote:
>> I also think a lot about the wasted heat problem. I had the same idea of
>> simply heating water for co-generation, or, you could use that heat to
>> drive an absortion chiller, and cool the gases even more! I am sure
>> pretty
>> cold temperatures could be reached that way, which would reduce the tar
>> problem even further, and increase power output. The gas would be much
>> denser at say 0 deg. C than 70-100.
>>
>> Absortion chillers can be made cheaply can they not? I have seen home
>> made
>> ones used as ice makers. Energy can also be stored in the ice for long
>> periods of time.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:20:18 +0200, Krzysztof Lis <santo@poczta.fm>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> P> 4. First New Question: If the hot gases (clean or otherwise) must
>>> P> be cooled first before becoming of good use, we are probably
>>> P> "wasting" the heat in those gases. Therefore, IF that is a lot of
>>> P> energy lost, and IF that heat could have been put into a steam
>>> P> boiler, and IF the "still-hot" gases were simply combusted for heat
>>> P> (not for mechanical power in an IC engine), WOULD that make a
>>> P> meaningful difference to improve the otherwise poor image of steam
>>> P> generation as an inefficient way to use the gases? [NOTE the
>>> P> number of "IFs" in this question.]
>>>
>>> A book "Generatorbetrieb" by St.v.Szenasy shows an example of using
>>> this heat -- you cool those gasses by heating water in some tank, and
>>> then add this water to the generator -- this way of saving energy was
>>> used in "Wisco" generator, which runs on anthracit (coal), very dry
>>> fuel, which doesn't produce much hydrogen. Even better idea would be
>>> to use (if it's possible) produced gas to evaporate this water and
>>> then (at best) overheat this steam, and then send it to the gas gene-
>>> rator.
>>>
>>> As for burning hot gas inside boiler or stove or any other burner,
>>> there might be (I think) three difficulties:
>>> - hot gas means large specific volume and large volumetric flows, so
>>> larger (more energy consuming) fan / blower to pump this gas to the
>>> place in which it'll be used (if you use any in your case)
>>> - hot gas = fan with metal blades
>>> - burner might not be suitable for the gas of large specific volume (I
>>> think there might be problem with mixing proper amounts of producer
>>> gas with oxidizer, but burner's aren't my interest).
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>> Krzysztof Lis / Poland
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Matthew Pottinger
>>
>> Student
>> Environmental Technology Program
>> Durham College
>> Ontario, Canada
>>
>> "Never underestimate people's
>> ability to suppress inconvenient realities."
>>
>> "We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't
>> be
>> economically feasible."
>
> Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D.
> 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
> NOTE: Retired from teaching. Active in Stoves development.
> For fastest contact, please call home phone: 309-452-7072
>

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Wed Jun 2 07:57:44 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:55 2004
Subject: Cyclone vs Entrained bed gasifier
In-Reply-To: <008c01c4485b$9d759890$74c3f204@7k6rv21>
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUN.2004.075744.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

With all due respect given to all of you, thank you for your replies, but,
however, you are all very quick to dismiss my messages as you aren't fully
reading the links that I am giving as references or the reason I am
referring to the design.

Again, with no intention of offending you, I am by no means saying I know
more than any of you, but I wish to discuss and am curious about any
experience with a *very specific* design of cyclone gasifier. You all say
that you know much of cyclone gasifiers, they are old hat, etc. Now the
references you are giving to me of the designs you know of are different
from, quite different in fact what I gave you the links for.

I recieved a link from Greg on a vortex gasifier, this is not the same one
I am talking about.

It is designed with the same structure as a cyclone separator. A cylinder
with a cone on the bottom, an open cone, with no char bed or grate, where
ash falls out the end of the open cone at the bottom, open to atmospheric
air. Now I know you are all too quick to put me down, but please, I mean
to no disrespect, has anyone worked with this particular design?

There has been work done on this design, and I do not think it is old hat.
The gasifier with the fixed bed and swirling vortex of air is not the same
design as the one I speak of.

The thesis I read on this design specifically states that this is an
alternative, and less studied approach. If you would read the thesis that
I linked to, instead of just dismissing everything I say entirely because
I am the lowly new guy. You guys rebut me on this saying it's all been
done, been there, done that, but I am no dummy either and I know this
design is different from the "vortex gasifier" you speak of. Can you speak
of the benefits/drawbacks/operating characteristics of THIS design, and
not quote on the wrong design? I have the design linked. It is not the one
with the grate on the bottom, it is on the VERY bottom of that Indian link.

The reason I like this design is that fuel condition and handling would
become easier and less expensive. I am no dummy, I can see that, now the
only determining factor here is whether the people who wrote the papers
and did the tests are "lying" or "exaggerating" or not. Maybe they were
then? I will find out myself how it performs instead of taking your word
for it. There must be some reason this design was approached and deemed
successful recently. By no means does it generate crystal clean gas, but
no worse either. That is not the point, the point is the fuel conditioning
simplicity, assuming it accepts the fuel that they tested and they weren't
lying about the results.

Apparently the temperatures in this thing approach 1000C, I believe that
is sufficient for gasification Arnt?
I by no means say it is the be all and end all of designs. This design was
developed and tested because it provides a suitable way to gasify powdery
feedstocks.

Well, I'm tired of the naysaying. I would respect it if more knowledge of
the design I was talking about was demonstrated outright, and not a
similar sounding but different design. I will leave the list. I will try
the things I have planned, and get back to you on the results, negative or
positive. Bye for now.

Sorry for beign so outspoken. Next time I'll speak after I've experimented
with this "impossible" stuff. Naysaying sticks in my craw. I've
encountered it all too well in the past, said that things I referred to
didn't exist and they were completely wrong. I proved them, and they ended
up still being jerks after the point. Ah, human nature.

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 21:39:37 -0700, Art Krenzel
<phoenix98604@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Matthew,
>
> I have been reading all your "reports" about the cyclone gasifier being
> the
> "end of all gasifier designs" and sort of chuckling.
>
> Anyone who goes from biomass such a wood particles to producer gas in one
> step without exposure to high temperatures or using a design with
> excellent
> insulation will need to build a very sturdy gasifier to handle all the
> tar
> it will collect very quickly.
>
> There are quite a few "old timers" on this list who can tell you
> firsthand
> about tar and its' effects. Tar generated from biomass gasification is a
> bitch and enthusiasm with tunnel vision doesn't reduce the problem.
>
> Use your keystroke energy to build a small gasifier and then report your
> experiences.
>
> Art Krenzel, P.E.
> PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES
> 10505 NE 285TH Street
> Battle Ground, WA 98604
> 360-666-1883 voice
> phoenix98604@earthlink.net
>
>

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Wed Jun 2 08:52:38 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:56 2004
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <004401c44854$b7432460$d58f58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUN.2004.085238.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

I know you are all probably very busy, but nobody seems to take the time
to read into more completely on this before dismissing it. You seem to
skim through quickly and make a quick conclusion.

It is frustrating me, I think I will just go. :(

Please at least read this if not anything else, this is where I learned
about it and decided it was a good option.

This is a part of the summary of the thesis I read

Summary:

The use of biomass fuels for operation of gas turbines is limited by
problems caused by the ash elements in the fuel. The presence of these
elements may lead to erosion of the turbine blades caused by ash particles
carried by the gas stream and deposition of in particular alkali compounds
on the turbine surfaces, which may cause flow blockage, vibrations and
possibly corrosion. Most of the processes for use of biomass fuels in gas
turbines that are presently being studied are based on gasification of the
fuel in a fluidized bed and expensive cleaning of the product gas before
combustion. An alternative, much less studied approach is to use a cyclone
gasifier operating at relatively low temperature and use the cyclone as a
gas cleaner as well as a gasifier.

In the cyclone, the volatiles will be released and some of the fixed
carbon gasified at low temperatures. The advantage of this technique is
that the temperature of the fuel might be kept at a level where ash
melting and/or ash vaporizatoon will not occur. The corrosive ashes would
then remain solid in the char particles, which could be separated from the
product gas in the cyclone.

This thesis describes an exploratory experimental and theoretical study of
this process. The objective has been to develop the understanding of
cyclone gasification by experimental studies of the performance of a
cyclone designed in principle as a separation cyclone and by comparisons
between the experimental results and theoretical predictions. The
experiments were carried out with commercial Swedish wood powder fuels,
injected with air or steam/air mixture through two diametrically opposite
tangential inlets and gasified at atomospheric pressure in cyclones of two
different configurations and a volume of about 0.034m3

The studies show that stable gasification of this fuel can be obtained for
a specific fuel feeding rate of about 5MW/m3
volume.......................... and so on.

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 07:29:28 -0400, wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:38:24 +1200, Graeme Williams
> <graeme@powerlink.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>
>> Mat,
>>
>> I suggest you take a break and come back in a day or two. Clearly your
>> mind
>> is in overdrive and you are missing an opportunity to get answers from
>> people who understand gasification in all the ways it can be achieved.
>>
>> There is little value in discussing any type of gasification until you
>> know
>> how these process work, not from a book or web site, but actually doing
>> it.
>> As for cyclonic gasifiers, these are old hat stuff and little better
>> than
>> updraught systems when it comes to gas quality.
>> You should also look at the Indian design again and ponder the grate
>> shown
>> in the bottom of the gasifier, not exactly needed for powdered fuels.
>>
>> Our own work on cyclonic gasification started back in about !978-9
>> providing assistance to a N.Z. Government project, and continues to the
>> present as a ongoing development programme. Nothing in the literature
>> can
>> even approach the design demands for a gasifier that you aspire
>> towards,
>> and it would be in use if it could be proven to work.
>>
>> It should also be pointed out to you that only a few of us on this
>> forum are
>> dealing with commercial realities, and are fully aware of the systems
>> out
>> there to support what needs to be done with fuel conditioning. It's
>> O.K. to
>> use cheap used engines, even better to recycle scrap steel, it's a
>> place to
>> start for every one, but not a valid argument to compare costs for
>> commercially implemented projects.
>>
>> As a word of caution, more than a small amount of written material on
>> gasifiers originates from funded research that has no obligation to
>> reach
>> commercial standards of performance. It is not in the best interest of
>> their
>> authors to present any thing less than a good result, because they hope
>> it
>> can qualify for more funding.
>> Have a good sleep.
>>
>> Doug Williams,
>> Fluidyne Gasification.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Matthew Pottinger" <mpottinger@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>
>> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 12:24 PM
>> Subject: [GASL] Cyclone Gasifier
>>
>>
>>> Hey all, I know I am not the most experienced person on the list here
>>> (understatement), however, from discussing things with you, I realize
>>> that
>>> you all overlook what I am saying in regards to the uniqueness of my
>>> proposal on how to gasify materials such as biosolids.
>>>
>>> You say that fuel conditioning is a big problem, moisture is a big
>>> problem, gas quality is a big problem.
>>>
>>> I have been suggesting the cyclone gasifier for biosolids application,
>>> yet
>>> so far nobody has said ANYTHING about it. I am in contact with a
>>> company
>>> which offers a simple system for dehydrating biosolids. Their system
>>> will
>>> dehydrate to 10% moisture content. The biosolids (or manure), become
>>> pulverized to *UNIFORM* predictable sized particles.
>>>
>>> These are SMALL particles, a powder, a dust.
>>>
>>> The gasifiers everyone is discussing here can NOT handle these.
>>>
>>> The gasifier I am suggesting REQUIRES these "dust like" inputs.
>>> it is ESPECIALLY important that the fuel is small particle for a
>>> cyclone
>>> gasifier, and it is important that it is dry.
>>>
>>> The vortex dehydrator fulfills these exact requirements for fuel
>>> conditioning. Do you see what I mean?
>>>
>>> THIS is what I was enthusiastic about all this time.
>>> I want to build THIS system and no other.
>>>
>>> Do you see the system I am proposing?
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> 1. Uniform fuel size
>>> 2. Very small particle size
>>> 2. Dry fuel
>>> 3. A gasifier that is WELL KNOWN to be good at gasifying such
>>> conditioned
>>> fuel.
>>>
>>> A cyclone gasifier also reduces the amount of tars and ash entrained in
>>> the gas, it acts as both a gasifier and a gas cleaner.
>>>
>>> The gas from this gasifier is apparently cleaner to begin with.
>>>
>>> Continuous operating is simplied.
>>> Fuel conditioning is simplified
>>>
>>> This can handle things other than biosolids.
>>>
>>> Any fuel can be pulverized by the fuel conditioning system and fed.
>>>
>>> I EMPHASIZE that you have not been discussing this particular system
>>> with
>>> me at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Matthew Pottinger
>>>
>>> Student
>>> Environmental Technology Program
>>> Durham College
>>> Ontario, Canada
>>>
>>> "Never underestimate people's
>>> ability to suppress inconvenient realities."
>>>
>>> "We could avoid the extinction of the human race,
>>> but it just wouldn't be economically feasible."
>>>
>>
>
>
>

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From oscar at GEPROP.CU Wed Jun 2 09:19:36 2004
From: oscar at GEPROP.CU (oscar)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:56 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040601160935.00a26180@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUN.2004.151936.0200.OSCAR@GEPROP.CU>

>Gasifiers are extremely demanding for fuel of perfect specs. Has to be
>chunks from this size to this size -- no more no less.

>Has to be just such and such humidity.

>Else -- lot's of problems -- to much tars -- etc -- etc.

....yes... these are facts nobody can deny...and I think one must keep them
in mind when designing gasifier...
...on the other hand Matt, as a Student, all along this chating with you and
the listing members, I have been asking myself if your work has something to
do with a master degree or doctorate degree... if that is the case, I would
really appreciate telling me a briefing regarding the objectives of the
thesis or whatever it is....
...or it is simply a hobby to fullfil....???

regards.

Oscar.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]En nombre de Peter Singfield
Enviado el: miercoles, 02 de junio de 2004 0:21
Para: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Asunto: Re: [GASL] Gasification of biosolids

For gasifiers -- it's called "FUEL CONDITIONING"

Build one -- make it operate -- you'll soon find out about fuel
conditioning being the single greatest problem for succesful operation.

Gasifiers are extremely demanding for fuel of perfect specs. Has to be
chunks from this size to this size -- no more no less.

Has to be just such and such humidity.

Else -- lot's of problems -- to much tars -- etc -- etc.

Probably can do this if you pelletize the filter press sewage sludge to one
uniform humidity and size.

By the time your finished -- 50 million for two megs will be about right!!

Did you download the Brite Star system??

Peter

From oscar at GEPROP.CU Wed Jun 2 09:49:36 2004
From: oscar at GEPROP.CU (oscar)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:56 2004
Subject: oil pricing/reserves
In-Reply-To: <opr8xv5tm86c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUN.2004.154936.0200.OSCAR@GEPROP.CU>

>Some oil wells are actually filling themselves up as we speak (no I
>am not kidding). Oil reserves are larger than peak oil hysterites and OPEC
>would like you to know.

...so being convinced of this fact we, gasifier listers, will have no other
option than to be in position of keeping a very hard and long, long, long,
battle for gasification technology to reach commercial scale...

Oscar.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: The Gasification Discussion List
[mailto:GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]En nombre de Matthew Pottinger
Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 02 de junio de 2004 1:43
Para: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Asunto: Re: [GASL] oil pricing/reserves

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:25:27 EDT, <LINVENT@AOL.COM> wrote:

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From hlbrodie at BLUECRAB.ORG Wed Jun 2 09:49:40 2004
From: hlbrodie at BLUECRAB.ORG (hlbrodie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:56 2004
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUN.2004.094940.0400.HLBRODIE@BLUECRAB.ORG>

I share Matt's vision of using a cyclone pulverizer for processing fuel
for combustion. We played with the "tornado in a can" a few years back
and it immediately struck me as a fuel processor. Manure, rocks,
aluminum cans, lumber, and a bunch of other stuff could be converted to
powder. Check out http://vortexdehydration.com for a description of the
device and the company. I believe they have contracted to install a
system for coal processing in Australia but I'm not sure of the status
of the project. I don't believe you'll find it cheap.

Herb Brodie
Professor Emeritus
University of Maryland

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Wed Jun 2 12:36:00 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:56 2004
Subject: Negativity
In-Reply-To: <opr8ywp0vd6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUN.2004.123600.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Well, I said that I was done posting to this list, but I have one more
rant. Maybe it's obvious what bothers me, maybe not.

It is, however, not unique to this list. I encounter it everywhere I go.
There is always negativity when it comes to renewable energy. I do not
think I am overly optimistic in the opinion that renewable energy CAN be
implemented on a small scale through distributed, embedded generation, and
not only small, hobby projects and massive, tens of megawatt
installations. Given the right thinking. Conventional thinking used for
larger commercial projects obviously isn't going to work. Fresh thinking
is needed.

You all say a 500kwe to 2000kwe, low budget, biomass fuelled, gasifier
based embedded generator is impossible, silly, nonsense, hogwash.

200, 500kwe gasifier plant can't be started and run? I will remember that
I was told that.

I heard the same thing about the linux operating system all the time when
I was into it. It's not a viable operating system, it doesn't exist, it's
communist, not practical, useless, you name it, all along the same lines
as what I am encountering now. All the fear, uncertainty, doubt. Look how
successful it is now. It is not replacing Windows on the desktop, but it
has grown exponentially and is a dominant player in the business market.

First I hear from a teacher that Linux doesn't exist because it's not in
the curriculum, I was a fool, next thing you know, only a few years later,
I am learning it in college as an entire course.

Next thing you know I was installing linux for businesses that have had
nothing to do with it before.

Mark my words. Many people have achieved things said to be "utter
nonsense". Doesn't mean 100% that I will, BUT, it is the curse of
civilizations progress. How many inventors/thinkers have been laughed into
town, only later, after they are dead, is their train of thought seen as
"obvious".

May I be right, or wrong, I am always in favor of finding a solution to a
problem, not blowing it off as not possible.

You don't say forget it, "it can't be done".
You say: Ok, it can't be done this way, what do we change TO make it work.

/RANT, I am done. Goodbye all.

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From arnt at C2I.NET Wed Jun 2 18:22:00 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:56 2004
Subject: ..test,
and: Message ("The distribution of your message dated Wed, 2
Jun...")
Message-ID: <THU.3.JUN.2004.002200.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

..test

..I've got 3 of these, WTF _is_ going on???
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 22:13:01 -0400

The distribution of your message dated Wed, 2 Jun 2004 04:14:07 +0200
with subject "Re: Cyclone vs Entrained bed gasifier" has been
postponed because the daily message limit for the GASIFICATION list (50)
has been exceeded. No action is required from you; your message will be
reprocessed automatically once the list owner releases the list.

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

From MWilliamson at NATSOURCE.COM Wed Jun 2 13:38:09 2004
From: MWilliamson at NATSOURCE.COM (Matt Williamson)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:56 2004
Subject: Power plant costs, maximizing revenue and Canadian renewables
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUN.2004.133809.0400.MWILLIAMSON@NATSOURCE.COM>

I have been lurking on this list for some time but couldn't resist weighing
in a little on the power plant cost and revenue thread.

I agree with Peter that assuming costs for commercial quality generation
capacity will be extremely cheap just doesn't mesh with experience I have
had as a broker of energy from renewable sources. On the revenue side, 8
cents per kWh wholesale is pretty strong on the US side of the border
without QF or other subsidy; I am less certain about pricing on the Canadian
side. That said, I recently arranged a term wholesale transaction for a 20+
MW biomass plant that yielded just about 8 cents using a combination of a
power sale and a sale of Renewable Energy Certificates(RECs).

There is not necessarily a need to provide a constant supply of power in
order to sell it onto the market. We regularly arrange transactions
involving intermittent power sources selling to the grid. The price you
receive would be lower, but probably sufficient to avoid the need to install
back-up power.

I notice that a number of posters are Canadian. I have a current interest in
purchasing RECs (about 40k MWhs/year) from non-timber fuelled biomass power
generation sources in the WECC (inclusive of BC and Alberta). If you know of
a source, don't hesitate to contact me.

MCW
Matt Williamson
Director of Renewable Energy
Natsource LLC
140 Broadway, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
(212) 232-5305 Phone
(212) 232-5353 Fax
www.natsource.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Automatic digest processor [mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 12:01 AM
To: Recipients of GASIFICATION digests
Subject: GASIFICATION Digest - 31 May 2004 to 1 Jun 2004 (#2004-90)

There are 50 messages totalling 4261 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

1. Internal Combustion (2)
2. Gasification By-products (*was* fertilizer by-products) (2)
3. FW: Internal Combustion (4)
4. hydrocarbons or heavy metals ? (2)
5. Thank you.
6. Internal combustion engines for tar-laden gases?? Re: [GASL] LARGE
Lister style engines (2)
7. More questions on tarry gases: Was [GASL] Internal combustion engines
for
tar-laden gases?? (5)
8. cancel
9. Gasification of biosolids (18)
10. The cost of a small power plant (6)
11. Monorator Upper (WAS RE: FW: Internal Combustion)
12. oil pricing/reserves (2)
13. Cyclone Gasifier
14. Cyclone Gasifier - Reference Links
15. Cyclone vs Entrained bed gasifier
16. The cost of a small power plant (engine derating)

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 17:05:25 +1200
From: Graeme Williams <graeme@POWERLINK.CO.NZ>
Subject: Internal Combustion

Dear Matt,

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Wed Jun 2 20:52:08 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <007301c448f3$00bc26c0$c68f58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUN.2004.205208.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Thank you very much for that explanation, it makes what you all are saying
about this gasifier design much clearer. Now what you are saying is that
this design does not allow the conditions necessary for char to reduce to
co and co2, nor does it allow the proper cracking of pyrolysis vapors
released during heating of the particles.

Yes, that explains why charcoal comes out of the bottom of the cyclone and
not ash.

Now the only thing I must say is that this is something that I was already
somewhat aware of, though not in the detail you described. What I am not
aware of is what sorts of problems this would cause other than a loss in
conversion efficiency. Before I came onto this list, I was actually more
interested in charcoal production and pyrolysis, and that is what I had
been studying prior to this. I was actually thinking of my making my own
designs for an indirect fired gasifier to break down biomass in an oxygen
free environment. The conclusion that I came to was that this was not
feasible, as an indirect fired retort would require expensive materials to
withstand corrosion.

That is when I turned to gasification, to provide a heat source for
pyrolysis to produce gases, tars, and char. I by no means thought that the
cyclone gasifier did a complete job of gasification. It will allow
pyrolysis to occur with an internal heat source, the oxygen reactions. Am
I off base?

Now would this gas not still be useable? hydrogen, methane, and co would
still be produced wouldn't they? Or would the calorific value of the gas
be too low? I do not understand. I was perfectly happy with only having a
pyrolysis reaction and not reducing the chars to ash. Charcoal production
produces combustible gases also right?

Thank you for your kind reply.

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:42:43 +1200, Graeme Williams
<graeme@powerlink.co.nz> wrote:

> Matt,
> It always helps to know how a individual arrives at a viewpoint of
> gasification,and you should not get your tail down, because at this
> stage,
> your studies of other students work only repeats mistaken perceptions of
> the
> problems they are endeavouring to solve.
>
> Not many people know that I provide a link for students who are studying
> gasification, and each year 2-3 visit me for a day or two in order to
> tidy
> up the theory and get a little reality injected into their understanding
> of
> this very complex technology. Massey University here in New Zealand has a
> Biomass Energy department, and they also host students from overseas for
> short term studies, so I get them as well. I also introduce French
> engineering students to gasification during their summer work
> experience in
> Northern Ireland, in a project associated with Queens University
> Belfast, I
> don't get paid for this, but it is the only way to break the cycle of
> ignorance that plagues gasification.
>
> If possible I would like you to consider and think through for your self
> the
> following.
>
> 1. To provide the heat of gasification, part of each fuel partial is
> oxidised, but cannot be oxidised until the raw fuel has first been
> carbonised and all the volatiles are driven off [about 475 degrees] into
> the
> area above the air input.
>
> 2. At this point you have carbon being oxidised which produces ash, and
> the
> distillation gases which are very unstable hydrocarbons containing water.
> This combination of ash and water creates alkali condensate that provides
> the transport medium for ash to reach turbine components.
>
> 3. For the hydrocarbons to crack into permanent gasses, all must come
> into
> close contact with the heat and carbon below the oxidising carbon at the
> air
> input point. This is the reduction zone and as an endothermic reaction,
> consumes vast amounts of heat. Distillation gasses that pass down through
> the oxidising carbon are burnt to produce Co2 and steam, and the
> acetylides
> become carbon blacks.
>
> 4. The carbon in the oxidation has to be able to produce incandescent
> Co2,
> and have a temperature in excess of 1100 degrees C. The heat of this Co2
> then provides the endothermic reaction heat that consumes the carbon in
> the
> reduction zone turning the Co2 into Co and the steam into hydrogen.
>
> 5. There are very specific limitations as to the distance oxygen and
> carbon
> reactions can take place to produce the type of temperatures required as
> stated above. Volume spaces combined with particle densities and air
> velocity all work against cyclonic principles to produce a clean tar free
> gas, but it can be made to work on a small scale as you have seen in the
> lab
> study.
>
> 6. Producer gas exiting the gasifier can be compared to cigarette smoke,
> and
> it must be first cooled to strip the condensate away from the gas. The
> carbon blacks are graphite, and as such are waterproof and sub micron in
> size. These continue through just about every type of cleaning device,
> if
> there is any moisture or humidity in the gas. It is almost impossible to
> dry gas practically to this state.
>
> 7. When this gas reaches the turbine combustor or engine cylinder, the
> gaseous component provides the ignition, and the carbon blacks are
> heated in
> the oxygen deficient atmosphere to produce Co. In a turbine, these
> carbon
> blacks impact on the impeller where they oxidise in the excess air flow,
> causing pits to form in the metal. The alkaline condensate also
> facilitates
> ash formation on these blades so there is a little more involved than
> just
> having dirty gas.
>
> I have to finish now.
>
> Regards
> Doug Williams.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matthew Pottinger" <mpottinger@renewableplanet.ca>
> To: "Graeme Williams" <graeme@powerlink.co.nz>;
> <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 12:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Cyclone Gasifier
>
>
>>
>> I know you are all probably very busy, but nobody seems to take the time
>> to read into more completely on this before dismissing it. You seem to
>> skim through quickly and make a quick conclusion.
>>
>> It is frustrating me, I think I will just go. :(
>>
>> Please at least read this if not anything else, this is where I learned
>> about it and decided it was a good option.
>>
>> This is a part of the summary of the thesis I read
>>
>> Summary:
>>
>> The use of biomass fuels for operation of gas turbines is limited by
>> problems caused by the ash elements in the fuel. The presence of these
>> elements may lead to erosion of the turbine blades caused by ash
>> particles
>> carried by the gas stream and deposition of in particular alkali
>> compounds
>> on the turbine surfaces, which may cause flow blockage, vibrations and
>> possibly corrosion. Most of the processes for use of biomass fuels in
>> gas
>> turbines that are presently being studied are based on gasification of
>> the
>> fuel in a fluidized bed and expensive cleaning of the product gas before
>> combustion. An alternative, much less studied approach is to use a
>> cyclone
>> gasifier operating at relatively low temperature and use the cyclone as
>> a
>> gas cleaner as well as a gasifier.
>>
>> In the cyclone, the volatiles will be released and some of the fixed
>> carbon gasified at low temperatures. The advantage of this technique is
>> that the temperature of the fuel might be kept at a level where ash
>> melting and/or ash vaporizatoon will not occur. The corrosive ashes
>> would
>> then remain solid in the char particles, which could be separated from
>> the
>> product gas in the cyclone.
>>
>> This thesis describes an exploratory experimental and theoretical study
>> of
>> this process. The objective has been to develop the understanding of
>> cyclone gasification by experimental studies of the performance of a
>> cyclone designed in principle as a separation cyclone and by comparisons
>> between the experimental results and theoretical predictions. The
>> experiments were carried out with commercial Swedish wood powder fuels,
>> injected with air or steam/air mixture through two diametrically
>> opposite
>> tangential inlets and gasified at atomospheric pressure in cyclones of
>> two
>> different configurations and a volume of about 0.034m3
>>
>> The studies show that stable gasification of this fuel can be obtained
>> for
>> a specific fuel feeding rate of about 5MW/m3
>> volume.......................... and so on.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 07:29:28 -0400, wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:38:24 +1200, Graeme Williams
>> > <graeme@powerlink.co.nz> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Mat,
>> >>
>> >> I suggest you take a break and come back in a day or two. Clearly
>> your
>> >> mind
>> >> is in overdrive and you are missing an opportunity to get answers
>> from
>> >> people who understand gasification in all the ways it can be
>> achieved.
>> >>
>> >> There is little value in discussing any type of gasification until
>> you
>> >> know
>> >> how these process work, not from a book or web site, but actually
>> doing
>> >> it.
>> >> As for cyclonic gasifiers, these are old hat stuff and little better
>> >> than
>> >> updraught systems when it comes to gas quality.
>> >> You should also look at the Indian design again and ponder the grate
>> >> shown
>> >> in the bottom of the gasifier, not exactly needed for powdered fuels.
>> >>
>> >> Our own work on cyclonic gasification started back in about !978-9
>> >> providing assistance to a N.Z. Government project, and continues to
>> the
>> >> present as a ongoing development programme. Nothing in the literature
>> >> can
>> >> even approach the design demands for a gasifier that you aspire
>> >> towards,
>> >> and it would be in use if it could be proven to work.
>> >>
>> >> It should also be pointed out to you that only a few of us on this
>> >> forum are
>> >> dealing with commercial realities, and are fully aware of the systems
>> >> out
>> >> there to support what needs to be done with fuel conditioning. It's
>> >> O.K. to
>> >> use cheap used engines, even better to recycle scrap steel, it's a
>> >> place to
>> >> start for every one, but not a valid argument to compare costs for
>> >> commercially implemented projects.
>> >>
>> >> As a word of caution, more than a small amount of written material
>> on
>> >> gasifiers originates from funded research that has no obligation to
>> >> reach
>> >> commercial standards of performance. It is not in the best interest
>> of
>> >> their
>> >> authors to present any thing less than a good result, because they
>> hope
>> >> it
>> >> can qualify for more funding.
>> >> Have a good sleep.
>> >>
>> >> Doug Williams,
>> >> Fluidyne Gasification.
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "Matthew Pottinger" <mpottinger@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>
>> >> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 12:24 PM
>> >> Subject: [GASL] Cyclone Gasifier
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> Hey all, I know I am not the most experienced person on the list
>> here
>> >>> (understatement), however, from discussing things with you, I
>> realize
>> >>> that
>> >>> you all overlook what I am saying in regards to the uniqueness of my
>> >>> proposal on how to gasify materials such as biosolids.
>> >>>
>> >>> You say that fuel conditioning is a big problem, moisture is a big
>> >>> problem, gas quality is a big problem.
>> >>>
>> >>> I have been suggesting the cyclone gasifier for biosolids
>> application,
>> >>> yet
>> >>> so far nobody has said ANYTHING about it. I am in contact with a
>> >>> company
>> >>> which offers a simple system for dehydrating biosolids. Their system
>> >>> will
>> >>> dehydrate to 10% moisture content. The biosolids (or manure), become
>> >>> pulverized to *UNIFORM* predictable sized particles.
>> >>>
>> >>> These are SMALL particles, a powder, a dust.
>> >>>
>> >>> The gasifiers everyone is discussing here can NOT handle these.
>> >>>
>> >>> The gasifier I am suggesting REQUIRES these "dust like" inputs.
>> >>> it is ESPECIALLY important that the fuel is small particle for a
>> >>> cyclone
>> >>> gasifier, and it is important that it is dry.
>> >>>
>> >>> The vortex dehydrator fulfills these exact requirements for fuel
>> >>> conditioning. Do you see what I mean?
>> >>>
>> >>> THIS is what I was enthusiastic about all this time.
>> >>> I want to build THIS system and no other.
>> >>>
>> >>> Do you see the system I am proposing?
>> >>> What do you think?
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. Uniform fuel size
>> >>> 2. Very small particle size
>> >>> 2. Dry fuel
>> >>> 3. A gasifier that is WELL KNOWN to be good at gasifying such
>> >>> conditioned
>> >>> fuel.
>> >>>
>> >>> A cyclone gasifier also reduces the amount of tars and ash entrained
> in
>> >>> the gas, it acts as both a gasifier and a gas cleaner.
>> >>>
>> >>> The gas from this gasifier is apparently cleaner to begin with.
>> >>>
>> >>> Continuous operating is simplied.
>> >>> Fuel conditioning is simplified
>> >>>
>> >>> This can handle things other than biosolids.
>> >>>
>> >>> Any fuel can be pulverized by the fuel conditioning system and fed.
>> >>>
>> >>> I EMPHASIZE that you have not been discussing this particular system
>> >>> with
>> >>> me at all.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>>
>> >>> Matthew Pottinger
>> >>>
>> >>> Student
>> >>> Environmental Technology Program
>> >>> Durham College
>> >>> Ontario, Canada
>> >>>
>> >>> "Never underestimate people's
>> >>> ability to suppress inconvenient realities."
>> >>>
>> >>> "We could avoid the extinction of the human race,
>> >>> but it just wouldn't be economically feasible."
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Matthew Pottinger
>>
>> Student
>> Environmental Technology Program
>> Durham College
>> Ontario, Canada
>>
>> "Never underestimate people's
>> ability to suppress inconvenient realities."
>>
>> "We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't
>> be
>> economically feasible."
>>
>

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Wed Jun 2 22:48:07 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <007301c448f3$00bc26c0$c68f58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <WED.2.JUN.2004.224807.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

I've been pondering what you have told me, and I truly did not know
anything about the issue with carbon blacks. I knew about tars and ashes
being a problem, but now that you have told me this I now understand why
gas clean-up is so difficult while I was puzzled because it sounded simple
to me to condense tars and scrub them out along with particles. The way
you describe it now makes sense and is much clearer.

Now I am learning.

Now, my interest started with indirect gasification. I began by looking at
the simple designs such as heating wood inside of a sealed cylinder with a
gas outlet. This also produces a higher heating value gas along with tars.
The gas contains to ash, and now that I have learned of carbon blacks I
believe it would also not contain those. Gas cleaning would be simpler for
indirect systems am I correct? I have seen comparisons between this and
gasification, and apparently gas cleaning does not have to be so vigorous
when you decompose material in an oxygen free environment using indirect
heating, and in this case my concept in my head of the simplicity of gas
cleaning would apply, if i am not wrong.

Small particle size is important in pyrolysis systems, including flash
pyrolysis systems to allow heat to penetrate the particles and the
volatiles to escape. This is where I got the idea of thoroughly drying and
pulverizing first.

Now I thought that the cyclone gasifier solved the problem of heat
transfer by allowing the heat source to be internal, but now that you
outline the problems associated with carbon blacks, and the fact that gas
production in air might take a completely different set of pathways than
in the absence of air, then my perception was missing these pieces.

This is soooooo overwhelming. Gasification is too complex. I really
enjoyed the more straightforward idea of pyrolysis. Heat in - volatiles
out. Nice an short and sweet. (unless there is some rocket science to this
also!! hah!)

Maybe I will turn back in that direction. Possibly flash pyrolysis,
producing bio-oil, I have seen some appealing commercial systems such as
renewable oil international inc., and jf bioenergy. I like their concepts.

Now that I believe you about the cyclone gasifier, It seems no gasifier
exists that can handle the fuel specs I wish to tackle. (dried and
pulverized)

Both of the commercially available pyrolysis systems state that these are
the fuel conditions needed for optimum performance, so, the decision is
obvious now.

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:42:43 +1200, Graeme Williams
<graeme@powerlink.co.nz> wrote:

> Not many people know that I provide a link for students who are studying
> gasification, and each year 2-3 visit me for a day or two in order to
> tidy
> up the theory and get a little reality injected into their understanding
> of
> this very complex technology. Massey University here in New Zealand has a
> Biomass Energy department, and they also host students from overseas for
> short term studies, so I get them as well. I also introduce French
> engineering students to gasification during their summer work
> experience in
> Northern Ireland, in a project associated with Queens University
> Belfast, I
> don't get paid for this, but it is the only way to break the cycle of
> ignorance that plagues gasification.
>
> If possible I would like you to consider and think through for your self
> the
> following.
>
> 1. To provide the heat of gasification, part of each fuel partial is
> oxidised, but cannot be oxidised until the raw fuel has first been
> carbonised and all the volatiles are driven off [about 475 degrees] into
> the
> area above the air input.
>
> 2. At this point you have carbon being oxidised which produces ash, and
> the
> distillation gases which are very unstable hydrocarbons containing water.
> This combination of ash and water creates alkali condensate that provides
> the transport medium for ash to reach turbine components.
>
> 3. For the hydrocarbons to crack into permanent gasses, all must come
> into
> close contact with the heat and carbon below the oxidising carbon at the
> air
> input point. This is the reduction zone and as an endothermic reaction,
> consumes vast amounts of heat. Distillation gasses that pass down through
> the oxidising carbon are burnt to produce Co2 and steam, and the
> acetylides
> become carbon blacks.
>
> 4. The carbon in the oxidation has to be able to produce incandescent
> Co2,
> and have a temperature in excess of 1100 degrees C. The heat of this Co2
> then provides the endothermic reaction heat that consumes the carbon in
> the
> reduction zone turning the Co2 into Co and the steam into hydrogen.
>
> 5. There are very specific limitations as to the distance oxygen and
> carbon
> reactions can take place to produce the type of temperatures required as
> stated above. Volume spaces combined with particle densities and air
> velocity all work against cyclonic principles to produce a clean tar free
> gas, but it can be made to work on a small scale as you have seen in the
> lab
> study.
>
> 6. Producer gas exiting the gasifier can be compared to cigarette smoke,
> and
> it must be first cooled to strip the condensate away from the gas. The
> carbon blacks are graphite, and as such are waterproof and sub micron in
> size. These continue through just about every type of cleaning device,
> if
> there is any moisture or humidity in the gas. It is almost impossible to
> dry gas practically to this state.
>
> 7. When this gas reaches the turbine combustor or engine cylinder, the
> gaseous component provides the ignition, and the carbon blacks are
> heated in
> the oxygen deficient atmosphere to produce Co. In a turbine, these
> carbon
> blacks impact on the impeller where they oxidise in the excess air flow,
> causing pits to form in the metal. The alkaline condensate also
> facilitates
> ash formation on these blades so there is a little more involved than
> just
> having dirty gas.
>
> I have to finish now.
>
> Regards
> Doug Williams.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matthew Pottinger" <mpottinger@renewableplanet.ca>
> To: "Graeme Williams" <graeme@powerlink.co.nz>;
> <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 12:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Cyclone Gasifier
>
>
>>
>> I know you are all probably very busy, but nobody seems to take the time
>> to read into more completely on this before dismissing it. You seem to
>> skim through quickly and make a quick conclusion.
>>
>> It is frustrating me, I think I will just go. :(
>>
>> Please at least read this if not anything else, this is where I learned
>> about it and decided it was a good option.
>>
>> This is a part of the summary of the thesis I read
>>
>> Summary:
>>
>> The use of biomass fuels for operation of gas turbines is limited by
>> problems caused by the ash elements in the fuel. The presence of these
>> elements may lead to erosion of the turbine blades caused by ash
>> particles
>> carried by the gas stream and deposition of in particular alkali
>> compounds
>> on the turbine surfaces, which may cause flow blockage, vibrations and
>> possibly corrosion. Most of the processes for use of biomass fuels in
>> gas
>> turbines that are presently being studied are based on gasification of
>> the
>> fuel in a fluidized bed and expensive cleaning of the product gas before
>> combustion. An alternative, much less studied approach is to use a
>> cyclone
>> gasifier operating at relatively low temperature and use the cyclone as
>> a
>> gas cleaner as well as a gasifier.
>>
>> In the cyclone, the volatiles will be released and some of the fixed
>> carbon gasified at low temperatures. The advantage of this technique is
>> that the temperature of the fuel might be kept at a level where ash
>> melting and/or ash vaporizatoon will not occur. The corrosive ashes
>> would
>> then remain solid in the char particles, which could be separated from
>> the
>> product gas in the cyclone.
>>
>> This thesis describes an exploratory experimental and theoretical study
>> of
>> this process. The objective has been to develop the understanding of
>> cyclone gasification by experimental studies of the performance of a
>> cyclone designed in principle as a separation cyclone and by comparisons
>> between the experimental results and theoretical predictions. The
>> experiments were carried out with commercial Swedish wood powder fuels,
>> injected with air or steam/air mixture through two diametrically
>> opposite
>> tangential inlets and gasified at atomospheric pressure in cyclones of
>> two
>> different configurations and a volume of about 0.034m3
>>
>> The studies show that stable gasification of this fuel can be obtained
>> for
>> a specific fuel feeding rate of about 5MW/m3
>> volume.......................... and so on.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 07:29:28 -0400, wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:38:24 +1200, Graeme Williams
>> > <graeme@powerlink.co.nz> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Mat,
>> >>
>> >> I suggest you take a break and come back in a day or two. Clearly
>> your
>> >> mind
>> >> is in overdrive and you are missing an opportunity to get answers
>> from
>> >> people who understand gasification in all the ways it can be
>> achieved.
>> >>
>> >> There is little value in discussing any type of gasification until
>> you
>> >> know
>> >> how these process work, not from a book or web site, but actually
>> doing
>> >> it.
>> >> As for cyclonic gasifiers, these are old hat stuff and little better
>> >> than
>> >> updraught systems when it comes to gas quality.
>> >> You should also look at the Indian design again and ponder the grate
>> >> shown
>> >> in the bottom of the gasifier, not exactly needed for powdered fuels.
>> >>
>> >> Our own work on cyclonic gasification started back in about !978-9
>> >> providing assistance to a N.Z. Government project, and continues to
>> the
>> >> present as a ongoing development programme. Nothing in the literature
>> >> can
>> >> even approach the design demands for a gasifier that you aspire
>> >> towards,
>> >> and it would be in use if it could be proven to work.
>> >>
>> >> It should also be pointed out to you that only a few of us on this
>> >> forum are
>> >> dealing with commercial realities, and are fully aware of the systems
>> >> out
>> >> there to support what needs to be done with fuel conditioning. It's
>> >> O.K. to
>> >> use cheap used engines, even better to recycle scrap steel, it's a
>> >> place to
>> >> start for every one, but not a valid argument to compare costs for
>> >> commercially implemented projects.
>> >>
>> >> As a word of caution, more than a small amount of written material
>> on
>> >> gasifiers originates from funded research that has no obligation to
>> >> reach
>> >> commercial standards of performance. It is not in the best interest
>> of
>> >> their
>> >> authors to present any thing less than a good result, because they
>> hope
>> >> it
>> >> can qualify for more funding.
>> >> Have a good sleep.
>> >>
>> >> Doug Williams,
>> >> Fluidyne Gasification.
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "Matthew Pottinger" <mpottinger@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>
>> >> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 12:24 PM
>> >> Subject: [GASL] Cyclone Gasifier
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> Hey all, I know I am not the most experienced person on the list
>> here
>> >>> (understatement), however, from discussing things with you, I
>> realize
>> >>> that
>> >>> you all overlook what I am saying in regards to the uniqueness of my
>> >>> proposal on how to gasify materials such as biosolids.
>> >>>
>> >>> You say that fuel conditioning is a big problem, moisture is a big
>> >>> problem, gas quality is a big problem.
>> >>>
>> >>> I have been suggesting the cyclone gasifier for biosolids
>> application,
>> >>> yet
>> >>> so far nobody has said ANYTHING about it. I am in contact with a
>> >>> company
>> >>> which offers a simple system for dehydrating biosolids. Their system
>> >>> will
>> >>> dehydrate to 10% moisture content. The biosolids (or manure), become
>> >>> pulverized to *UNIFORM* predictable sized particles.
>> >>>
>> >>> These are SMALL particles, a powder, a dust.
>> >>>
>> >>> The gasifiers everyone is discussing here can NOT handle these.
>> >>>
>> >>> The gasifier I am suggesting REQUIRES these "dust like" inputs.
>> >>> it is ESPECIALLY important that the fuel is small particle for a
>> >>> cyclone
>> >>> gasifier, and it is important that it is dry.
>> >>>
>> >>> The vortex dehydrator fulfills these exact requirements for fuel
>> >>> conditioning. Do you see what I mean?
>> >>>
>> >>> THIS is what I was enthusiastic about all this time.
>> >>> I want to build THIS system and no other.
>> >>>
>> >>> Do you see the system I am proposing?
>> >>> What do you think?
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. Uniform fuel size
>> >>> 2. Very small particle size
>> >>> 2. Dry fuel
>> >>> 3. A gasifier that is WELL KNOWN to be good at gasifying such
>> >>> conditioned
>> >>> fuel.
>> >>>
>> >>> A cyclone gasifier also reduces the amount of tars and ash entrained
> in
>> >>> the gas, it acts as both a gasifier and a gas cleaner.
>> >>>
>> >>> The gas from this gasifier is apparently cleaner to begin with.
>> >>>
>> >>> Continuous operating is simplied.
>> >>> Fuel conditioning is simplified
>> >>>
>> >>> This can handle things other than biosolids.
>> >>>
>> >>> Any fuel can be pulverized by the fuel conditioning system and fed.
>> >>>
>> >>> I EMPHASIZE that you have not been discussing this particular system
>> >>> with
>> >>> me at all.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>>
>> >>> Matthew Pottinger
>> >>>
>> >>> Student
>> >>> Environmental Technology Program
>> >>> Durham College
>> >>> Ontario, Canada
>> >>>
>> >>> "Never underestimate people's
>> >>> ability to suppress inconvenient realities."
>> >>>
>> >>> "We could avoid the extinction of the human race,
>> >>> but it just wouldn't be economically feasible."
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Matthew Pottinger
>>
>> Student
>> Environmental Technology Program
>> Durham College
>> Ontario, Canada
>>
>> "Never underestimate people's
>> ability to suppress inconvenient realities."
>>
>> "We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't
>> be
>> economically feasible."
>>
>

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Thu Jun 3 11:13:15 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Lister Engine Availability: Re: [GASL] Smartplug - timing
Message-ID: <THU.3.JUN.2004.121315.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm@BTL.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2004 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Smartplug - timing

Further to your recent posting...

del..

>
> I have a 6 HP -- 650 RPM -- old style -- new -- Lister "clone" sitting
> ready to experiment with.
>
> Only problem is they have none forr sale at present!! But it certainly
> points to a possible option.
>
> Peter / Belize

This is to advise that we have a virtually unlimited quantity of Lister
Style "heavy metal engines" available, in single and double cylinder
configuration. Single cylinder engines cover the range of speeds up to 1000
RPM and Horsepowers up to 10 HP. The 2 cylinder Lister has a power rating up
to 20 HP at 1000 RPM.

The higher operating speeds (1000 RPM) are possible because these particular
engines have a counterweight system for dynamic balancing, allowing them to
operate up to 1000 RPM without excessive vibration.

If anyone is interested, please contact me off list for further information.

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm,
kchisholm@wattpower.com

From Carefreeland at AOL.COM Thu Jun 3 23:52:13 2004
From: Carefreeland at AOL.COM (Carefreeland@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Sewage sludge toxins
Message-ID: <THU.3.JUN.2004.235213.EDT.>

Hi Folks,
Interesting conversation on sewage sludge. Here in the industrial
Dayton, Ohio area, we are at the leading edge of environmental cleanup. We
initiated the first Groundwater protection ordinance in history. The political
momentum reached critical mass when in the early 1980s, a very large paint
factory blew up and burned down over a city water wellfield. I broke into politics
working on this issue.
Our sewage sludge used to be seriously contaminated with a large
quantity of heavy metals. Now, largely through the efforts of the local Ohio EPA,
most of the sludge is again clean enough to again be land applied. Much of it
is now clean enough to be used on food crops.
It is not difficult to trace heavy metal streams back to their sources
by sampling from manholes. The EPA just visited polluting businesses and
helped them find ways to comply with disposal regs. The threat of a future
penalty gets more action than the penalty itself. This is the future of sewage
handling.
Under the current administration, the EPA has been largely underfunded
and it's power reduced. As court cases and lawsuits catch up with industry,
the EPA will again be forced into action.
A sewer is just a pipe-what goes in is what comes out.
I might also add a few points- to those environmental extremists who
worry about a few parts per billion of various heavy metals in the food:
1) Heavy metals of broad spectrum, including radioactive ones are
raining down all around us from volcanos and space. Even if we in the USA clean up
our air - we breath China's air too.
2) It has been proven that many of the so-called "toxic" metals may
actually be not only good for us but essential for human metabolism. In test
after test, it has been proven that many toxins such as Arsenic, Moly,
Manganese, Chromium, Vanadium, Selenium, Manganese, all have roles in human metabolism.
Just look at a multivitamin. Arsenic would be included but no one would buy
the pills. In parts per billion nearly every element on the periodic table is
in the air, water, and ground.
3) Anything in excess is not good, however, the human body as well as
the environment has been adapting to a changing chemistry since the dawn of
time. If we want to know why the cancer rates are up -- look at five things. A)
People are living longer, getting better diagnosis. B) We somehow forget the
tremendous amount of radioactive particles that were dumped into the air
during nuclear testing during the 50's and 60's. Most of the fallout occurred where
we grew the most food and tobacco. Companies were putting nuclear wastes into
fertilizer at one point under the direction of our government. C) We have
been sealing up our houses better every year, how about radon gas and toxins from
plastics and paint we breathe everyday in our homes, cars and at work? We
know this stuff causes cancer. D) Have you ever thought about the concentration
of auto exhaust we breathe in traffic? E) How about sun exposure? We know that
the ozone layer is damaged, links to cancer increase has been proven.
Before we go crazy cleaning up trace elements-Lets worry about our
imported food which is still treated with DDT and other banned toxins. Lets worry
about coal burning plants dumping more radiation into the air than the nuke
plants. Lets continue to hunt down sources of groundwater contamination. Do
you know what is in your water? It's all a matter of priorities.
Daniel Dimiduk.

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Sat Jun 5 15:51:40 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Test
Message-ID: <SAT.5.JUN.2004.125140.0700.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

June 5 12:50 pm

I'm just been informed that there may be a problem with the list. No need to reply this is just a test message.

Tom Miles

From tmiles at TRMILES.COM Sat Jun 5 17:07:48 2004
From: tmiles at TRMILES.COM (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: ..test,
and: Message ("The distribution of your message dated Wed, 2
Jun...")
Message-ID: <SAT.5.JUN.2004.170748.0400.TMILES@TRMILES.COM>

Arnt,

It turns out that the version of the listserv that we use has a daily
limit of 50 messages per list. When the limit is reached the list
is "held" until released by the owner. I wasn't aware that the list
was "held' until today, Saturday. It's now "free" again.

We're due for a new and more reliable listserv program in the next month
or so. REPP is going to change from Listserv to Mailman. So we may have
some migration problems but we'll have a more function list again (as we
did for 8 years before they changed to Listserv). We will also have freely
searchable archives available.

Thanks for your patience

Tom Miles

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 00:22:00 +0200, Arnt Karlsen <arnt@C2I.NET> wrote:

>..test
>
>..I've got 3 of these, WTF _is_ going on???
>Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 22:13:01 -0400
>
> The distribution of your message dated Wed, 2 Jun 2004 04:14:07 +0200
>with subject "Re: Cyclone vs Entrained bed gasifier" has been
>postponed because the daily message limit for the GASIFICATION list (50)
>has been exceeded. No action is required from you; your message will be
>reprocessed automatically once the list owner releases the list.
>
>
>
>--
>..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
>...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
> Scenarios always come in sets of three:
> best case, worst case, and just in case.

From cree at DOWCO.COM Sat Jun 5 17:56:21 2004
From: cree at DOWCO.COM (John Olsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier
Message-ID: <SAT.5.JUN.2004.145621.0700.CREE@DOWCO.COM>

A machine we use, to remove moisture and pulverise wood chips, and other
biomass, such as Palm Oil Tree residues
is the KDS machine
http://www.fasc.net
regards
John Olsen
www.heatloginc.com

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.698 / Virus Database: 455 - Release Date: 6/2/2004

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Sat Jun 5 18:12:54 2004
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Cyclone dryer
Message-ID: <SAT.5.JUN.2004.181254.EDT.>

In a message dated 6/5/04 2:52:32 PM, hlbrodie@BLUECRAB.ORG writes:

<< I share Matt's vision of using a cyclone pulverizer for processing fuel

for combustion. We played with the "tornado in a can" a few years back

and it immediately struck me as a fuel processor. Manure, rocks,

aluminum cans, lumber, and a bunch of other stuff could be converted to

powder. Check out http://vortexdehydration.com for a description of the

device and the company. I believe they have contracted to install a

system for coal processing in Australia but I'm not sure of the status

of the project. I don't believe you'll find it cheap.

Herb Brodie

Professor Emeritus

University of Maryland >>

I can only imagine the wear in a system like this with abrasive materials
going into it. Cyclones will collect dust particles, but there are still some
emitted from the system which requires additional removal. Odor transport from
biosolids and other aromatic sources must be dealt with in the exhaust air also.
Power generation using gasification has not moved forward due to the lack
of experienced commercial systems, regulatory concerns, utility's jealous
control over power generation in their service areas, cost of using positively
valued feed such as biomass. In the 70's, the State of California created a
class of biomass power generation plant exemption and a high purchase price for
power in this class, $.10/Kwhr. The limitation was 49 MW and the purchase power
price was fixed for a period of years. Many plants were built. The purchase
price support is gone as are many of the plants from independent operators to
the utilities which bought the power. This in itself is a clear signal on what
is needed to make renewable energy in our energy mainstream. The other options
include smaller plants which can be used for end user use and bypass the
utility. Because of the cost of permitting, having feed systems, ash handling
systems and the like, not even addressing the capital cost of the plant, economy is
a major issue.
A major university in central California was donated to the University
and ran on various wood products such as pallets and scrap wood from a nearby
sawmill. This plant was getting paid $.04/kwhr a few years ago and it cost them
$.045/kwhr to operate even as a donated plant. Price limitations by the State
were imposed after the energy crisis. This plant was a stoker which is much
simpler to operate than a FBC.
The complexities of operating a multi-fuel biomass plant such as the
fluidized bed combustors which many of the California plants are, are immense.
Seeing acres of various fuels like almond tree trimmings, grape vine trimmings,
sawdust, whatever piled up around the feed area tells you that they have to
change the system every time they change the fuel.
As an example of permitting costs, a local brick kiln has entered into a
contract for the purchase of a gasifier running on various fuels including
tires, plastics and the like. Many of these are paid to be disposed of. The
system will replace natural gas demand and power demand. The gasifier operated a
small kiln for an EPA protocol testing program and came out with much lower
emissions than natural gas in CO, NOx, TSP, Metals. Even with this information,
the permitting group has asked for additional information as a basis for
granting the permit and a vast amount of information has been presented. It may take
4-5 months to get the permit granted. This costs a huge amount of time and
money.
Once you get an operational gasifier, you have just barely begun the
process of trying to make it useful in the marketplace.

From hlbrodie at BLUECRAB.ORG Sat Jun 5 22:44:28 2004
From: hlbrodie at BLUECRAB.ORG (hlbrodie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Cyclone dryer
In-Reply-To: <26.49ac1c8e.2df39f66@aol.com>
Message-ID: <SAT.5.JUN.2004.224428.0400.HLBRODIE@BLUECRAB.ORG>

LINVENT@aol.com wrote:

>I can only imagine the wear in a system like this with abrasive materials
>going into it. Cyclones will collect dust particles, but there are still some emitted from the system which requires additional removal. Odor transport from biosolids and other aromatic sources must be dealt with in the exhaust air also.
>
>

Leland, the "Tornado in a can" is shaped like a conventional cyclone but
the air flow is so controlled that there is absolutely no contact
between the solids within the air stream and the structure of the
device. Disintegration is an effect of particle collisions within the
air stream. Vortex velocity and direction are controlled through input
nozzle size, orientation and air pressure. Drying is accomplished by
using heated air and assisted by particle friction.

During operation there is absolutely no noise indicating particles are
hitting the sides of the container. There is an "eye" in the tornado and
while it is operating one can drop a stone or coin from the top through
the center and it will fall to the bottom outlet without damage.

Products can be dried, separated or pulverized to any degree by control
of input parameters. Input compressed air is used solely to produce the
vortex and exhaust is small. During drying there is a lazy vapor release
from the top. Treated particles fall out at the bottom. Yes, odorous
materials will contribute to odor release but exhaust can be captured
and treated through a biofilter.

You have to see it work to believe.

Its applicability for making alternative fuel is still up for development.

Herb Brodie
Professor Emeritus
University of Maryland

From graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ Sat Jun 5 23:39:58 2004
From: graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Re; Dual fuel engines
Message-ID: <SUN.6.JUN.2004.153958.1200.GRAEME@POWERLINK.CO.NZ>

Hi Harman,

In response to your thought:

> If you are pumping producer gas into the air intake, it might not be
possible
> for the engine to get enough oxygen to produce full power no matter how
much
> diesel is being injected at the same time.

What you say is true if you are operating the engine in a variable output
situation, as the maximum dual fuel efficiency is reached when the engine is
operating at 80% of its normal output on diesel. If you go over this 80%
mark you have to reduce the gas and admit more air, and if you don't then
black smoke enters the emission.

With standard injectors, you should use about 20% of the diesel normally
consumed at this 80% output, and if you lock the injector stop at that
position, and drop of the load and gas, the engine will slow to a stop as
there isn't enough diesel to run at no load, In an earlier posting Tom Reed
told us about how they fitted smaller injectors and reduced the fuel to 10%,
but that prevents you operating on 100% diesel, and you cannot do this to
most engine due to injector sizing.

When the engine is dual fuelled, you can set it up on a fixed load, an it
will function O.K. if the gas supply is stable. However, changing load or
combustion conditions is accompanied by a change in the air ratio needed by
the diesel. On full load it needs about 20:1 and at no load over 100:1 so
air control is critical if you want to keep the R.P.M. stable.

Most generating engines are direct drive running at either 1500 R.P,M. for
50 cycle or 1800 for 60 cycle, unless you are using a belt drive system. The
life of an engine is determined by a lot of variables, so we can only talk
around that which is known. Most engines on producer gas will never have
mechanical stresses any where near their design specifications and if they
have modern valve seat inserts, seat recession is prevented [an old
problem]. That only leaves the pistons and bearings, and if you look after
the oil to keep the moisture levels down, the acid erosion responsible for
2/3 of engine wear[or loss of metal] is prevented.

The best way to achieve moisture removal is to use a by-pass filter that
has a filter element like a toilet roll. We used to make them years ago, and
I see some excellent giant rolls available now that would be perfect for the
job. If you go this way, it takes away the need to change the oil, so
reduction of operating costs is also a plus. Spark plugs are also greatly
improved these days but they give you trouble big time if the gas is dirty
or wet.

With a bit of luck I should be able to bring more information on this
subject later in the year when we get some time with our engines in Canada.

Regards
Doug Williams,
Fluidyne Gasification.

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Sun Jun 6 00:49:37 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <40C23155.145.2FF5BC7@localhost>
Message-ID: <SUN.6.JUN.2004.004937.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Ah yes I've looked at this design with much interest. Top-down pyrolysis,
I came across these designs before on the stoves pages. I am fascinated
with charcoal production for some reason ;). Yep, this will definitely be
the first thing I will experiment with. I like the whole concept. Thanks.

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 20:47:17 -0400, Alex English <english@kingston.net>
wrote:

> Hello Matt,
> Here is a simple way to get your feet wet in this business.
> http://www.repp.org/discussiongroups/resources/stoves/English/Punepaper2b.htm
> I have used a fairly simple method of tar measurement to verify minimal
> particulate
> emissions.
> Alex English
>> Now would this gas not still be useable? hydrogen, methane, and co would
>> still be produced wouldn't they? Or would the calorific value of the gas
>> be too low? I do not understand. I was perfectly happy with only having
>> a
>> pyrolysis reaction and not reducing the chars to ash. Charcoal
>> production
>> produces combustible gases also right?
>>
>> Thank you for your kind reply.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 10:42:43 +1200, Graeme Williams
>> <graeme@powerlink.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> > Matt,
>> > It always helps to know how a individual arrives at a viewpoint of
>> > gasification,and you should not get your tail down, because at this
>> > stage,
>> > your studies of other students work only repeats mistaken perceptions
>> of
>> > the
>> > problems they are endeavouring to solve.
>> >
>> > Not many people know that I provide a link for students who are
>> studying
>> > gasification, and each year 2-3 visit me for a day or two in order to
>> > tidy
>> > up the theory and get a little reality injected into their
>> understanding
>> > of
>> > this very complex technology. Massey University here in New Zealand
>> has a
>> > Biomass Energy department, and they also host students from overseas
>> for
>> > short term studies, so I get them as well. I also introduce French
>> > engineering students to gasification during their summer work
>> > experience in
>> > Northern Ireland, in a project associated with Queens University
>> > Belfast, I
>> > don't get paid for this, but it is the only way to break the cycle of
>> > ignorance that plagues gasification.
>> >
>> > If possible I would like you to consider and think through for your
>> self
>> > the
>> > following.
>> >
>> > 1. To provide the heat of gasification, part of each fuel partial is
>> > oxidised, but cannot be oxidised until the raw fuel has first been
>> > carbonised and all the volatiles are driven off [about 475 degrees]
>> into
>> > the
>> > area above the air input.
>> >
>> > 2. At this point you have carbon being oxidised which produces ash,
>> and
>> > the
>> > distillation gases which are very unstable hydrocarbons containing
>> water.
>> > This combination of ash and water creates alkali condensate that
>> provides
>> > the transport medium for ash to reach turbine components.
>> >
>> > 3. For the hydrocarbons to crack into permanent gasses, all must come
>> > into
>> > close contact with the heat and carbon below the oxidising carbon at
>> the
>> > air
>> > input point. This is the reduction zone and as an endothermic
>> reaction,
>> > consumes vast amounts of heat. Distillation gasses that pass down
>> through
>> > the oxidising carbon are burnt to produce Co2 and steam, and the
>> > acetylides
>> > become carbon blacks.
>> >
>> > 4. The carbon in the oxidation has to be able to produce incandescent
>> > Co2,
>> > and have a temperature in excess of 1100 degrees C. The heat of this
>> Co2
>> > then provides the endothermic reaction heat that consumes the carbon
>> in
>> > the
>> > reduction zone turning the Co2 into Co and the steam into hydrogen.
>> >
>> > 5. There are very specific limitations as to the distance oxygen and
>> > carbon
>> > reactions can take place to produce the type of temperatures required
>> as
>> > stated above. Volume spaces combined with particle densities and air
>> > velocity all work against cyclonic principles to produce a clean tar
>> free
>> > gas, but it can be made to work on a small scale as you have seen in
>> the
>> > lab
>> > study.
>> >
>> > 6. Producer gas exiting the gasifier can be compared to cigarette
>> smoke,
>> > and
>> > it must be first cooled to strip the condensate away from the gas.
>> The
>> > carbon blacks are graphite, and as such are waterproof and sub micron
>> in
>> > size. These continue through just about every type of cleaning
>> device,
>> > if
>> > there is any moisture or humidity in the gas. It is almost
>> impossible to
>> > dry gas practically to this state.
>> >
>> > 7. When this gas reaches the turbine combustor or engine cylinder,
>> the
>> > gaseous component provides the ignition, and the carbon blacks are
>> > heated in
>> > the oxygen deficient atmosphere to produce Co. In a turbine, these
>> > carbon
>> > blacks impact on the impeller where they oxidise in the excess air
>> flow,
>> > causing pits to form in the metal. The alkaline condensate also
>> > facilitates
>> > ash formation on these blades so there is a little more involved than
>> > just
>> > having dirty gas.
>> >
>> > I have to finish now.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Doug Williams.
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Matthew Pottinger" <mpottinger@renewableplanet.ca>
>> > To: "Graeme Williams" <graeme@powerlink.co.nz>;
>> > <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>> > Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 12:52 AM
>> > Subject: Re: [GASL] Cyclone Gasifier
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I know you are all probably very busy, but nobody seems to take the
>> time
>> >> to read into more completely on this before dismissing it. You seem
>> to
>> >> skim through quickly and make a quick conclusion.
>> >>
>> >> It is frustrating me, I think I will just go. :(
>> >>
>> >> Please at least read this if not anything else, this is where I
>> learned
>> >> about it and decided it was a good option.
>> >>
>> >> This is a part of the summary of the thesis I read
>> >>
>> >> Summary:
>> >>
>> >> The use of biomass fuels for operation of gas turbines is limited by
>> >> problems caused by the ash elements in the fuel. The presence of
>> these
>> >> elements may lead to erosion of the turbine blades caused by ash
>> >> particles
>> >> carried by the gas stream and deposition of in particular alkali
>> >> compounds
>> >> on the turbine surfaces, which may cause flow blockage, vibrations
>> and
>> >> possibly corrosion. Most of the processes for use of biomass fuels in
>> >> gas
>> >> turbines that are presently being studied are based on gasification
>> of
>> >> the
>> >> fuel in a fluidized bed and expensive cleaning of the product gas
>> before
>> >> combustion. An alternative, much less studied approach is to use a
>> >> cyclone
>> >> gasifier operating at relatively low temperature and use the cyclone
>> as
>> >> a
>> >> gas cleaner as well as a gasifier.
>> >>
>> >> In the cyclone, the volatiles will be released and some of the fixed
>> >> carbon gasified at low temperatures. The advantage of this technique
>> is
>> >> that the temperature of the fuel might be kept at a level where ash
>> >> melting and/or ash vaporizatoon will not occur. The corrosive ashes
>> >> would
>> >> then remain solid in the char particles, which could be separated
>> from
>> >> the
>> >> product gas in the cyclone.
>> >>
>> >> This thesis describes an exploratory experimental and theoretical
>> study
>> >> of
>> >> this process. The objective has been to develop the understanding of
>> >> cyclone gasification by experimental studies of the performance of a
>> >> cyclone designed in principle as a separation cyclone and by
>> comparisons
>> >> between the experimental results and theoretical predictions. The
>> >> experiments were carried out with commercial Swedish wood powder
>> fuels,
>> >> injected with air or steam/air mixture through two diametrically
>> >> opposite
>> >> tangential inlets and gasified at atomospheric pressure in cyclones
>> of
>> >> two
>> >> different configurations and a volume of about 0.034m3
>> >>
>> >> The studies show that stable gasification of this fuel can be
>> obtained
>> >> for
>> >> a specific fuel feeding rate of about 5MW/m3
>> >> volume.......................... and so on.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 07:29:28 -0400, wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:38:24 +1200, Graeme Williams
>> >> > <graeme@powerlink.co.nz> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Mat,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I suggest you take a break and come back in a day or two. Clearly
>> >> your
>> >> >> mind
>> >> >> is in overdrive and you are missing an opportunity to get answers
>> >> from
>> >> >> people who understand gasification in all the ways it can be
>> >> achieved.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There is little value in discussing any type of gasification until
>> >> you
>> >> >> know
>> >> >> how these process work, not from a book or web site, but actually
>> >> doing
>> >> >> it.
>> >> >> As for cyclonic gasifiers, these are old hat stuff and little
>> better
>> >> >> than
>> >> >> updraught systems when it comes to gas quality.
>> >> >> You should also look at the Indian design again and ponder the
>> grate
>> >> >> shown
>> >> >> in the bottom of the gasifier, not exactly needed for powdered
>> fuels.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Our own work on cyclonic gasification started back in about
>> !978-9
>> >> >> providing assistance to a N.Z. Government project, and continues
>> to
>> >> the
>> >> >> present as a ongoing development programme. Nothing in the
>> literature
>> >> >> can
>> >> >> even approach the design demands for a gasifier that you aspire
>> >> >> towards,
>> >> >> and it would be in use if it could be proven to work.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It should also be pointed out to you that only a few of us on this
>> >> >> forum are
>> >> >> dealing with commercial realities, and are fully aware of the
>> systems
>> >> >> out
>> >> >> there to support what needs to be done with fuel conditioning.
>> It's
>> >> >> O.K. to
>> >> >> use cheap used engines, even better to recycle scrap steel, it's a
>> >> >> place to
>> >> >> start for every one, but not a valid argument to compare costs for
>> >> >> commercially implemented projects.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As a word of caution, more than a small amount of written
>> material
>> >> on
>> >> >> gasifiers originates from funded research that has no obligation
>> to
>> >> >> reach
>> >> >> commercial standards of performance. It is not in the best
>> interest
>> >> of
>> >> >> their
>> >> >> authors to present any thing less than a good result, because they
>> >> hope
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> can qualify for more funding.
>> >> >> Have a good sleep.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Doug Williams,
>> >> >> Fluidyne Gasification.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> >> From: "Matthew Pottinger" <mpottinger@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>
>> >> >> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 12:24 PM
>> >> >> Subject: [GASL] Cyclone Gasifier
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Hey all, I know I am not the most experienced person on the list
>> >> here
>> >> >>> (understatement), however, from discussing things with you, I
>> >> realize
>> >> >>> that
>> >> >>> you all overlook what I am saying in regards to the uniqueness
>> of my
>> >> >>> proposal on how to gasify materials such as biosolids.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> You say that fuel conditioning is a big problem, moisture is a
>> big
>> >> >>> problem, gas quality is a big problem.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I have been suggesting the cyclone gasifier for biosolids
>> >> application,
>> >> >>> yet
>> >> >>> so far nobody has said ANYTHING about it. I am in contact with a
>> >> >>> company
>> >> >>> which offers a simple system for dehydrating biosolids. Their
>> system
>> >> >>> will
>> >> >>> dehydrate to 10% moisture content. The biosolids (or manure),
>> become
>> >> >>> pulverized to *UNIFORM* predictable sized particles.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> These are SMALL particles, a powder, a dust.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The gasifiers everyone is discussing here can NOT handle these.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The gasifier I am suggesting REQUIRES these "dust like" inputs.
>> >> >>> it is ESPECIALLY important that the fuel is small particle for a
>> >> >>> cyclone
>> >> >>> gasifier, and it is important that it is dry.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The vortex dehydrator fulfills these exact requirements for fuel
>> >> >>> conditioning. Do you see what I mean?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> THIS is what I was enthusiastic about all this time.
>> >> >>> I want to build THIS system and no other.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Do you see the system I am proposing?
>> >> >>> What do you think?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> 1. Uniform fuel size
>> >> >>> 2. Very small particle size
>> >> >>> 2. Dry fuel
>> >> >>> 3. A gasifier that is WELL KNOWN to be good at gasifying such
>> >> >>> conditioned
>> >> >>> fuel.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> A cyclone gasifier also reduces the amount of tars and ash
>> entrained
>> > in
>> >> >>> the gas, it acts as both a gasifier and a gas cleaner.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The gas from this gasifier is apparently cleaner to begin with.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Continuous operating is simplied.
>> >> >>> Fuel conditioning is simplified
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> This can handle things other than biosolids.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Any fuel can be pulverized by the fuel conditioning system and
>> fed.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I EMPHASIZE that you have not been discussing this particular
>> system
>> >> >>> with
>> >> >>> me at all.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> --
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Matthew Pottinger
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Student
>> >> >>> Environmental Technology Program
>> >> >>> Durham College
>> >> >>> Ontario, Canada
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> "Never underestimate people's
>> >> >>> ability to suppress inconvenient realities."
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> "We could avoid the extinction of the human race,
>> >> >>> but it just wouldn't be economically feasible."
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> Matthew Pottinger
>> >>
>> >> Student
>> >> Environmental Technology Program
>> >> Durham College
>> >> Ontario, Canada
>> >>
>> >> "Never underestimate people's
>> >> ability to suppress inconvenient realities."
>> >>
>> >> "We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just
>> wouldn't
>> >> be
>> >> economically feasible."
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Matthew Pottinger
>>
>> Student
>> Environmental Technology Program
>> Durham College
>> Ontario, Canada
>>
>> "Never underestimate people's
>> ability to suppress inconvenient realities."
>>
>> "We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't
>> be
>> economically feasible."
>>
>
>
> Alex English
> 399 Church St
> Enterprise Ontario
> Canada K0K 1Z0

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK Sun Jun 6 05:47:44 2004
From: Gavin at AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: The cost of a small power plant
In-Reply-To: <20040602021003.GA3138@cybershamanix.com>
Message-ID: <SUN.6.JUN.2004.104744.0100.GAVIN@AA3GENERGI.FORCE9.CO.UK>

Just to confirm Harmans figures.
If you look at a standard boat engine you will find that it is derated by
over 50% of the power rating that the same base engine has in automotive
use. ( boats use full power for days at a time ( commercial fishing boats
do - maybe not ski boats)

So a 100hp Pinto engine will only be rated at 40hp in the marine version.

This is because you only use the 100hp for say 10% of the time in your
pinto- during hard accelllaration.

If you use your pinto to tow a trailer down the freeway as fast as you can
then the engine will wear out very quickly.

I hope that helps to clarify the issue.

With producer gas - or landfill gas or biogas you have a shorter maintenance
cycle compared to refined petrol or diesel as there are potentially more
acids, and particulates to contaminate the oil. So a diesel CHP engine my
last 2000 hours between services but the same engine running on landfill or
biogas will need a service every 1000 hours- you can get the exact hours
form the Caterpillar diesel website or tech sheets.

Producer gas is usually considered to be worse than landfill gas due to
variable quality and unknown properties- for wood gasifiers there is not
enough reliable data for the engine manufacturers to make other than very
conservative recommendations.

In the west you need to account for the extra service costs and down time
before deciding whether it is practical and economic to run a gasifier CHP.

I daresay this is true in other parts of the world too, just with different
numbers.
Cheers
Gavin

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

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 8 21:36:28 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <40C23155.145.2FF5BC7@localhost>
Message-ID: <TUE.8.JUN.2004.213628.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Anyone who has an open mind, look at page 8 and 9 of this article, and
tell me what is wrong with it, if anything. I don't see why this has
turned into such a negative issue, with people scoffing at it, or saying
that I am a know-it-all. I did not initiate this research, but if you
_read_ this article, it speaks for itself.

http://www.ensic.inpl-nancy.fr/ENSIC/ressources/dossiers_presse/RenewableEnergies.pdf

Anyways, it's true it isn't the be-all and end-all, but pyrolytic
gasification and cyclone reactors are not irrelevant and I don't see why
such negative reactions resulted from my suggesting it. Well, it works,
period. At least as a pyrolytic gasifier, and a flash pyrolysis reactor,
it works. If that makes me a know-it-all, well, I certainly came to an
unfriendly place for open discussion.

---

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM Tue Jun 8 23:13:27 2004
From: hseaver at CYBERSHAMANIX.COM (Harmon Seaver)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <opr9az22zd6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <TUE.8.JUN.2004.221327.0500.HSEAVER@CYBERSHAMANIX.COM>

Matt;
These pages don't tell me much except that someone can put together a pretty
page. Is there some peer-reviewed research paper? Given the level of expertise
on this list (myself not included), I'd certainly give more credence to those
here who have real world experience in gasification -- and many of these fellows
are the ones who would more than likely doing the peer review.
Ask the people who did this paper if they have a working unit you can
inspect, and is it a money making operation. That's the bottom line.

On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 09:36:28PM -0400, Matthew Pottinger wrote:
> Anyone who has an open mind, look at page 8 and 9 of this article, and
> tell me what is wrong with it, if anything. I don't see why this has
> turned into such a negative issue, with people scoffing at it, or saying
> that I am a know-it-all. I did not initiate this research, but if you
> _read_ this article, it speaks for itself.
>
> http://www.ensic.inpl-nancy.fr/ENSIC/ressources/dossiers_presse/RenewableEnergies.pdf
>
> Anyways, it's true it isn't the be-all and end-all, but pyrolytic
> gasification and cyclone reactors are not irrelevant and I don't see why
> such negative reactions resulted from my suggesting it. Well, it works,
> period. At least as a pyrolytic gasifier, and a flash pyrolysis reactor,
> it works. If that makes me a know-it-all, well, I certainly came to an
> unfriendly place for open discussion.
>
>
> ---
>
> Matthew Pottinger
>
> Student
> Environmental Technology Program
> Durham College
> Ontario, Canada
>
> "Never underestimate people's
> ability to suppress inconvenient realities."
>
> "We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
> economically feasible."

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

From graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ Wed Jun 9 00:10:00 2004
From: graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUN.2004.161000.1200.GRAEME@POWERLINK.CO.NZ>

Dear Matthew

When you first started this discussion on cyclone gasifiers, my
understanding of your intent was to use these gasifiers to fuel engines and
I have approached this discussion from that aspect. It would appear that
your direction has now changed towards gasification using steam or nitrogen,
which is what they appear to use for the project at Nancy.

At best, in trying to understand how this student project in France has any
relevance to discussing the project on a commercial scale eludes me. This
is clearly a bench size process with the intent to try and establish a model
for enlargement. As I have said previously you can make these things work
on a small scale with distinct limitations. You will note that tar cracking
is being done seperately in a stirred reactor. We used to call these things
tar floggers, and is as old as gas making itself.

Having conducted numerous experiments with these cyclonic type gasifiers
using air as the oxidiser, the output mixture of char and half cracked
pyrolysis
gases is a fairly normal outcome and I have personally come to the
conclusion (which I stand by - until corrected) that completely tar free gas
cannot be achieved in the cyclonic principle, if air is the oxidiser. If
this is all you wish to achieve then you are right but your options are
limited to the quality of the gas.

Personally I cannot offer you any further advice other than what I have
previously said, but you should be very careful about using these types of
references as a basis of fact to further your knowledge on gasification.

Best Regards,
Doug Williams,
Fluidyne Gasification.

----
From: "Matthew Pottinger" <mpottinger@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Cyclone Gasifier

> Anyone who has an open mind, look at page 8 and 9 of this article, and
> tell me what is wrong with it, if anything. I don't see why this has
> turned into such a negative issue, with people scoffing at it, or saying
> that I am a know-it-all. I did not initiate this research, but if you
> _read_ this article, it speaks for itself.
>
>
http://www.ensic.inpl-nancy.fr/ENSIC/ressources/dossiers_presse/RenewableEne
rgies.pdf
>
> Anyways, it's true it isn't the be-all and end-all, but pyrolytic
> gasification and cyclone reactors are not irrelevant and I don't see why
> such negative reactions resulted from my suggesting it. Well, it works,
> period. At least as a pyrolytic gasifier, and a flash pyrolysis reactor,
> it works. If that makes me a know-it-all, well, I certainly came to an
> unfriendly place for open discussion.
>

From CAVM at AOL.COM Wed Jun 9 10:57:40 2004
From: CAVM at AOL.COM (C. Van Milligen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Working gasifiers
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUN.2004.105740.EDT.>

Harmon, you had an excellent idea.

Ask the people who did this paper if they have a working unit you can
inspect, and is it a money making operation.

Who has an operational gasifier of any scale?

Neal Van Milligen

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Wed Jun 9 12:29:44 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <003201c44dd7$cd2248a0$d98f58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUN.2004.122944.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

OK, that all makes sense. You are correct that I am thinking more along
the lines of using an external source of heat and introducing that into
the gasifier to produce the gases instead of air or oxygen. I agree that
the references I have given you are only bench scale experiments, with the
exception of the one from India, which was for a 100kw and 600kw gasifier.
That one used air apparently, but I am more interested in allothermal
gasifiers and bio-oil production. If this cyclone were to be externally
heated, and used very high temperature superheated steam, with a high
enough residence time, syngas and char would be the main products, and the
higher the temperature, the lower the tar products. If you use high
temperatures to produce the gas, the calorific value is half that of
natural gas, much higher than gasification with air. No de-reating issues,
and can be used in an un-modified gas turbine.

At lower temperatures, the main products start to become be tar and char.
When tar is produced at these levels with negligible gas production, tar
is not a useless or nuisance product, it is a _product_; bio-oil, a
storable, transportable, replacement for fuel oil.

There are many ways of introducing heat into this reactor. Hot sand, hot
reactor wall, superheated steam, hot flue gases with low or no oxygen
content, recycled hot syngas. I see the cyclone as the best way of
transporting the biomass in and out of a reactor such as this. The char is
easily collectable at the bottom, particles can be forced to move along
the hot side walls, and can mix very well with the steam or other hot
gases.

My first goal now would be to produce bio-oil using this system, the lower
temperatures would be easier to achieve. It can be stored, transported,
and there are reformers, such as the glidarc plasma assisted partial
oxidation reformer, which can reform high sulfur heavy oils, vegetable
oils, diesel, and bio-oil into a very clean gas with no soot or tars.

These liquid fuel reformers are compact and easy to clean. Glidarc claims
to be inexpensive due to the simple design of a gliding arc discharge in
place of expensive catalysts. They are producing a 100kw LHV output
reformer currently, and there are a wide variety of reformers being
developed for fuel cell applications, which would also be applicable to
internal combustion engine applications, as I am sure the gas is _more_
than clean. No worries about tar, carbon black, entrained ash, acids,
whatever. Maybe scaling up the cyclone reactor for this application isn't
possible, but I have yet to see a reason why it couldn't be. Regardless, I
would be more interested in the glidarc reactor for reforming vegetable
oils first, and then look at how to create bio-oil. I suppose this is
relevant on this list because reformers are basically the same thing as
gasifiers, however, I don't see any problems with gas quality in the fuel
cell type liquid fuel reformers. They are most certainly commercial. Now
the bio-oil production, that would be my little experiment, and if
unsuccessful, would have to rely on either waste vegetable oil, or a
commcerial bio-oil reactor. This would be a very exciting route to
take.Well, this is my point of view.

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:10:00 +1200, Graeme Williams
<graeme@powerlink.co.nz> wrote:

> Dear Matthew
>
> When you first started this discussion on cyclone gasifiers, my
> understanding of your intent was to use these gasifiers to fuel engines
> and
> I have approached this discussion from that aspect. It would appear that
> your direction has now changed towards gasification using steam or
> nitrogen,
> which is what they appear to use for the project at Nancy.
>
> At best, in trying to understand how this student project in France has
> any
> relevance to discussing the project on a commercial scale eludes me.
> This
> is clearly a bench size process with the intent to try and establish a
> model
> for enlargement. As I have said previously you can make these things
> work
> on a small scale with distinct limitations. You will note that tar
> cracking
> is being done seperately in a stirred reactor. We used to call these
> things
> tar floggers, and is as old as gas making itself.
>
> Having conducted numerous experiments with these cyclonic type gasifiers
> using air as the oxidiser, the output mixture of char and half cracked
> pyrolysis
> gases is a fairly normal outcome and I have personally come to the
> conclusion (which I stand by - until corrected) that completely tar free
> gas
> cannot be achieved in the cyclonic principle, if air is the oxidiser. If
> this is all you wish to achieve then you are right but your options are
> limited to the quality of the gas.
>
> Personally I cannot offer you any further advice other than what I have
> previously said, but you should be very careful about using these types
> of
> references as a basis of fact to further your knowledge on gasification.
>
> Best Regards,
> Doug Williams,
> Fluidyne Gasification.
>
> ----
> From: "Matthew Pottinger" <mpottinger@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 1:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Cyclone Gasifier
>
>
>> Anyone who has an open mind, look at page 8 and 9 of this article, and
>> tell me what is wrong with it, if anything. I don't see why this has
>> turned into such a negative issue, with people scoffing at it, or saying
>> that I am a know-it-all. I did not initiate this research, but if you
>> _read_ this article, it speaks for itself.
>>
>>
> http://www.ensic.inpl-nancy.fr/ENSIC/ressources/dossiers_presse/RenewableEne
> rgies.pdf
>>
>> Anyways, it's true it isn't the be-all and end-all, but pyrolytic
>> gasification and cyclone reactors are not irrelevant and I don't see why
>> such negative reactions resulted from my suggesting it. Well, it works,
>> period. At least as a pyrolytic gasifier, and a flash pyrolysis reactor,
>> it works. If that makes me a know-it-all, well, I certainly came to an
>> unfriendly place for open discussion.
>>
>
>
>

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Wed Jun 9 13:00:22 2004
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUN.2004.130022.EDT.>

Dear Mark,
OK, besides talking to yourself about what you are going to do in this
field and how great it is going to be, why don't you get down to the hard
stuff and calculate the mass/energy balances, surface area required, heat
exchange rates and the other factors for the cyclone pyrolyzer? Once you tackle these
engineering challenges, it may be a dose of reality on what gasfiication (or
at least pyrolysis) is all about. Gasification calculations are more complex
indeed.
If you use an external heating source, that involves a separate
combustion system which could burn part of the gas to provide the heat. This process
has emissions which would move the pyrolyzer out of a non-source category
into the source category, and getting a permit would be an interesting endeavor.
I cannot speak for the entire list, but I am sure that many would be
interested in your results.

Sincerely,
Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
Phone: US 505-761-5633, fax:341-0424, Website: thermogenics.com

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Wed Jun 9 13:13:25 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <003201c44dd7$cd2248a0$d98f58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUN.2004.131325.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

I forgot one thing. Now I know that with this two-step bio-oil -> syngas
route I am thinking about, some of you would think, two steps = more
complexity, cost, wastefulness, etc. Not necessarily so. Having two steps
can be beneficial in a lot of ways.

1. Bio-oil can be produced closer to or directly at the source of biomass,
making it denser or easier to transfer for lower transportation costs. Now
when you are transporting this bio-oil you are transporting a fuel, not a
waste. Bio-oil production does not qualify as incineration or combustion,
you are manufacturing a _product_. When you burn bio-oil you are burning a
fuel, not a waste. Maybe I am wrong here, but this may clear up some
regulatory issues? It certainly does in my area according to the law.

2. Bio-oil production involves less extreme temperature conditions than
gasification.

3. The same reformers that reform liquid fuels such as diesel into syngas
for fuel cells can be used for bio-oil. Some of these reactors are getting
very effective and low cost, and development is continuing to improve that.

4. When bio-oil is reformed into syngas, the gas cleaning issues almost
become a mute point. Fuel cells do not tolerate impurities and are much
more fickle than internal combustion engines. Reformers designed for these
applications produce a _very_ clean gas. Engine life can be expected to
increase, not decrease, and maintenance costs would decrease.

Matthew Pottinger
Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Wed Jun 9 13:28:03 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <7f.478edb75.2df89c26@aol.com>
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUN.2004.132803.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Ok, I understand that, but what I am trying to do figure everything else,
and I mean everything, before spending time on those sorts of things. I
have to admit I've barely scratched the surface of this topic, but I am
trying to find out what route I will be taking. _First_ you decide where
you are going, which is the best place for you, before getting into the
details of which streets you are going to take, how many kilometer exactly
will it be, if you catch my metaphor. Once I have that figured out, then I
will tackle the next step. Maybe I won't even do it this way, maybe there
is a better route? I need to find it first though, then I get into the
details. An overall concept can be decided before all of that. Well, I get
your point, perhaps I have outstayed my welcome until I can show you
something. Fair enough.

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 13:00:22 EDT, <LINVENT@aol.com> wrote:

> Dear Mark,
> OK, besides talking to yourself about what you are going to do in
> this
> field and how great it is going to be, why don't you get down to the hard
> stuff and calculate the mass/energy balances, surface area required, heat
> exchange rates and the other factors for the cyclone pyrolyzer? Once you
> tackle these
> engineering challenges, it may be a dose of reality on what gasfiication
> (or
> at least pyrolysis) is all about. Gasification calculations are more
> complex
> indeed.
> If you use an external heating source, that involves a separate
> combustion system which could burn part of the gas to provide the heat.
> This process
> has emissions which would move the pyrolyzer out of a non-source category
> into the source category, and getting a permit would be an interesting
> endeavor.
> I cannot speak for the entire list, but I am sure that many would
> be
> interested in your results.
>
> Sincerely,
> Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
> President
> Thermogenics Inc.
> Phone: US 505-761-5633, fax:341-0424, Website: thermogenics.com

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Wed Jun 9 15:45:32 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <opr9b7gntl6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUN.2004.154532.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Another note on gas cleaning problems to clear up why I think the two step
route is good to take.

In the first step - flash pyrolysis- a large part of the contaminants
(alkali?s, chlorine, bromine, sulphur) are already removed by the very
nature of the process and left behind in the char or ash. Gas cleaning
requirements would be greatly reduced.

Cold plasma assisted reforming removes the need for catalysts with their
expense and sensitivity to impurities.

Cold plasma also allows the gasification reaction to occur at lower
temperatures through its catalytic effect.

Cold plasma also breaks down sulfur compounds such as h2s into hydrogen
and elemental sulfur and allows relatively low temperature gas production
without soot or tars.

The idea of geographically decoupling the pyrolysis and the gasification
to reduce biomass transportation costs _must_ be appealing to some of you.

Guys, I think this two-step process at least, if not the cyclone part of
it, is a valid concept. Yes it will need development for commercial
applications, but the fuel cell reformer is already there.

If I cannot build a bio-oil reactor myself, there _are_ commercial bio-oil
reactors out there, and they are improving cost wise every year. In fact,
bio-oil production is already commercial here in Ontario for distributed
CHP making use of forestry residues. On a scale that is exactly the niche
I am interested in: 2.5MW

I think I am making valid suggestions. They may not be _the ultimate_
thing that everyone should pursue, but look at it. It is being done out
there on a commercial scale.

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:13:25 -0400, Matthew Pottinger
<mpottinger@renewableplanet.ca> wrote:

>
> I forgot one thing. Now I know that with this two-step bio-oil -> syngas
> route I am thinking about, some of you would think, two steps = more
> complexity, cost, wastefulness, etc. Not necessarily so. Having two
> steps can be beneficial in a lot of ways.
>
> 1. Bio-oil can be produced closer to or directly at the source of
> biomass, making it denser or easier to transfer for lower transportation
> costs. Now when you are transporting this bio-oil you are transporting a
> fuel, not a waste. Bio-oil production does not qualify as incineration
> or combustion, you are manufacturing a _product_. When you burn bio-oil
> you are burning a fuel, not a waste. Maybe I am wrong here, but this may
> clear up some regulatory issues? It certainly does in my area according
> to the law.
>
> 2. Bio-oil production involves less extreme temperature conditions than
> gasification.
>
> 3. The same reformers that reform liquid fuels such as diesel into
> syngas for fuel cells can be used for bio-oil. Some of these reactors
> are getting very effective and low cost, and development is continuing
> to improve that.
>
> 4. When bio-oil is reformed into syngas, the gas cleaning issues almost
> become a mute point. Fuel cells do not tolerate impurities and are much
> more fickle than internal combustion engines. Reformers designed for
> these applications produce a _very_ clean gas. Engine life can be
> expected to increase, not decrease, and maintenance costs would decrease.
>
>

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ Wed Jun 9 15:47:26 2004
From: graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Fw: [GASL] Cyclone Gasifier
Message-ID: <THU.10.JUN.2004.074726.1200.GRAEME@POWERLINK.CO.NZ>

Matthew,

You did say at the begining that your target fuels were biosolids which have
a premium disposal cost. If you produce a bio-oil and then combust it to
provide heat, then you can expect to have nasties in that emission.On the
other hand ,clean new biomass shouldn't be a problem if you can get free
energy to reduce this resource to powder.

Apart from doing all the energy calculations, etc, would you explain why
your vision of bio-oil production is better than exsisting established
technologies? Obviously there are many ways to skin a cat, so how would you
define such a differance to potential investors which you will surely need?

In chosing to put your ideas to this forum exposing your ideal and
aspirations, the risk of ridicule is high. It' very hard to ooh, and aahh
over some ones discovery of the potentiol for biomass energy in all the form
that it exsists. Every thing you need to know is not out there for the
taking, and some knowledge is very expensive to aquire. We share what we
can whithin our commercial obligations, and it is all offered with the best
intentions, including the critisism. One thing is for sure, if it doesn't
work, some one on this forum will tell you so.

We are all working to make biomass energy credable, and your failure would
be our failure, so don't run away because your rules don't fit the game. You
have provided good discussion, and shaken excellent comment out of the
members and there is more once you stop jumping around which confuses very
specific technical comments.

Doug Williams,
Fluidyne Gasification.

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Wed Jun 9 16:36:43 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Fw: [GASL] Cyclone Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <002e01c44e5a$9e3ae6e0$d48f58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUN.2004.163643.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Well, biosolids was just one of the target fuels I was looking at, and I
agree about the contaminants. Biosolids were appealing because nobody
seems to want them and there are more than sufficient quantities of it at
known locations. However, if biosolids are too toxic I would definitely
not put all my eggs in that basket, it was merely a suggestion of one of
many possible sources. Now that I know the heavy metal contamination
problem is that much of an issue, I am turned off of it, but it was by no
means the only fuel source I had in mind nor the first. I am looking at
_anything_ that could be feasible, and will always be searching for new
sources. One of the issues here is that I would like something that would
be fuel flexible. If I find a new source of fuel, I want the system to be
designed in such a way that it could most likely handle it.

Pulverizing and drying solid fuels and having a first step which can
convert pretty much any pulverized biomass into a liquid fuel, then having
a second stage which can gasify liquids, including biomass which is
already in liquid form without pyrolysis makes for a very fuel flexible
system.
That is why I find it so attractive.

Permitting is always an issue with _any_ project, but the more stringent
requirements are for those plants which are 10MWe and above. A small 500kw
or 1MW embedded generator may need permits, but I do take that into
consideration and have read the environmental regulations for my area. The
Ontario Ministry of the environment regulations on new electricity
projects say that biomass or waste biomass projects below 10MWe *don't
require an environmental assesment*. Other permits for noise and a
certificate of air are surely needed, but the small projects are not so
vigorously screened as large ones. Now if I am using a regulated waste
such as biosolids as fuel, then usually any site that accepts such a waste
must be registered as a waste disposal/recycling site. _Now_ this is a big
_but_, there is an exemption to this regulation, and it has been taken
advantage of for paper biosolids, a facility does not have to register as
a waste disposal site if it uses the waste to manufacture a product and
does not incinerate (or gasify) the waste on-site. Using paper biosolids
to make sound attenuation berms is one of those uses that was granted
exemption. Why is this relevant? Bio-oil production is not incineration or
combustion, you are producing a manufactured liquid fuel. Yes, there is
combustion to provide the heat source, but another, _clean_ non-regulated
source of biomass can be used as the heat source as the energy needed is
only a small fraction of the biomass being converted to bio-oil. You now
are manufacturing a product from biomass on this site which does not
invovle combustion of the waste. This "product" is now a manufactured
"green" fuel that can be transported to a power generation station at
another location. Completely within the law, here at least, and you are no
longer a "waste disposal" operation. I think this would help with any
permitting issues in the way.

Also, the footprint of a small generator the size of at _most_ a single
truck trailer is so insignificant it seems silly to me to think such a
thing would never be possible. What is 1.5 to 2 MW in the grand scheme of
power generation? Microscopic at the very most. More like nano-scopic! :)
When you are talking of 20 or 50MW that is a different story and you DO
need rigorous environmental screening etc. Yet even then 50mw is
considered by the power industry to be "small scale" :)

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 07:47:26 +1200, Graeme Williams
<graeme@POWERLINK.CO.NZ> wrote:

> Matthew,
>
> You did say at the begining that your target fuels were biosolids which
> have
> a premium disposal cost. If you produce a bio-oil and then combust it to
> provide heat, then you can expect to have nasties in that emission.On the
> other hand ,clean new biomass shouldn't be a problem if you can get free
> energy to reduce this resource to powder.
>
> Apart from doing all the energy calculations, etc, would you explain why
> your vision of bio-oil production is better than exsisting established
> technologies? Obviously there are many ways to skin a cat, so how would
> you
> define such a differance to potential investors which you will surely
> need?
>
> In chosing to put your ideas to this forum exposing your ideal and
> aspirations, the risk of ridicule is high. It' very hard to ooh, and aahh
> over some ones discovery of the potentiol for biomass energy in all the
> form
> that it exsists. Every thing you need to know is not out there for the
> taking, and some knowledge is very expensive to aquire. We share what
> we
> can whithin our commercial obligations, and it is all offered with the
> best
> intentions, including the critisism. One thing is for sure, if it doesn't
> work, some one on this forum will tell you so.
>
> We are all working to make biomass energy credable, and your failure
> would
> be our failure, so don't run away because your rules don't fit the game.
> You
> have provided good discussion, and shaken excellent comment out of the
> members and there is more once you stop jumping around which confuses
> very
> specific technical comments.
>
> Doug Williams,
> Fluidyne Gasification.

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Wed Jun 9 18:07:58 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Fw: [GASL] Cyclone Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <3F678EC15E6D8F4EA7CDC3F389D9CC7E01335280@undeerc.eerc.und.NoDak.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUN.2004.180758.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

I know, that is why I did not see it as a totally impossible feedstock to
use. Problematic, yes, or more projects would be using it.

I by no means _insist_ on using biosolids, it is only one of many options,
but toxic emissions are always of concern and any process which can
minimize them no matter what the feedstock is always a bonus. I also found
something that is encouraging and also confirms what I thought about the
approach of two-step gasification using flash pyrolysis (whatever the
specific reactor design) as the first step.

As I suspected bio-oil has already been investigated with feedstocks
containing heavy metals. What was found is that most of the contaminants
including heavy metals remain in the char/ash because of the low
temperatures involved they do not become gasified and remain solid. The
resulting bio-oil is actually fairly clean. (Not completely, but it surely
is significant)

Gasifying this bio-oil using cold plasma, a process already designed to
destroy toxic emissions, and maybe doing some further cleaning may yield a
suprisingly clean gas.

http://www.euro-arab.com/index_eng.html?studies/english/waste/02-0014/02-0014-1.html

I am not trying to say I "know it all", but it looks like there is _some_
truth to what I am discovering in my own searches. I'm open to all options
available out there, but not the "no option" route. ;)

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:18:35 -0500, Musich, Mark A. <mmusich@undeerc.org>
wrote:

> We have looked at biosolids (municipal sewage sludge) as a fuel, most
> recently for gasification.
>
> As I recall, the only hazard associated with biosolids (with respect to
> handling) was the presence of pathogens (in non digested sludge), not
> heavy
> metals. I would also suspect that most municipalities are monitoring
> large
> industrial sources to make sure they are not discharging high
> concentrations
> of heavy metals. They may monitor right at the discharge sewer pipe.
>
> The big drawback to biosolids is the high moisture content of even
> dewatered
> sludges - 75 to 80 wt%.
>
> Mark Musich
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Pottinger [mailto:mpottinger@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 3:37 PM
> To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Fw: [GASL] Cyclone Gasifier [faked-from][heur]
>
>
> Well, biosolids was just one of the target fuels I was looking at, and I
> agree about the contaminants. Biosolids were appealing because nobody
> seems to want them and there are more than sufficient quantities of it at
> known locations. However, if biosolids are too toxic I would definitely
> not put all my eggs in that basket, it was merely a suggestion of one of
> many possible sources. Now that I know the heavy metal contamination
> problem is that much of an issue, I am turned off of it, but it was by no
> means the only fuel source I had in mind nor the first. I am looking at
> _anything_ that could be feasible, and will always be searching for new
> sources. One of the issues here is that I would like something that would
> be fuel flexible. If I find a new source of fuel, I want the system to be
> designed in such a way that it could most likely handle it.
>
> Pulverizing and drying solid fuels and having a first step which can
> convert pretty much any pulverized biomass into a liquid fuel, then
> having
> a second stage which can gasify liquids, including biomass which is
> already in liquid form without pyrolysis makes for a very fuel flexible
> system.
> That is why I find it so attractive.
>
> Permitting is always an issue with _any_ project, but the more stringent
> requirements are for those plants which are 10MWe and above. A small
> 500kw
> or 1MW embedded generator may need permits, but I do take that into
> consideration and have read the environmental regulations for my area.
> The
> Ontario Ministry of the environment regulations on new electricity
> projects say that biomass or waste biomass projects below 10MWe *don't
> require an environmental assesment*. Other permits for noise and a
> certificate of air are surely needed, but the small projects are not so
> vigorously screened as large ones. Now if I am using a regulated waste
> such as biosolids as fuel, then usually any site that accepts such a
> waste
> must be registered as a waste disposal/recycling site. _Now_ this is a
> big
> _but_, there is an exemption to this regulation, and it has been taken
> advantage of for paper biosolids, a facility does not have to register as
> a waste disposal site if it uses the waste to manufacture a product and
> does not incinerate (or gasify) the waste on-site. Using paper biosolids
> to make sound attenuation berms is one of those uses that was granted
> exemption. Why is this relevant? Bio-oil production is not incineration
> or
> combustion, you are producing a manufactured liquid fuel. Yes, there is
> combustion to provide the heat source, but another, _clean_ non-regulated
> source of biomass can be used as the heat source as the energy needed is
> only a small fraction of the biomass being converted to bio-oil. You now
> are manufacturing a product from biomass on this site which does not
> invovle combustion of the waste. This "product" is now a manufactured
> "green" fuel that can be transported to a power generation station at
> another location. Completely within the law, here at least, and you are
> no
> longer a "waste disposal" operation. I think this would help with any
> permitting issues in the way.
>
> Also, the footprint of a small generator the size of at _most_ a single
> truck trailer is so insignificant it seems silly to me to think such a
> thing would never be possible. What is 1.5 to 2 MW in the grand scheme of
> power generation? Microscopic at the very most. More like nano-scopic! :)
> When you are talking of 20 or 50MW that is a different story and you DO
> need rigorous environmental screening etc. Yet even then 50mw is
> considered by the power industry to be "small scale" :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 07:47:26 +1200, Graeme Williams
> <graeme@POWERLINK.CO.NZ> wrote:
>
>> Matthew,
>>
>> You did say at the begining that your target fuels were biosolids which
>> have
>> a premium disposal cost. If you produce a bio-oil and then combust it to
>> provide heat, then you can expect to have nasties in that emission.On
>> the
>> other hand ,clean new biomass shouldn't be a problem if you can get free
>> energy to reduce this resource to powder.
>>
>> Apart from doing all the energy calculations, etc, would you explain why
>> your vision of bio-oil production is better than exsisting established
>> technologies? Obviously there are many ways to skin a cat, so how would
>> you
>> define such a differance to potential investors which you will surely
>> need?
>>
>> In chosing to put your ideas to this forum exposing your ideal and
>> aspirations, the risk of ridicule is high. It' very hard to ooh, and
>> aahh
>> over some ones discovery of the potentiol for biomass energy in all the
>> form
>> that it exsists. Every thing you need to know is not out there for the
>> taking, and some knowledge is very expensive to aquire. We share what
>> we
>> can whithin our commercial obligations, and it is all offered with the
>> best
>> intentions, including the critisism. One thing is for sure, if it
>> doesn't
>> work, some one on this forum will tell you so.
>>
>> We are all working to make biomass energy credable, and your failure
>> would
>> be our failure, so don't run away because your rules don't fit the game.
>> You
>> have provided good discussion, and shaken excellent comment out of the
>> members and there is more once you stop jumping around which confuses
>> very
>> specific technical comments.
>>
>> Doug Williams,
>> Fluidyne Gasification.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Matthew Pottinger
>
> Student
> Environmental Technology Program
> Durham College
> Ontario, Canada
>
> "Never underestimate people's
> ability to suppress inconvenient realities."
>
> "We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
> economically feasible."

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Wed Jun 9 18:43:28 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Fw: [GASL] Cyclone Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <002e01c44e5a$9e3ae6e0$d48f58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUN.2004.184328.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

> You did say at the begining that your target fuels were biosolids which
> have
> a premium disposal cost. If you produce a bio-oil and then combust it to
> provide heat, then you can expect to have nasties in that emission.

http://www.euro-arab.com/index_eng.html?studies/english/waste/02-0014/02-0014-1.html

Given the typical temperature conditions in bio-oil production, I found a
study which showed only 1% of the contaminants in the feestock end up in
the oil. The rest is left in the ash. Maybe this is different for
biosolids, but for toxic metal contaminated wood, the resulting bio-oil is
very clean.

Just in case you don't have time to follow all of the many links I post,
I'll just outline the important points which make the case for why I think
the approach I am suggesting _would_ have advantages to the well
established ways done for many years, and why any proposal to do this may
well show some very apparent advantages.

"Pyrolysis is an attractive technique to convert also the large flow of
contaminated biogenic waste. At a pyrolysis temperature of around 500 ?C
the gasification of toxic materials is suppressed and most of the harmful
substances are concentrated in the ash."

"Wood class H2, composite wood material as used in plywood, furniture
etc., and wood class H3, chemically treated wood like window frames,
doors, wooden balconies, industrial floorboards etc., has the most
significant heavy metal content."

"With the removal of the toxic materials in the wood by means of pyrolysis
the pyrolysis oils from these waste wood can be used later environmentally
friendly in a combustion test facility, gas turbine or in a diesel engine"

"In the pyrolysis at the normal process temperature of 500 ?C the heavy
metals Cr and Cu, present in wood treated with wood preservatives, are
concentrated in the charcoal. The oil contains only 1/1000 of the amount
originally present in the contaminated wood."

"The main task is to ensure that the toxic materials contained in the wood
are retained and not released in the environment. A material balance was
performed which showed that less than 1% was transferred to the oil. In
the combustion process a further reduction is possible. The encouraging
results form the basis for planning of a demonstration project, with the
oil used for electricity and heat generation."

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Wed Jun 9 19:21:22 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Fw: [GASL] Cyclone Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <opr9cmqqmr6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUN.2004.192122.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

One more advantage I forgot to mention:

Reforming a liquid fuel with a cold plasma POX system not only would
produce a cleaner gas, but you would have a constant gas output because
the process is much more controllable. One of the problems with producer
gas is the varying output of the gas, correct? This problem would not
exist in a bio-oil reformer. A constant flow of bio-oil and air can be
supplied.

So, lets see:

Higher density = lower transportation costs
Low viscosity liquid = easier to handle material

Less regulatory issues because bio-oil does not involve combustion of
waste if a supplementary, clean, non-regulated biomass heat source is used

Bio-oil production is considered legally as "product manufacturing" and
not a "waste disposal" facility as one step gasification definitely would.

Heavy metals remain in the char and not in the gas
Clean gas production, clean enough to allow _reliable_ engine operation
wear and tear possibly comparable to natural gas

Predictable, controllable gas output, no fluctuations.

Yes, thermal efficiency would be lower due to the two steps, but the
advantages, I believe, would far outweigh such a loss.

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 18:43:28 -0400, Matthew Pottinger
<mpottinger@renewableplanet.ca> wrote:

>
>> You did say at the begining that your target fuels were biosolids which
>> have
>> a premium disposal cost. If you produce a bio-oil and then combust it to
>> provide heat, then you can expect to have nasties in that emission.
>
> http://www.euro-arab.com/index_eng.html?studies/english/waste/02-0014/02-0014-1.html
>
> Given the typical temperature conditions in bio-oil production, I found
> a study which showed only 1% of the contaminants in the feestock end up
> in the oil. The rest is left in the ash. Maybe this is different for
> biosolids, but for toxic metal contaminated wood, the resulting bio-oil
> is very clean.
>
> Just in case you don't have time to follow all of the many links I post,
> I'll just outline the important points which make the case for why I
> think the approach I am suggesting _would_ have advantages to the well
> established ways done for many years, and why any proposal to do this
> may well show some very apparent advantages.
>
> "Pyrolysis is an attractive technique to convert also the large flow of
> contaminated biogenic waste. At a pyrolysis temperature of around 500 ?C
> the gasification of toxic materials is suppressed and most of the
> harmful substances are concentrated in the ash."
>
> "Wood class H2, composite wood material as used in plywood, furniture
> etc., and wood class H3, chemically treated wood like window frames,
> doors, wooden balconies, industrial floorboards etc., has the most
> significant heavy metal content."
>
> "With the removal of the toxic materials in the wood by means of
> pyrolysis the pyrolysis oils from these waste wood can be used later
> environmentally friendly in a combustion test facility, gas turbine or
> in a diesel engine"
>
> "In the pyrolysis at the normal process temperature of 500 ?C the heavy
> metals Cr and Cu, present in wood treated with wood preservatives, are
> concentrated in the charcoal. The oil contains only 1/1000 of the amount
> originally present in the contaminated wood."
>
> "The main task is to ensure that the toxic materials contained in the
> wood are retained and not released in the environment. A material
> balance was performed which showed that less than 1% was transferred to
> the oil. In the combustion process a further reduction is possible. The
> encouraging results form the basis for planning of a demonstration
> project, with the oil used for electricity and heat generation."
>
>

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Wed Jun 9 19:33:47 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <001f01c44e77$546fbbe0$d98f58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUN.2004.193347.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Hmmm, dioxins, nasty. I would probably avoid feedstocks containing
chlorine, if possible. I don't know much yet about the chemistry of dioxin
formation, I thought it was only formed under incineration
(oxidizing)conditions However, if that is so, what would make it a
transportation problem? If the bio-oil contains dioxins, they can remain
in there until the gasification step takes place. Cold plasma is used to
destroy compounds such as dioxins at low temperatures, so it should be
destroyed at the point of use. There must be a solution.

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:12:37 +1200, Graeme Williams
<graeme@powerlink.co.nz> wrote:

> Mathew,
> You say:
>
>> In the first step - flash pyrolysis- a large part of the contaminants
>> (alkali?s, chlorine, bromine, sulphur) are already removed by the very
>> nature of the process and left behind in the char or ash. Gas cleaning
>> requirements would be greatly reduced.
>
> If you have chlorine in the fuel, the lower temperatures of pyrolysis
> create
> the perfect environment for the formation of dioxin, were a benzine ring
> forms and picks up the chlorine. this is enhanced in the presence of an
> alkaline moisture saturated atmosphere . This would make a nasty mixture
> and
> could be a problem to transport unless you had close coupled cracking on
> site.
>
> Doug Williams.
> Fluidyne Gasification.
>

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Wed Jun 9 19:47:39 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Cyclone Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <opr9co2lhy6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUN.2004.194739.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Ah, that was assuming that the dioxins are dissolved in the bio-oil and
not as part of the gaseous product which makes up a small percentage of
the end product, which I suspect it might be. If the dioxins are in
gaseous phase after bio-oil condensdation, they could be cracked/destroyed
on-site in that case. At least I know the heavy metals would not become
part of the oil. If other chemicals are present in the small amount of gas
produced in the pyrolysis reactor, then emissions controls will be needed,
but this is for a pretty small volume of gas that needs to be treated in
that case. Now, if you mean it will be dissolved in the oil itself
(dioxins are a gas at room temperature aren't they?), then why would it
become a transportation problem? We already know that bio-oil contains all
sorts of nasty chemicals, but that has never been mentioned as a problem.
Diesel and gasoline are nasty chemicals also!

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:33:47 -0400, Matthew Pottinger
<mpottinger@renewableplanet.ca> wrote:

>
> Hmmm, dioxins, nasty. I would probably avoid feedstocks containing
> chlorine, if possible. I don't know much yet about the chemistry of
> dioxin formation, I thought it was only formed under incineration
> (oxidizing)conditions However, if that is so, what would make it a
> transportation problem? If the bio-oil contains dioxins, they can remain
> in there until the gasification step takes place. Cold plasma is used to
> destroy compounds such as dioxins at low temperatures, so it should be
> destroyed at the point of use. There must be a solution.
>
>
>
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:12:37 +1200, Graeme Williams
> <graeme@powerlink.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Mathew,
>> You say:
>>
>>> In the first step - flash pyrolysis- a large part of the contaminants
>>> (alkali?s, chlorine, bromine, sulphur) are already removed by the very
>>> nature of the process and left behind in the char or ash. Gas cleaning
>>> requirements would be greatly reduced.
>>
>> If you have chlorine in the fuel, the lower temperatures of pyrolysis
>> create
>> the perfect environment for the formation of dioxin, were a benzine ring
>> forms and picks up the chlorine. this is enhanced in the presence of an
>> alkaline moisture saturated atmosphere . This would make a nasty
>> mixture and
>> could be a problem to transport unless you had close coupled cracking on
>> site.
>>
>> Doug Williams.
>> Fluidyne Gasification.
>>
>
>
>

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ Wed Jun 9 19:51:40 2004
From: graeme at POWERLINK.CO.NZ (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Fw: [GASL] Cyclone Gasifier
Message-ID: <THU.10.JUN.2004.115140.1200.GRAEME@POWERLINK.CO.NZ>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Graeme Williams" <graeme@powerlink.co.nz>
To: "Matthew Pottinger" <mpottinger@renewableplanet.ca>
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Cyclone Gasifier

> Matthew,
> Briefly, it's a problem to handle these liquids because if a spillage
> accurse the clean-up is a major exercise.
> I now leave this forum until August.You should trim your postings.
>
> Doug Williams,
> Fluidyne Gasification.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matthew Pottinger" <mpottinger@renewableplanet.ca>
> To: "Graeme Williams" <graeme@powerlink.co.nz>;
> <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 11:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Cyclone Gasifier
>
>
> >
> > Hmmm, dioxins, nasty. I would probably avoid feedstocks containing
> > chlorine, if possible. I don't know much yet about the chemistry of
dioxin
> > formation, I thought it was only formed under incineration
> > (oxidizing)conditions However, if that is so, what would make it a
> > transportation problem? If the bio-oil contains dioxins, they can remain
> > in there until the gasification step takes place. Cold plasma is used to
> > destroy compounds such as dioxins at low temperatures, so it should be
> > destroyed at the point of use. There must be a solution.
> >
> >
>

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Wed Jun 9 20:26:14 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:57 2004
Subject: Fw: [GASL] Cyclone Gasifier
In-Reply-To: <005101c44e7c$b81658c0$d98f58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <WED.9.JUN.2004.202614.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Very true. Spillage is a problem when any liquids are being transported. I
think whether it be bio-oil, diesel, gasoline, heavy oil, or any liquid
fuel for that matter, they are usually quite toxic. Bio-oil, even in the
scenario where contaminated with dioxins, is no more toxic than gasoline,
or heavy fuel oil. I certainly would not want to own a company which owns
trucks that transport this fuel. Most people who use liquid fuels have
someone transport it for them, so a company would have to be hired which
specializes in hauling these sorts of liquids and has insurance and is
permitted to transport such liquids. You're very right, spillage is a
problem, but no more than if you had a large diesel genset that needed
fuel delivered to it. A spill of that stuff is no better. No fuel is
pleasant if you have a spill, but toxic fuels are transported in massive
quantities all the time. Oil is a toxic and messy, non-renewable liquid,
and it runs our society! :)

You're leaving for now? Well, it was really nice discussing all these
things with you, I have already learned much. T Despite any criticism I
recieved, it was constructive and I've enjoyed it. Thank you, and take
care!

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:51:40 +1200, Graeme Williams
<graeme@POWERLINK.CO.NZ> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Graeme Williams" <graeme@powerlink.co.nz>
> To: "Matthew Pottinger" <mpottinger@renewableplanet.ca>
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 11:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Cyclone Gasifier
>
>
>> Matthew,
>> Briefly, it's a problem to handle these liquids because if a spillage
>> accurse the clean-up is a major exercise.
>> I now leave this forum until August.You should trim your postings.
>>
>> Doug Williams,
>> Fluidyne Gasification.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Matthew Pottinger" <mpottinger@renewableplanet.ca>
>> To: "Graeme Williams" <graeme@powerlink.co.nz>;
>> <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 11:33 AM
>> Subject: Re: [GASL] Cyclone Gasifier
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Hmmm, dioxins, nasty. I would probably avoid feedstocks containing
>> > chlorine, if possible. I don't know much yet about the chemistry of
> dioxin
>> > formation, I thought it was only formed under incineration
>> > (oxidizing)conditions However, if that is so, what would make it a
>> > transportation problem? If the bio-oil contains dioxins, they can
>> remain
>> > in there until the gasification step takes place. Cold plasma is used
>> to
>> > destroy compounds such as dioxins at low temperatures, so it should be
>> > destroyed at the point of use. There must be a solution.
>> >
>> >
>>

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From arnt at C2I.NET Thu Jun 10 15:34:25 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: ..thermochemical gasification of chemical weapons?
Message-ID: <THU.10.JUN.2004.213425.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

Hi,

..on the destruction of "weapons of mass destruction",
there is also VX to get rid of, _some_ details on what it is:
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/vx/basics/facts.asp
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/facility/newport.htm
...the remainder may be classified for rather obvious
reasons in these times.

..how activists respond:
http://www.cwwg.org/cwwg.html

..can thermochemical gasification (TCG) do the job?
the word in their "Learning not to burn" pdf has TCG
as bad as incineration and pyrolysis, producing furans,
dioxins etc.

..does VX contain metals, or is it a "pure" organic substance?

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

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Fri Jun 11 11:56:03 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
In-Reply-To: <opr9fs64no6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <FRI.11.JUN.2004.115603.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:55:42 -0400, Matthew Pottinger
<mpottinger@renewableplanet.ca> wrote:

>> I have been asking myself if your work has something to
>> do with a master degree or doctorate degree... if that is the case, I
>> would
>> really appreciate telling me a briefing regarding the objectives of the
>> thesis or whatever it is....
>> ...or it is simply a hobby to fullfil....???
>>
>> regards.
>>
>> Oscar.
>>
>>
>
> Well, both, sort of. My interest in it is partly for furthering my
> academic career, a hobby, and also a dream of a young entrepreneur who
> wants to make his dreams a reality. It is a hobby type interest
> currently, and any chance I get in school to demonstrate what I have
> learned I will take, but the main reason I am learning and discussing
> all this is because I eventually want it to be the way that I bring in
> the $$$ and put a roof over my head ;)
>
>
>

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK Fri Jun 11 12:40:26 2004
From: list at SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK (Andrew Heggie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
In-Reply-To: <opr9fs7pmu6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <FRI.11.JUN.2004.174026.0100.>

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:56:03 -0400, Matthew Pottinger wrote:

>> currently, and any chance I get in school to demonstrate what I have
>> learned I will take, but the main reason I am learning and discussing
>> all this is because I eventually want it to be the way that I bring in
>> the $$$ and put a roof over my head ;)

Right on Matthew, it's still my ambition to earn some money from this
wood burning before I retire ;-), note the wood burning rather than
biosolids. It's chopping the trees down that's kept the roof over so
far. I suspect Dan the carefree bloke is in a similar position, he
heats greenhouse with wood and wanted to make electricity also, though
I haven't heard from him for a while.

I haven't read all your posts but it looks to me that you have plumped
for similar solutions I was looking at, and truth be known I suspect a
number of gasifiers were operating closer to pyrolysers when you look
at the char content of the ash.

The ill fated Arbre project in N England seemed to have provision for
re firing the char in a steam boiler after exiting from the gasifier.

AJH

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Fri Jun 11 13:37:37 2004
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: ..thermochemical gasification of chemical weapons?
Message-ID: <FRI.11.JUN.2004.133737.EDT.>

In a message dated 6/11/04 6:05:15 AM, arnt@C2I.NET writes:

<< http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/facility/newport.htm >>

Dear Arnt,
Gasification of VX is probably not a problem. We have gasified liquids by
mixing them with solids. The high hydrocarbon composition probably lends
itself to adequate heating value.
I notice that they have let a contract for $295mm for high pressure steam
oxidation of the material. Nice work if you can get it.

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Fri Jun 11 15:03:26 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
Message-ID: <FRI.11.JUN.2004.150326.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Well of course! I know it is not an easy or sure thing. I may be stubborn
but I'm not blind. :)

That is why I am also pursuing a career in environmental technology, which
is becoming a very promising career right now. That is my safety net in case
my entrepreneurial dreams don't pan out, and a very sturdy one at that!
Though in the beginning, most of my funds will go towards school, I plan to
work towards putting a lot of income towards fulfilling my dreams. So the
roof over my head will be small for then! But I hope my investment pays off,
that is a risk I am willing to take. I am a young entrepreneur, and we, as a
stubborn breed, are not wise enough to know something is impossible, so we
do it anyway. Somtimes, it ends up working. That is what separates an
entrepreneur from a scientist or engineer. Scientists and engineers do not
take risks.

I have taken business courses and I have learned the difference between
large established companies and wild entrepreneurs. I am the latter. We take
risks others would not _dare_ take. That is the whole point, that is what we
are after. It may fail, but we try things that others would not, and in
that, we find small niches which others would not be even remotely
interested in, because it's impossible. Speak to any real business person
who started out as an entrepreneur, someone who did something exciting and
radical and succeeded. When the risk of failure is high, that is when it is
the most exciting. As an engineer, well, they don't see it that way. They
see certain _doom_! :)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar L.. Jimenez" <joscar1@hotmail.com>
To: <mpottinger@renewableplanet.ca>
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 1:55 PM
Subject: RE: [GASL] Gasification of biosolids

> >the main reason I am learning and discussing all this is because I
> >eventually want it to be the way that I bring in the $$$ and put a roof
> >over my head ;)
>
> ....getting a roof over our heads is a real important and a serious issue
on
> any part of the world... however, I don't know how it is up there in
Canada,
> but as far as I have been observing during my life, which should be a bit
> older than yours, it seems a very long run and not wholly guaranteed
making
> some $$$ on a science-making basis. Not having a roof to live under is a
> rather too complex problem not allowing to wait too long for reaching at.
Is
> not there any other more practical way around for getting what you
> need...??? not stopping, of course, your science-making dreams...???
Think
> it over...my young friend...!!
>
> kindest regards.
>
> Oscar.
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Oscar L. Jimenez
> Energy Project Manager
> Centre for the Management of Priorized Projects and Programmes.
> Innovation and Energy Division.
> Calle 20 No. 4112 e/ 41 y 47
> Alturas de Miramar, Playa. CP 11300
> Ciudad Habana, Cuba.
> Phone. (537)202 70 96
> Fax. (537) 202 93 72
> E-mail: joscar1@hotmail.com; oscar@geprop.cu
> Website:www.geprop.cu
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Fri Jun 11 16:05:43 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
Message-ID: <FRI.11.JUN.2004.160543.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

I read on the Arbre project after you mentioned it. My project is nowhere
near as ambitious as it is much smaller scale. I'm also looking at many
different types of fuel. Wood is actually the last on my list. I am finding
some materials in my local area which are much more promising and easier to
convert than wood or biosolids. Some of the fuels I have looked at are
by-products that are rarely mentioned on the gasification list because they
are not suitable for downdraft gasification.

How many people are aware of the feedstocks I am looking at is unknown by
me, but just in case I am on to something I will keep them close to my chest
;) Not that it is anything classified or x-files, but if people aren't
looking at it, don't make them look or be too vocal about it I guess, if
there is an opportunity. There are some feedstocks out there that are very
high energy density and low enough cost that it could be feasible, and they
are generally not looked at as an energy source and are used in massive
quantities for some other low value uses. The best feedstocks are those that
already have a transportation infrastructure in place. Biosolids are one of
those, but it has other problems which make it unattractive, the trick is to
find one which has that infrastructure, has the energy content, doesn't have
the contaminants and regulations that biosolids has, and yet is undervalued.
Not easy, and you have to be a good detective as others are looking for the
same thing, but they _are_ out there in certain places and not looked at as
an energy sources by the local businesses. Despite any risk, I see
opportunity in those small niches. I am _not_ talking about supplying the
world with free energy. I am talking about free energy on a very small scale
which can be sold without having the cost of fuel & generation eating the
revenue away.

Now, policies and regulations in some of your areas differ. Some countries,
states, cities, are really strict, don't have the electricity de-regulation
in place, and I can see the lack of optimism from people who come from those
countries. I am fortunate in my area to be in a marketplace that has changed
rapidly over the past few years. Where there was absolutely no opportunity
just three years ago, policy changes have opened it up greatly, and this
will continue to improve even within a few short years. Small scale power
producers are encouraged by policy changes in my area. The utility company
is required to purchase my power at the wholesale price which can get quite
high during the day and during the summer months, based on the biomass fuel
prices I have seen and the efficiency I could attain a decent profit can be
made from electricity alone, not counting CO2 credits & green energy price
premiums. A renewable energy system in my area pays no tax on it's income.
No environmental assesment is needed for small biomass power plants if they
are not using a hazardous or regulated waste. A certificate of air is
needed, which can be easy if using a clean biomass feed. There already _are_
biomass power plants in my area very close to where I live here operating on
residential food waste. Anaerobic digestion admittedly, but one of them is
5MW, the maximum size I wish to attain. I realize in some areas this may be
very difficult, and it may not even be possible to sell the power in some
places, but I know I can here, it is starting to be encouraged.

By no means are my ideas limited to gasification of biosolids, it is a
curiosity that I wish I could pursue much later on, but I like to discuss it
because it interests me greatly. That aside, I can see niches that can be
filled by those who look at all possible ways to generate electricity from
biomass. Believe me I am looking deeply. I just don't spill all the beans on
what I'm thinking, I only talk about gasification here on this list.

It isn't possible in all areas, and if you live in one where it isn't
possible, look at what is possible in other areas. No doubt there are
profits to be made for those who like adventure and look for niches in the r
ight places. The world isn't devoid of the opportunity, that I know, or at
least strongly have faith in ;) I've recieved promising encouragement from
some in the business who say it _is_ possible, and that's what will keep the
spark going. ;)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Heggie" <list@SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Gasification of biosolids

From praufast at FREE.FR Fri Jun 11 18:47:43 2004
From: praufast at FREE.FR (Philippe)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: 2 steps : flash pyrolysis + molten slag entrained flow
gasification
Message-ID: <FRI.11.JUN.2004.234743.0100.>

Hi Matthew,

Maybe you will find this document interesting :

http://www.fzk.de/stellent/groups/itc-cpv/documents/published_pages/itccpv__20_90__publ_ia401545fb.pdf

"CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK

The new two-step pyrolysis/gasification process is flexible and suited also for dry herbaceous biomass
feedstocks like straw, which have a higher ash, potassium and chlorine content than wood. The biomass
is first liquefied by fast pyrolysis at 500°C and atmospheric pressure. The size of the pyrolysis
facilities corresponds to the scheduled in-time delivery by the regional farmers. A dense slurry is prepared
from the condensable pyrolysis oil and the solid char, which contains up to 90% of the original
biomass energy. The slurries are easily pumped and compactly stored in tanks and are transported by
rail to a large central plant for gasification and efficient syngas use. A slagging entrained flow gasifier
operating at high temperature and pressure produces a tar-free syngas, simplifies syngas cleaning
and obviates intermediate syngas compression prior to synthesis. This gasifier type can be designed
to operate with a number of different gaseous, liquid or slurry fuels and also with pulverised coal. The
large flexibility eases market introduction for small biofuel shares.
Though all process steps are known in principle, some need improvements and modification to guarantee
an optimum integration into the total process sequence. Key process steps in this direction are
development and scale-up of fast pyrolysis technology, slurry preparation and handling and the development
of suitable slurry atomisation procedures in the gasifier. All of the theoretical and experimental
aspects of biomass gasification are covered by a larger working group at the Karlsruhe research center."

Regards, Philippe.

From snkm at BTL.NET Fri Jun 11 19:13:54 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
Message-ID: <FRI.11.JUN.2004.171354.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 03:03 PM 6/11/2004 -0400, Matthew Pottinger wrote:
>Well of course! I know it is not an easy or sure thing. I may be stubborn
>but I'm not blind. :)

How about terrible tunnel vision??

Kevin designed a furnace/incinerator for destroying toxic chemicals in an
extremely high temperature environment. As in destroying PCBs -- etc.

This went through a long approval process -- finally passing all tests and
becoming certified for such.

Now -- the Kicker -- this all occurred in Canada!! Right where you are
aiming to get into business -- right!!

I worked with Kevin to adapt an energy extraction system. We ended up
designing in the excellent ORC system of Ormat.

Why?? Because it is a closed system already pressure certified -- so just
add it on -- and the entire system is approved.

The heat transfer from fire pit to ORC is accomplished with thermal oil --
under no pressures!!

Over all plant efficiencies are in the plus 18% range -- probably plus 20%!!

Kevin's incinerator will burn any kind of fuel to 55% humidity!!

But here is Matt -- only looking at gasifiers!! Beating a dead horse -- no
sense of "INNOVATION" -- dead wood -- etc.

Tunnel vision -- you are the perfect example.

Peter -- also a Canadian -- but now living in Belize.

>
>That is why I am also pursuing a career in environmental technology, which
>is becoming a very promising career right now. That is my safety net in case
>my entrepreneurial dreams don't pan out, and a very sturdy one at that!
>Though in the beginning, most of my funds will go towards school, I plan to
>work towards putting a lot of income towards fulfilling my dreams. So the
>roof over my head will be small for then! But I hope my investment pays off,
>that is a risk I am willing to take. I am a young entrepreneur, and we, as a
>stubborn breed, are not wise enough to know something is impossible, so we
>do it anyway. Somtimes, it ends up working. That is what separates an
>entrepreneur from a scientist or engineer. Scientists and engineers do not
>take risks.
>
>I have taken business courses and I have learned the difference between
>large established companies and wild entrepreneurs. I am the latter. We take
>risks others would not _dare_ take. That is the whole point, that is what we
>are after. It may fail, but we try things that others would not, and in
>that, we find small niches which others would not be even remotely
>interested in, because it's impossible. Speak to any real business person
>who started out as an entrepreneur, someone who did something exciting and
>radical and succeeded. When the risk of failure is high, that is when it is
>the most exciting. As an engineer, well, they don't see it that way. They
>see certain _doom_! :)
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Oscar L.. Jimenez" <joscar1@hotmail.com>
>To: <mpottinger@renewableplanet.ca>
>Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 1:55 PM
>Subject: RE: [GASL] Gasification of biosolids
>
>
>> >the main reason I am learning and discussing all this is because I
>> >eventually want it to be the way that I bring in the $$$ and put a roof
>> >over my head ;)
>>
>> ....getting a roof over our heads is a real important and a serious issue
>on
>> any part of the world... however, I don't know how it is up there in
>Canada,
>> but as far as I have been observing during my life, which should be a bit
>> older than yours, it seems a very long run and not wholly guaranteed
>making
>> some $$$ on a science-making basis. Not having a roof to live under is a
>> rather too complex problem not allowing to wait too long for reaching at.
>Is
>> not there any other more practical way around for getting what you
>> need...??? not stopping, of course, your science-making dreams...???
>Think
>> it over...my young friend...!!
>>
>> kindest regards.
>>
>> Oscar.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr. Oscar L. Jimenez
>> Energy Project Manager
>> Centre for the Management of Priorized Projects and Programmes.
>> Innovation and Energy Division.
>> Calle 20 No. 4112 e/ 41 y 47
>> Alturas de Miramar, Playa. CP 11300
>> Ciudad Habana, Cuba.
>> Phone. (537)202 70 96
>> Fax. (537) 202 93 72
>> E-mail: joscar1@hotmail.com; oscar@geprop.cu
>> Website:www.geprop.cu
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
>> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>>
>>
>

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Fri Jun 11 20:28:27 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20040611143736.00a3cb60@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <FRI.11.JUN.2004.202827.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Well, as I was saying I am not so much set on using biosolids or anything
contaminated for that matter, and I have a good system in mind for the
materials that I am _really_ interested in, which I really never talk
about with anyone so only I can figure out what I need for it, but my mind
is open to anything which works best and could provide the greatest
chances of success.

I have seriously considered Kevin's system, but purchase cost and
efficiency is key. I need at _least_ 30% efficiency for it to be viable.
Initial investment can't be too high either or it would be totally out of
my reach. What is the cost per kw of the Ormat system? I have looked at
other ORC systems very seriously before, as I told you I have done much
reading on ORC and Stirling before and the capital cost turned out to be
over $1200 per kw for either of them. This would make a relatively small
250kw system cost over $300,000 for the genset alone, not to mention
everything else. That startup cost is too high for me, even if there are
advantages, the cost can't be escaped.

Capital cost can make such closed systems beyond my capability to attain
funding for, even if there are benefits such as higher reliability less
maintenance, and longer life cycle.

However, if I ever get into the wonderful world of biosolids, the choice
will come down to what to use for them. Kevins system does sound ideal for
it, paper biosolids might be good with his sytem also,but it would still
classify as biosolids incineration which is becoming a bad word whether
that is right or not, unfortunately, as gasification and sometimes even
pyrolysis are classified as incineration. If ever I were to use this
system, I would only use it when the time comes that I really want to try
biosolids though. Right now I'm catching on to other fuel sources.

If you can give me a price on this system, and that price is _good_, you
can bet that I will be more interested, I guarantee it. ;)

Sincerely, Matt

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:13:54 -0600, Peter Singfield <snkm@BTL.NET> wrote:

> At 03:03 PM 6/11/2004 -0400, Matthew Pottinger wrote:
>> Well of course! I know it is not an easy or sure thing. I may be
>> stubborn
>> but I'm not blind. :)
>
> How about terrible tunnel vision??
>
> Kevin designed a furnace/incinerator for destroying toxic chemicals in an
> extremely high temperature environment. As in destroying PCBs -- etc.
>
> This went through a long approval process -- finally passing all tests
> and
> becoming certified for such.
>
> Now -- the Kicker -- this all occurred in Canada!! Right where you are
> aiming to get into business -- right!!
>
> I worked with Kevin to adapt an energy extraction system. We ended up
> designing in the excellent ORC system of Ormat.
>
> Why?? Because it is a closed system already pressure certified -- so just
> add it on -- and the entire system is approved.
>
> The heat transfer from fire pit to ORC is accomplished with thermal oil
> --
> under no pressures!!
>
> Over all plant efficiencies are in the plus 18% range -- probably plus
> 20%!!
>
> Kevin's incinerator will burn any kind of fuel to 55% humidity!!
>
> But here is Matt -- only looking at gasifiers!! Beating a dead horse --
> no
> sense of "INNOVATION" -- dead wood -- etc.
>
> Tunnel vision -- you are the perfect example.
>
> Peter -- also a Canadian -- but now living in Belize.
>
>
>>
>> That is why I am also pursuing a career in environmental technology,
>> which
>> is becoming a very promising career right now. That is my safety net in
>> case
>> my entrepreneurial dreams don't pan out, and a very sturdy one at that!
>> Though in the beginning, most of my funds will go towards school, I
>> plan to
>> work towards putting a lot of income towards fulfilling my dreams. So
>> the
>> roof over my head will be small for then! But I hope my investment pays
>> off,
>> that is a risk I am willing to take. I am a young entrepreneur, and we,
>> as a
>> stubborn breed, are not wise enough to know something is impossible, so
>> we
>> do it anyway. Somtimes, it ends up working. That is what separates an
>> entrepreneur from a scientist or engineer. Scientists and engineers do
>> not
>> take risks.
>>
>> I have taken business courses and I have learned the difference between
>> large established companies and wild entrepreneurs. I am the latter. We
>> take
>> risks others would not _dare_ take. That is the whole point, that is
>> what we
>> are after. It may fail, but we try things that others would not, and in
>> that, we find small niches which others would not be even remotely
>> interested in, because it's impossible. Speak to any real business
>> person
>> who started out as an entrepreneur, someone who did something exciting
>> and
>> radical and succeeded. When the risk of failure is high, that is when
>> it is
>> the most exciting. As an engineer, well, they don't see it that way.
>> They
>> see certain _doom_! :)
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Oscar L.. Jimenez" <joscar1@hotmail.com>
>> To: <mpottinger@renewableplanet.ca>
>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 1:55 PM
>> Subject: RE: [GASL] Gasification of biosolids
>>
>>
>>> >the main reason I am learning and discussing all this is because I
>>> >eventually want it to be the way that I bring in the $$$ and put a
>>> roof
>>> >over my head ;)
>>>
>>> ....getting a roof over our heads is a real important and a serious
>>> issue
>> on
>>> any part of the world... however, I don't know how it is up there in
>> Canada,
>>> but as far as I have been observing during my life, which should be a
>>> bit
>>> older than yours, it seems a very long run and not wholly guaranteed
>> making
>>> some $$$ on a science-making basis. Not having a roof to live under is
>>> a
>>> rather too complex problem not allowing to wait too long for reaching
>>> at.
>> Is
>>> not there any other more practical way around for getting what you
>>> need...??? not stopping, of course, your science-making dreams...???
>> Think
>>> it over...my young friend...!!
>>>
>>> kindest regards.
>>>
>>> Oscar.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dr. Oscar L. Jimenez
>>> Energy Project Manager
>>> Centre for the Management of Priorized Projects and Programmes.
>>> Innovation and Energy Division.
>>> Calle 20 No. 4112 e/ 41 y 47
>>> Alturas de Miramar, Playa. CP 11300
>>> Ciudad Habana, Cuba.
>>> Phone. (537)202 70 96
>>> Fax. (537) 202 93 72
>>> E-mail: joscar1@hotmail.com; oscar@geprop.cu
>>> Website:www.geprop.cu
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
>>> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>>>
>>>
>>

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Sat Jun 12 12:52:39 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Unmixed Reforming
Message-ID: <SAT.12.JUN.2004.125239.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Here is something unusual that I found. I never heard of this before. It's
called "unmixed reforming", and it is a way of steam reforming without the
need for external heating, and pure, undiluted synthesis gas production
without the need for pure oxygen.

It works as an intermittent cycle. Oxygen is absorbed from hot air by an
absorbent in the first stage, and then in the next stage the oxygen is
released into the fuel/steam mixture and CO2 is absorbed and removed from
the synthesis gas during the process.

"Wet biomass is a potentially valuable energy resource but it cannot be
shipped economically. If wet biomass could be converted to hydrogen, the
hydrogen could be used in fuel cells to provide electricity and space
heating to farms and other rural facilities. However, the only presently
available technology for this conversion, steam reforming, is not
economical for small installations. This project will adapt a new
technology, unmixed reforming, for the economical conversion of wet
biomass at small facilities. In Phase I, an existing fluid bed reactor
system was used for a bench scale demonstration of the technology. Wet
saw dust and wet switch grass were converted to 95+% pure hydrogen at a
rate sufficient to power a fuel cell with a 1.4 kilowatt output. An
analysis of process thermodynamics showed that a water content of up to
50% in the feed had no adverse effect on the process. A cost analysis
showed that this technology compared very favorably with other
technologies now under development. In Phase II, a prototype that can
produce hydrogen from biomass at a very attractive price will be built and
demonstrated.

Commercial Applications And Other Benefits as described by the awardee:
This technology should provide cheap rural electric and space heating with
zero use of fossil fuels and zero emissions of CO2 or other pollutants.
"

http://www.science.doe.gov/sbir/awards_abstracts/sbirsttr/cycle19/phase1/151.htm

http://www.waterstof.org/20030725EHECO1-79.pdf

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race,
but it just wouldn't be economically feasible."

From Steve.Goldthorpe at XTRA.CO.NZ Sat Jun 12 17:27:58 2004
From: Steve.Goldthorpe at XTRA.CO.NZ (Steve Goldthorpe)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Unmixed Reforming
Message-ID: <SUN.13.JUN.2004.092758.1200.STEVE.GOLDTHORPE@XTRA.CO.NZ>

Matthew,

This unmixed reforming concept is fascinating, but it sounds too good to be
true. The research paper abstract, based in the use of pure methane, seems
to be a reasonable academic search for a novel processing concept, but makes
no claims for thermodynamic viability on real applications. The text the
you copied from the DOE awards website sounds a few warning bells and
appears to be extrapolating significantly from the basic concept of
autothermal operation. So I have done a couple of quick
mass/element/energy balance calculations to check it out.

The oxidation phase of the process involves balancing exothermic oxidation
of nickel to nickel oxide with endothermic calcination of calcium carbonate
to calcium oxide. The heat of formation of NiO is -58.4 kcal/mole and the
heat of calcination of limestone is 137.84 kcal/mole. Therefore at least
2.36 atoms of oxygen will be absorbed for each molecule of CO2 released. In
fact the O:CO2 ratio will be greater than 2.36 because of the need to heat
the associated nitrogen in the air supply.

The reduction phase of the process involves regeneration of the nickel with
hydrogen with the consequent production of H2O. This exothermic reaction
provides heat for fuel reforming to hydrogen. If the fuel is methane (CH4)
then the net reforming process to CO2 and H2O requires oxygen at the rate of
3 atoms of oxygen per molecule of CO2 produced. Since an 0:CO2 ratio of 3
in the reduction phase is greater than the minimum ratio of 2.36 in the
oxidation phase then it is possible that the process could be
thermodynamically feasible without any additional energy input.

However, if the fuel is in the form of biomass (CH2O) then the net reforming
process to CO2 and H2O requires oxygen at the rate of 2 atoms of oxygen
consumed (nickel reduced) per molecule of CO2 produced (and absorbed by
CaO). Since the O:CO2 ratio of 2 in the reduction phase is less than the
minimum ratio of 2.36 in the oxidation phase then the process is not
thermodynamically feasible without additional energy input, so there can be
no net production of hydrogen.

I conclude that the claimed concept for conversion of wet biomass to
hydrogen via unmixed reforming is thermodynamically flawed.

I hope this view is helpful to your studies.

Regards

Steve

Steve Goldthorpe Energy Analyst Limited
PO Box 96, Waipu 0254, New Zealand
and Waipu Wanderers Backpackers
25 St Mary's Road, Waipu, Northland
Phone/Fax (NZ) 09 432 0532
Mobile (NZ) 0274 849 764
Email Steve.Goldthorpe@xtra.co.nz
and Waipu.Wanderers@xtra.co.nz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Pottinger" <mpottinger@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 4:52 AM
Subject: [GASL] Unmixed Reforming

> Here is something unusual that I found. I never heard of this before. It's
> called "unmixed reforming", and it is a way of steam reforming without the
> need for external heating, and pure, undiluted synthesis gas production
> without the need for pure oxygen.
>
> It works as an intermittent cycle. Oxygen is absorbed from hot air by an
> absorbent in the first stage, and then in the next stage the oxygen is
> released into the fuel/steam mixture and CO2 is absorbed and removed from
> the synthesis gas during the process.
>
> "Wet biomass is a potentially valuable energy resource but it cannot be
> shipped economically. If wet biomass could be converted to hydrogen, the
> hydrogen could be used in fuel cells to provide electricity and space
> heating to farms and other rural facilities. However, the only presently
> available technology for this conversion, steam reforming, is not
> economical for small installations. This project will adapt a new
> technology, unmixed reforming, for the economical conversion of wet
> biomass at small facilities. In Phase I, an existing fluid bed reactor
> system was used for a bench scale demonstration of the technology. Wet
> saw dust and wet switch grass were converted to 95+% pure hydrogen at a
> rate sufficient to power a fuel cell with a 1.4 kilowatt output. An
> analysis of process thermodynamics showed that a water content of up to
> 50% in the feed had no adverse effect on the process. A cost analysis
> showed that this technology compared very favorably with other
> technologies now under development. In Phase II, a prototype that can
> produce hydrogen from biomass at a very attractive price will be built and
> demonstrated.
>
> Commercial Applications And Other Benefits as described by the awardee:
> This technology should provide cheap rural electric and space heating with
> zero use of fossil fuels and zero emissions of CO2 or other pollutants.
> "
>
>
>
http://www.science.doe.gov/sbir/awards_abstracts/sbirsttr/cycle19/phase1/151
.htm
>
> http://www.waterstof.org/20030725EHECO1-79.pdf
>
> --
>
> Matthew Pottinger
>
> Student
> Environmental Technology Program
> Durham College
> Ontario, Canada
>
> "Never underestimate people's
> ability to suppress inconvenient realities."
>
> "We could avoid the extinction of the human race,
> but it just wouldn't be economically feasible."

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Sat Jun 12 18:00:57 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Unmixed Reforming
Message-ID: <SAT.12.JUN.2004.180057.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Interesting.... well, we'll see if anything practical becomes of it, you
would think that such flaws would be found in their current experiments. I
thought it was an interesting concept anyway. I wasn't seriously looking at
it as a commercial opportunity, but interesting research nonetheless.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Goldthorpe" <Steve.Goldthorpe@xtra.co.nz>
To: "Matthew Pottinger" <mpottinger@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>
Cc: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Unmixed Reforming

> Matthew,
>
> This unmixed reforming concept is fascinating, but it sounds too good to
be
> true. The research paper abstract, based in the use of pure methane, seems
> to be a reasonable academic search for a novel processing concept, but
makes
> no claims for thermodynamic viability on real applications. The text the
> you copied from the DOE awards website sounds a few warning bells and
> appears to be extrapolating significantly from the basic concept of
> autothermal operation. So I have done a couple of quick
> mass/element/energy balance calculations to check it out.
>
> The oxidation phase of the process involves balancing exothermic oxidation
> of nickel to nickel oxide with endothermic calcination of calcium
carbonate
> to calcium oxide. The heat of formation of NiO is -58.4 kcal/mole and the
> heat of calcination of limestone is 137.84 kcal/mole. Therefore at least
> 2.36 atoms of oxygen will be absorbed for each molecule of CO2 released.
In
> fact the O:CO2 ratio will be greater than 2.36 because of the need to heat
> the associated nitrogen in the air supply.
>
> The reduction phase of the process involves regeneration of the nickel
with
> hydrogen with the consequent production of H2O. This exothermic reaction
> provides heat for fuel reforming to hydrogen. If the fuel is methane
(CH4)
> then the net reforming process to CO2 and H2O requires oxygen at the rate
of
> 3 atoms of oxygen per molecule of CO2 produced. Since an 0:CO2 ratio of 3
> in the reduction phase is greater than the minimum ratio of 2.36 in the
> oxidation phase then it is possible that the process could be
> thermodynamically feasible without any additional energy input.
>
> However, if the fuel is in the form of biomass (CH2O) then the net
reforming
> process to CO2 and H2O requires oxygen at the rate of 2 atoms of oxygen
> consumed (nickel reduced) per molecule of CO2 produced (and absorbed by
> CaO). Since the O:CO2 ratio of 2 in the reduction phase is less than the
> minimum ratio of 2.36 in the oxidation phase then the process is not
> thermodynamically feasible without additional energy input, so there can
be
> no net production of hydrogen.
>
> I conclude that the claimed concept for conversion of wet biomass to
> hydrogen via unmixed reforming is thermodynamically flawed.
>
> I hope this view is helpful to your studies.
>
> Regards
>
> Steve
>
> Steve Goldthorpe Energy Analyst Limited
> PO Box 96, Waipu 0254, New Zealand
> and Waipu Wanderers Backpackers
> 25 St Mary's Road, Waipu, Northland
> Phone/Fax (NZ) 09 432 0532
> Mobile (NZ) 0274 849 764
> Email Steve.Goldthorpe@xtra.co.nz
> and Waipu.Wanderers@xtra.co.nz
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matthew Pottinger" <mpottinger@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 4:52 AM
> Subject: [GASL] Unmixed Reforming
>
>

From hans at NETCUNHA.COM.BR Sun Jun 13 20:33:11 2004
From: hans at NETCUNHA.COM.BR (Hans)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: sawdust gasification
Message-ID: <SUN.13.JUN.2004.213311.0300.HANS@NETCUNHA.COM.BR>

Dear list members,

does anybody have experience with sawdust gasification? I am looking for construction detais for a small scale gasifier, producer gas will be burnt for process steam generation in mushroom production. Eventually sawdust burning could be an easier aproach.

In the Gasification Archive for January 2001 I found a related contribution of Tom C. Blackburn - Blackburn's sawdust gasifier:

On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Tom Blackburn wrote:

> Dear Graeme and list members,
>
> Last year I spent hundreds of hours building, studying and modifying a
> gasifier for the purpose of turning sawdust and wood chips into producer gas
> to power an IC engine coupled to a 7.5 kw generator. The finished unit
> pre-dries the mixture, automatically feeds the gasifier and rakes the ash
> out on a continuous basis.

unfortunely Tom?s email does not work anymore. Does anybody have contact with Tom or details on his gasifier?

Regards,

Hans Plank
Brazil

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Mon Jun 14 12:49:27 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Ecalene(tm) from syngas
Message-ID: <MON.14.JUN.2004.124927.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Hey guys. I am seriously interested in ethanol from syngas technologies,
as I feel it is a more practical transportation fuel than pure hydrogen.
Recently, I came across this. Just posting it to see what you think of it.

Quote from the web site:

"There is no other known catalytic process available in the world that is
capable of converting carbonaceous sources into higher mixed alcohols at
the conversion rate achieved by the Power Energy System?."

http://www.powerenergy.com/index.html

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race,
but it just wouldn't be economically feasible."

From arnt at C2I.NET Tue Jun 15 21:20:10 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Ecalene(tm) from syngas
In-Reply-To: <opr9lfopv26c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <WED.16.JUN.2004.032010.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:49:27 -0400, Matthew wrote in message
<opr9lfopv26c175d@localhost>:

> Hey guys. I am seriously interested in ethanol from syngas
> technologies, as I feel it is a more practical transportation fuel
> than pure hydrogen. Recently, I came across this. Just posting it to
> see what you think of it.
>
> Quote from the web site:
>
> "There is no other known catalytic process available in the world that
> is capable of converting carbonaceous sources into higher mixed
> alcohols at the conversion rate achieved by the Power Energy System___
> ."
>
> http://www.powerenergy.com/index.html

..sure, their process works allright, Herrmann G?ring had Luftwaffe
fly on that stuff too. ;-)

> --
>
> Matthew Pottinger
>
> Student
> Environmental Technology Program
> Durham College
> Ontario, Canada
>
> "Never underestimate people's
> ability to suppress inconvenient realities."
>
> "We could avoid the extinction of the human race,
> but it just wouldn't be economically feasible."

..so, why is it not? Show us how you are more worth doing your own
homework, rather than producing gas, heat and electric power in a
thermochemical gasifier hooked to a genset and the grid, for that we
need a baseline; How much do you weigh? ;-)

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

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 15 19:06:01 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Ecalene(tm) from syngas
In-Reply-To: <20040616032010.3af9217a.arnt@c2i.net>
Message-ID: <TUE.15.JUN.2004.190601.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

> ..sure, their process works allright, Herrmann G?ring had Luftwaffe
> fly on that stuff too. ;-)

On ethanol? That is easy to believe, but ethanol made from producer gas or
syngas? PEFI claims that their catalyst is the most productive/economical
on the market. I intend to find more on whether this is true. If they
synthesised ethanol back in WWII from gas I would stick with the WWII
method. If they did it back then, surely it isn't high tech.

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."
>
> ..so, why is it not? Show us how you are more worth doing your own
> homework, rather than producing gas, heat and electric power in a
> thermochemical gasifier hooked to a genset and the grid, for that we
> need a baseline; How much do you weigh? ;-)
>

I weigh approximately 200lbs, but that is mostly water, more than 50% so I
do think that would be economically feasible, however, there may be more
promising candidates on this message list. Unless you are talking steam
gasification, but even in that case, water content would probably be a
little high ;) So my fuel value would probably be a little low. In
conclusion, we're doomed. ;) *Sigh*, if only fat Albert were still around
to save us.

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Wed Jun 16 08:17:20 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Ecalene(tm) from syngas
Message-ID: <WED.16.JUN.2004.061720.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Arnt and All:

I worked with Gene Jackson, president of Power Energy for 5 years in the
1985-90 period and we have kept in touch. We had lunch a few months ago.
He claims to have a new improved catalyst for conversion of syngas to mixed
higher alcohols rather than the methanol has been commercial for 80 years.

I wish Power Energy and Ecalene the very best. But don't consider it a done
deal.

The production of clean synthesis gas (CO + H2) by any means is technically
difficult, but necessary to make ammonia, methanol, FT diesel ... and
ECALENE (mixed alcohols).

The catalytic conversion of syngas to any of these is a major technical and
economic job for chem engineers and capitalists.

Meanwhile the rest of us can easily make producer gas (CO + H2 + 50% N2) for
many useful applications.

~~~~~~~~~~~
The BEF has recently received a subcontract for converting waste to WoodGas
for army field kitchen cooking. As a spinoff I'm sure it will work for the
rest of us.... A principal part of the problem will be to get the waste
into usable fuel form. Any suggestions?

TOM REED BEF GASWORKS BEF STOVEWORKS

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt@C2I.NET>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Ecalene(tm) from syngas

> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:49:27 -0400, Matthew wrote in message
> <opr9lfopv26c175d@localhost>:
>
> > Hey guys. I am seriously interested in ethanol from syngas
> > technologies, as I feel it is a more practical transportation fuel
> > than pure hydrogen. Recently, I came across this. Just posting it to
> > see what you think of it.
> >
> > Quote from the web site:
> >
> > "There is no other known catalytic process available in the world that
> > is capable of converting carbonaceous sources into higher mixed
> > alcohols at the conversion rate achieved by the Power Energy System___
> > ."
> >
> > http://www.powerenergy.com/index.html
>
> ..sure, their process works allright, Herrmann G?ring had Luftwaffe
> fly on that stuff too. ;-)
>
> > --
> >
> > Matthew Pottinger
> >
> > Student
> > Environmental Technology Program
> > Durham College
> > Ontario, Canada
> >
> > "Never underestimate people's
> > ability to suppress inconvenient realities."
> >
> > "We could avoid the extinction of the human race,
> > but it just wouldn't be economically feasible."
>
> ..so, why is it not? Show us how you are more worth doing your own
> homework, rather than producing gas, heat and electric power in a
> thermochemical gasifier hooked to a genset and the grid, for that we
> need a baseline; How much do you weigh? ;-)
>
> --
> ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
> ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
> Scenarios always come in sets of three:
> best case, worst case, and just in case.

From windward at GORGE.NET Wed Jun 16 13:24:38 2004
From: windward at GORGE.NET (Walt Patrick)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Ecalene(tm) from syngas
In-Reply-To: <034401c4539b$dfce1dc0$6401a8c0@TOM>
Message-ID: <WED.16.JUN.2004.102438.0700.WINDWARD@GORGE.NET>

At 06:17 AM 6/16/04 -0600, Tom wrote:
>The BEF has recently received a subcontract for converting waste to WoodGas
>for army field kitchen cooking. As a spinoff I'm sure it will work for the
>rest of us.... A principal part of the problem will be to get the waste
>into usable fuel form. Any suggestions?

Our focus is on converting forest waste to methanol, so this was a
concern for us as well. The route we chose was to use our Fordson Major
tractor to power a PTO mounted chipper. Late last fall we purchased a PTO
chipper for $1950 from

Tractors-Etc
83969 N Pacific Hwy
Creswell OR 97426
Telephone: 541-895-2550, Fax: 541-895-2756
smilburn@centurytel.net

Here's a url for the importer
http://www.chinadepot.com/woodchip.html

By the time we got it home and assembled, we barely got to chip
anything before snow settled in for the winter. Fast-forwarding five
months, a spring windstorm brought down a dead pine, and in the process of
cleaning that up we finally got a chance to try out the chipper generating
three 55 gallon drums of chips.

http://www.windward.org/notes/notes64/wdchip02.jpg

The feed belt needed tightening (the manual was less that
comprehensive) and the V-belt died before we noticed the problem, but once
that was replaced, the feed mechanism worked fine.

Here's a picture of the chips we're getting.

http://www.windward.org/notes/notes64/wdchip01.jpg

The upshot is that we're very happy with this piece of gear. Now
that we have a uniform feedstock, we've started building our steam reformer
to generate syngas.

Walt
http://www.windward.org/

From hans at NETCUNHA.COM.BR Wed Jun 16 15:39:09 2004
From: hans at NETCUNHA.COM.BR (Hans)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: sawdust gasification
Message-ID: <WED.16.JUN.2004.163909.0300.HANS@NETCUNHA.COM.BR>

Dear list members,

meanwhile I got around to Tom Blackburn?s extinguished Website

http://www.snowcrest.com/tomb/gasifier3.htm
http://www.snowcrest.com/tomb/gasifier.htm

via the WaybackMachine : http://www.archive.org

http://web.archive.org/web/20020119203625/http://www.snowcrest.com/tomb/gasifier3.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20010502212605/http://www.snowcrest.com/tomb/gasifier.htm

Unfortunately most of the pictures are missing, anyway his machine looks very interesting to me. Does anybody have a backup of the site? I also learnt that Tom sold his gasifier, does somebody know to whom? I?d be very greatfull for any information.

Regards,

Hans Plank
Brazil

From hans at NETCUNHA.COM.BR Wed Jun 16 15:49:57 2004
From: hans at NETCUNHA.COM.BR (Hans)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: sawdust gasification
Message-ID: <WED.16.JUN.2004.164957.0300.HANS@NETCUNHA.COM.BR>

Dear list members,

meanwhile I got around to Tom Blackburn?s extinguished Website

http://www.snowcrest.com/tomb/gasifier3.htm
http://www.snowcrest.com/tomb/gasifier.htm

via the WaybackMachine : http://www.archive.org

Unfortunately most of the pictures are missing, anyway his machine looks very interesting to me.
Does anybody have a backup of the site? I also learnt that Tom sold his gasifier,
does somebody know to whom? I?d be very greatfull for any information.

Regards,

Hans Plank
Brazil

From arnt at C2I.NET Wed Jun 16 21:57:56 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Ecalene(tm) from syngas
In-Reply-To: <opr9nrsbov6c175d@localhost>
Message-ID: <THU.17.JUN.2004.035756.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 19:06:01 -0400, Matthew wrote in message
<opr9nrsbov6c175d@localhost>:

>
> > ..sure, their process works allright, Herrmann G?ring had Luftwaffe
> > fly on that stuff too. ;-)
>
> On ethanol? That is easy to believe, but ethanol made from producer
> gas or syngas? PEFI claims that their catalyst is the most
> productive/economical on the market. I intend to find more on whether
> this is true. If they synthesised ethanol back in WWII from gas I
> would stick with the WWII method. If they did it back then, surely it
> isn't high tech.

..google "Fischer-Tropsch". ;-)

> "We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't
> be economically feasible."
> >
> > ..so, why is it not? Show us how you are more worth doing your own
> > homework, rather than producing gas, heat and electric power in a
> > thermochemical gasifier hooked to a genset and the grid, for that we
> > need a baseline; How much do you weigh? ;-)
> >
>
> I weigh approximately 200lbs, but that is mostly water, more than 50%
> so I do think that would be economically feasible, however, there may
> be more promising candidates on this message list. Unless you are
> talking steam gasification, but even in that case, water content would
> probably be a little high ;) So my fuel value would probably be a
> little low. In conclusion, we're doomed. ;) *Sigh*, if only fat Albert
> were still around to save us.

..200lbs, uhmmm, lessee, about 10 years ago, one of my ex-women called
me wailing about some new ex, she strongly held he was worthless and
that sheep would outwit him, however she accepted my point of using pork
as a human flesh calc substitute "only because he is such a swine". ;-)

..infired: 200lb*.454kg/lb*1184kJ/0.085kg=1.26GJ/36e5kWh/GJ=351kWh

..with full recovery of steam and tar vapor heat, ( we wanna maximize
Matthew's value to mankind, no? ;-) ) 1/2 as heat, 1/3 as electricity,
1/6 losses, we have 175 kWh thermal and 117 kWh electric, with
current energy Norwegian prices, .2NoK/kWhth and .25NoK/kWhe,
we get 35Nok and 29NoK, for a total of 64NoK, taadaa; our baseline,
Matthew is worth US$10. ;-)

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

From arnt at C2I.NET Wed Jun 16 22:02:25 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Ecalene(tm) from syngas
In-Reply-To: <034401c4539b$dfce1dc0$6401a8c0@TOM>
Message-ID: <THU.17.JUN.2004.040225.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 06:17:20 -0600, TBReed wrote in message
<034401c4539b$dfce1dc0$6401a8c0@TOM>:

> Dear Arnt and All:
>
> I worked with Gene Jackson, president of Power Energy for 5 years in
> the 1985-90 period and we have kept in touch. We had lunch a few
> months ago. He claims to have a new improved catalyst for conversion
> of syngas to mixed higher alcohols rather than the methanol has been
> commercial for 80 years.
>
> I wish Power Energy and Ecalene the very best. But don't consider it
> a done deal.
>
> The production of clean synthesis gas (CO + H2) by any means is
> technically difficult, but necessary to make ammonia, methanol, FT
> diesel ... and ECALENE (mixed alcohols).
>
> The catalytic conversion of syngas to any of these is a major
> technical and economic job for chem engineers and capitalists.
>
> Meanwhile the rest of us can easily make producer gas (CO + H2 + 50%
> N2) for many useful applications.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> The BEF has recently received a subcontract for converting waste to
> WoodGas for army field kitchen cooking. As a spinoff I'm sure it will
> work for the rest of us.... A principal part of the problem will be
> to get the waste into usable fuel form. Any suggestions?

..try my tar flare. ;-)

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

From Carefreeland at AOL.COM Thu Jun 17 15:50:35 2004
From: Carefreeland at AOL.COM (Carefreeland@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Gasification of biosolids
Message-ID: <THU.17.JUN.2004.155035.EDT.>

In a message dated 6/11/04 12:38:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
list@SYLVA.ICUKLIVE.CO.UK writes:

DD This is my response to a Gasification topic.

> Right on Matthew, it's still my ambition to earn some money from this
> wood burning before I retire ;-), note the wood burning rather than
> biosolids. It's chopping the trees down that's kept the roof over so
> far. I suspect Dan the carefree bloke is in a similar position, he
> heats greenhouse with wood and wanted to make electricity also, though
> I haven't heard from him for a while.
>
>
DD Dan the Carefree bloke is still here, reading mail from 6/11/04 on
6/17/04. I am working today on the most important part of all of this
experimentation, creating a financial market for all of the free solar, biomass and someday
maybe wind energy I can harness. In this case, today I am building a market
for greenhouse products.
No mon,(ey) no fun, so they say.
DD To explain entrepreneurial spirit, I can compare it in a lot of ways to
exploring those multi-mile long Kentucky caves. It is dark all the time, the map
doesn't always help and there is little help those outside can lend. Often
the only way to eliminate a path is to go there till you can't. Lastly, you
sometimes have to crawl a long time before you can stand up and walk.
DD On the first of July I quietly celebrate surviving 25 years in business.
I am small guy in the competitive big city landscaping business. It's all
about the Journey, not the destination. If I quit every time I thought about
doing it, I would have restarted my business on a daily basis.
DD The best reason to move ahead is because you can and want to. If you don't
want to move ahead, find out why and act accordingly. All else is immaterial
in the long run.

Daniel Dimiduk
Owner :Carefree Landscape Maintenance Company

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Fri Jun 18 11:13:28 2004
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Ecalene(tm) from syngas
Message-ID: <FRI.18.JUN.2004.111328.EDT.>

The Germans produced mostly gasoline and diesel fuel from catalysis. I am not
sure there was any mention of ethanol. Ecalene as a mixture of ethanol and
methanol is difficult to get acceptance by the auto manufacturers. They have
studiously avoided approving methanol for engine operation. In evaluating the
Ecalene process, the yields of methanol and ethanol, operating conditions of temp
and pressure overall yields are about the same as the original Dow patents
which the process is a derivative of. Reading the patents is at best confusing
because of the ranges which they refer to.
In order to increase the ethanol yield, the methanol is recycled back
through the catalyst bed to convert it to ethanol. This requires separating the
mixture and recycling the methanol fraction. Total conversion to ethanol
production rate is substantially reduced because of this process.
It is not a matter of the chemistry of the process, it is a matter of
convincing the financial resources of the economic and technical validity of the
process. As T. Reed said, the gasification stage is still a hang-up.

From arnt at C2I.NET Fri Jun 18 12:04:13 2004
From: arnt at C2I.NET (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Ecalene(tm) from syngas
In-Reply-To: <8b.dc11d7e.2e046098@aol.com>
Message-ID: <FRI.18.JUN.2004.180413.0200.ARNT@C2I.NET>

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:13:28 EDT, LINVENT@AOL.COM wrote in message
<8b.dc11d7e.2e046098@aol.com>:

> Ecalene as a mixture of ethanol and methanol is difficult to get
> acceptance by the auto manufacturers. They have studiously avoided
> approving methanol for engine operation.

..any idea why?

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

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Sat Jun 19 16:19:28 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Plasma Technologies for Reducing CO2 & NOx Emissions
Message-ID: <SAT.19.JUN.2004.161928.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Cold plasma, Non-equilibrium plasma, Non-thermal plasma, whatever name you
want to call it, this is some really incredible technology with great
potential. I have already contacted a company which may be able to provide
me with a small, low cost, fuel flexible reformer based on this technology
for testing with a variety of fuels. It's already out of the research
stages and going commercial. Since then, I've forgotten all about the
cyclone gasifier ;)

I also found out that cold plasma also provides for a very capable
emissions control technology. (while still in the research stages
admittedly)

Plasma Conversion CO2-N2-H2O in Exhaust INTO A SOLID CONDENSATE OF AMINO
ACIDS

I fount it here: http://www.uniba.sk/~morva/im_publ.htm

Abstracts of articles written in the Journal of Thermal Analysis and
Calometry.
Marcela Morvov?, Franti?ek Hanic*, Imrich Morva
Institute of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Comenius
University,
Mlynsk? Dolina F2, 842 15 Bratislava, Slovakia

Abstract

The positive (negative) dc corona and disruptive electrical discharges
were applied to convert the gaseous system CO2-N2-H2O containing reducing
components CO, NOX, H2S, CHX into a solid amino acid condensate. The
kinetics of the conversion is strongly influenced by formation of the free
radicals NCO*. The solid products were analysed by liquid chromatography,
IR ? in situ " analysis, determination of the combustible portion up to
900?C and by X-ray powder diffraction.
The present paper gives a direct evidence of the life origin possibility
on Earth through formation of amino acids about 4 billion years ago, when
the atmosphere consisted mainly from CO2, N2, H2O, H2, CH4 and NH3. In
practical application, the high efficiency of the conversion process (40%
efficiency on CO2 or more) in CO2-N2-H2O (CO, NOX, H2S, CHX) gaseous
mixture into useful product (amino acid condensate) and relative low costs
of conversion (2.3-4.7 Wh/m3, i.e. 8.3-16.9 kJ/m3) are rather perspective
in the decrease of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere, which are considered
to be the major cause for the global warming. The incorporation of
molecular N2 into the amino acid condesate is essential: the condensate
can be used as fertiliser in increase of crop production and quality of
soil.

The long-term application of the man-made industrial nitrogen fertilisers
leads to the limitation of favourable humus formation. The gases emitted
from power stations, cement and ceramic industry or steel plants, etc.
have already a proper or easily adjustable composition suitable for
conversion. The admixtures (CO, NOX, H2S, CH4) do not hinder the
conversion process itself. They take part in the chemical processes, being
finally incorporated into the amino acid molecules.

SINGLE STEP REMOVAL OF CO2 INCORPORATING CO2 AND NITROGEN FIXATION FROM
GAS PHASE IN ELECTRIC DISCHARGE

Marcela Morvov?, Imrich Morva, Frantisek Hanic
At present the following processes are used for sequestration of carbon
dioxide: separation and capture, transport, storage, utilisation making
chemical products and biological fixation. Application of above mentioned
methods leads to increase of relative costs, due to energy consumption, of
about 40-50%.
We have developed method and equipment for continual removal of CO2 and
other exhaust components as (NOx, CHx, CO, SO2 and SiF4) from the mixtures
containing N2 and H2O using synergetic effect of electric discharge and
catalysis of organometallic part of product formed on electrodes. The main
advantage of proposed method is that all processes taking place between
the moment of CO2 introduction in gas phase, as a part of exhaust, and
formation of output final solid product occur in single equipment. This
fact contributes to substantial decrease of removal cost.
Synergetic removal of other non-wanted compounds such as nitrogen oxides,
volatile organic compounds, sulphur containing compounds (SOx and
mercaptanes), SiF4, nicotine, PAH takes place.
The final removal efficiency varies with introduced exhaust composition.
In average the efficiency of CO2 removal was about 40%. The process of CO2
removal is always accompanied by NOx removal. In case of high NOx
concentrations efficiency of CO2 removal increase so that final
concentration is lower than natural one (350ppm). In the same time removal
efficiency of NOx is higher than 95%.
The final product is powder with fractal structure on microscopic level
with low specific weight. The product is water insoluble. The main
component (95%) of solid product is amorphous condensate of aminoacids
with about 5% of organometallic compounds with catalytic properties. The
product was analysed using IR absorption spectrometry, chromatography
specialised for food amino acids analysis and thermogravimetry. The
product decomposes to individual aminoacids in 6 molar solution of HCl
after 24 hours. The following amino acids were observed: alanine, serine,
glycine, aspartic acid, lysine, arginine, methionine, histidine.
The process is connected with CO2 and nitrogen fixation in the presence of
water in the electric discharge. The catalytic spots on non-stresed
electrode are photosensitive. The process is connected with O2 formation.
Important similarities with photosynthesis of aminoacids taking place in
Spirulina platensis (phycocyanine as chromophore) was found out.
The studied processes confirmed the possibility of the formation of living
substances in the atmosphere with composition similar to the primary
atmosphere (N2, NH3, CO2, H2O, CH4).

Thermochemical Aspects of the Conversion of Gaseous System CO2 - N2 -H2O
into Solid Mixture of Amino Acids,

F.Hanic, M.Morvov?, I.Morva

Conversion of the gaseous system CO2-N2-H2O into solid mixture of amino
acids and other products appears to be important technology for several
reasons.
This process may contribute to lowering of CO2 abundance in the
atmosphere. Carbon dioxide annual emissions produced by human activities
in burning coal, oil, and natural gas and by transport, amount to over 7
billion tons of carbon or almost 1% of the total CO2 mass in the
atmosphere. Carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for over 60% of the
"enhanced" greenhouse effect, which is influencing climate changes. If
nothing is done to reduce CO2 emissions, current climate model predicts a
global warming at about 1 to 3.5 oC by 2100. The Earth's average see level
is predicted to rise from 15 to 95 cm due to the global melting of
glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. The frequency and intensity of
extreme events such as storms and hurricanes may change. The altering in
ocean circulations, such as is the Gulf Stream, can also take place. So,
carbon dioxide enter the natural CO2 cycle, in which many billions of tons
are exchanged naturally each year between the atmosphere, oceans and land
vegetation. This exchange must be precisely balanced. However, after
industrialization since 1800, the free CO2 levels have increased by almost
30% and they continue to increase by almost 10 % every 20 years.

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race,
but it just wouldn't be economically feasible."

From robdeutsch at ONLINE.COM.KH Mon Jun 21 19:43:46 2004
From: robdeutsch at ONLINE.COM.KH (Robert Deutsch)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Another way for turkey butts?
Message-ID: <TUE.22.JUN.2004.064346.0700.ROBDEUTSCH@ONLINE.COM.KH>

Dear Listers,

It ain't gasification, but interesting stuff (see below).... any comments? Is this the real deal or just another scam?

Best regards,

Robert in Phnom Penh

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

Anything Into Oil

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Mon Jun 21 23:37:46 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Another way for turkey butts?
In-Reply-To: <012001c457ed$6ada3ed0$a081bdcb@SFKC.GOV.KH>
Message-ID: <MON.21.JUN.2004.233746.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

I've seen this before. It's been all over the news media, radio, for many
months. I first learned about it last year I think. It's certainly not a
scam. Other processes exist which are similar such as hydrothermal
processing/liquefaction. It most definitely is the real deal. Now by scam
if you mean exaggerate the results a little to make it look better than
other similar processes, I don't know too much about that.

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 06:43:46 +0700, Robert Deutsch
<robdeutsch@ONLINE.COM.KH> wrote:

> Dear Listers,
>
> It ain't gasification, but interesting stuff (see below).... any
> comments? Is this the real deal or just another scam?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Robert in Phnom Penh
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Anything Into Oil
>
> From Turkey Parts to Crude Oil!
> Wouldn't it be incredible to have all your friends and family over for
> Thanksgiving dinner and be able to take all the leftovers and
> unpalatable portions out into your yard and convert them into oil?
>
> With a new technology, called Thermal Depolymerization, we may soon be
> able to do just that.
>
> According to Brian Appel, chairman and CEO of Changing World
> Technologies, "This process can deal with the world's waste. It can
> supplement our dwindling supplies of oil. And it can slow down global
> warming."
>
> The first industrial-scale Thermal Depolymerization plant was built in
> Carthage, Missouri, adjacent to a Butterball Turkey processing plant.
> Each day, two hundred tons of turkey remains are hauled to the
> newly-finished plant and transformed into assorted functional products -
> including 600 barrels of light crude oil. This remains-derived oil is
> chemically almost identical to a number two fuel oil used to heat homes.
>
> James Woolsey, former CIA director and an adviser to Changing World
> Technologies, maintains that this technology offers the beginning of a
> way out of the United States' dependence on foreign oil.
>
> Thermal Depolymerization, according to Appel, has proved to be 85%
> energy efficient for complex feed stocks such as turkey remains. "That
> means for every 100 BTUs in the feedstock, we use only 15 BTUs to run
> the process."
>
> Plastics and dry raw materials efficiency is even higher, contends Appel.
>
> So how does this process work? "The other processes," Appel said, "all
> tried to drive out water. We drive it in, inside the tank, with heat and
> pressure. We super-hydrate the material."
>
> In this process, pressures and temperatures need only be modest, because
> water assists to convey heat into the feedstock. "We're talking about
> temperatures of 500 degrees Fahrenheit and pressures of 600 pounds for
> most organic material - not at all extreme or energy intensive. And the
> cooking times are relatively short, usually about fifteen minutes."
>
> Phase two involves dropping the slurry to a lower pressure, which
> releases about ninety percent of the slurry's free water. Dehydration
> via depressurization is far cheaper in terms of energy consumed than is
> heating and boiling off the water, particularly because no heat is
> wasted. At this stage, the water is sent back up to heat the next
> incoming stream. The minerals settle out and are forced to storage
> tanks. Rich in calcium and magnesium, this dry brown powder is "a
> perfect balanced fertilizer," Appel said.
>
> The remaining organic soup is flushed into the second stage reactor,
> similar to the coke ovens used to refine oil into gasoline. This reactor
> heats up the soup to about nine hundred degrees Fahrenheit - to further
> break apart long molecular chains.
>
> Next, in vertical distillation columns, hot vapor flows up, condenses,
> and flows out from different levels: gases from the top of the columns,
> light oils from the upper middle, heavier oils from the middle, water
> from the lower middle, and powdered carbon - used to manufacture tires,
> filters, and printer toners - from the bottom.
>
> The test plant in Philadelphia has determined that the process is
> scalable; plants can cover acres or be small enough to go on the back of
> a flatbed truck. The technicians at this test plant have spent three
> years testing different kinds of affluent to formulate recipes.
> Experimentation revealed that different waste streams required different
> cooking and coking times.
>
> European countries have prohibited the feeding of animal wastes to other
> animals - a common practice for poultry in the U.S. (although since
> 1997, because of Mad Cow Disease, the U.S. has prohibited most feeding
> of recycled animal waste to cattle).
>
> "In Europe, there are mountains of bones piling up," says Alf
> Andreassen, an investor. "When recycling waste into feed stops in this
> country, it will change everything."
>
> "It is the perfect process for destroying pathogens," said Appel. "This
> process will make 10 tons of gasoline per day, which will go back into
> the system to make heat to power the system. It will make 21,000 gallons
> of water clean enough to discharge into a municipal water system.
> Pathological vectors will be completely gone. It will make eleven tons
> of minerals and six hundred barrels of oil - high-quality stuff, the
> same specs as number two heating oil."
>
> And he added, "It's amazing the Environmental Protection Agency doesn't
> even consider us waste handlers. We are actually manufacturers, that's
> what the permit says."
>
> The new technology also promises profitability. "We've done so much
> testing in Philadelphia, we already know the costs," Appel said. "This
> is our first out plant, and we estimate we'll make oil at fifteen
> dollars a barrel. In three to five years, we'll drop that to ten
> dollars, the same as a medium-size oil exploration and production
> company. And it will get cheaper from there."
>
> If Thermal Depolymerization works, as expected, it will clean up waste
> and generate new sources of power. Its supporters contend it could also
> reduce global warming. According to global warming theory, as carbon, in
> the form of carbon dioxide, accumulates in the atmosphere, it traps
> solar radiation, which warms the atmosphere, and some say disrupts the
> planet's ecosystems. If the shift to global Thermal Depolymerization
> takes place, any carbon in the earth would stay there. The trappings of
> the civilized world - plants, domestic animals, artificial objects,
> buildings - would then be regarded as temporary carbon basins. Says Paul
> Baski, inventor of the Thermal Depolymerization process, "We would be
> honoring the balance of nature."
>
> For more information:
> Changing World Technologies: ChangingWorldTech.com.
>
> A primer on the natural carbon cycle can be found at:
> WHRC.org/science/carbon/carbon.htm.
>
> John Katers, University of Wisconsin, and David Drew at STS Consultants,
> Ltd., "Energy and Resource Recovery from Agricultural and Food Wastes,"
> FreeRepublic.com/focus/f-news/897232/posts
>
> Discover Discover.com. "Anything into Oil (Solution to dependence on
> foreign oil?)," Discover Magazine, Vol.24 No.5, May 2003, Brad Lemley

Matthew Pottinger

Student
Environmental Technology Program
Durham College
Ontario, Canada

"Never underestimate people's
ability to suppress inconvenient realities."

"We could avoid the extinction of the human race, but it just wouldn't be
economically feasible."

From MMBTUPR at AOL.COM Tue Jun 22 00:21:23 2004
From: MMBTUPR at AOL.COM (Lewis L. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Another way for turkey butts?
Message-ID: <TUE.22.JUN.2004.002123.EDT.>

to Gasifiers from Lewis L. Smith

June 2004 Discover has an update on Carthage plant using gasification
technology by Changing World Technologies. I also talked to one of plant's
officials on the phone last April.

The plant is now expected online in the fall. Some production has
already been successfully carried out.

Biggest problem has not been with the technology but with a traditional
construction defect. Some 5,000 welds had to be reinspected, and some 1,000
repaired !

So keep your hopes up. If this process works as advertised, it could be
a big step forward for the gasification community.

Builder and operator is Renewable Environmental Solutions, a joint
venture of Conagra and CWT, but its website at < restdp.com > is still "under
construction".

CWT at < changingworldtech.com/home/html > has nothing posted to "news"
since 11/03. My intuition tells me that they are lying low until they have
"all their ducks in a row".

Cordially.

End.

From Steven.Gust at FORTUM.COM Tue Jun 22 04:06:04 2004
From: Steven.Gust at FORTUM.COM (Gust Steven)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Another way for turkey butts?
Message-ID: <TUE.22.JUN.2004.110604.0300.STEVEN.GUST@FORTUM.COM>

Listers

Take a look at the http://www.changingworldtech.com/ web page and then
at the HTU process which has been around for about 20 years already.

HTU(r) Process for the direct hydrothermal liquefaction of biomass was
described in some detail. After the discontinuation of the research at
the Shell Laboratory in Amsterdam in 1989, a technical and economic
feasibility study was carried out by Stork Comprimo and Shell Research
in 1995 to investigate the perspectives for the future of the HTU(r)
technology. The study concluded, that for future large-scale energy
purposes (2020+) the HTU(r) Process promises to be able to compete with
fossil fuels, with clear advantages compared with alternatives for
biomass conversion.

This process is now being piloted/demonstrated. You will just have to
wait until 2020 for large-scale implementation from biomass. Of course
conversion of wastes could be feasible now.
More information about the "HTU Process" can be found via Google.

Both CWT and HTU use hot water at elevated pressure to crack the
feedstock. Oxygen is removed as CO2. Since many feedstocks contain a lot
of oxygen, the yield of hydrocarbons will not be very high. But when you
are processing wastes this can be accepted.

Steven from Finland

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Tue Jun 22 07:44:24 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Another way for turkey butts?
Message-ID: <TUE.22.JUN.2004.084424.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Lewis

This is starting to look like an "Oh, oh." project. As in "Oh, oh, something
doesn't look right with this picture."

I was concerned to see that they define their process as "85% efficient" by
stating that the kind of efficiency they are talking about is that 15% of
the incoming energy is required to process the material. This is potentially
a devious and misleading definition. To claim that "they get rid of the
water by driving it in, rather than driving it out" is also misleading. As
Steven Gust indicates, they get rid of the oxygen content of the water
eventually as CO2, but this could be a very costly way to do it. The "real
efficiency" is "Energy Out/Energy In". With their definition, a wood fire
can be 99%+ efficient because the match to light the fire was much less than
the energy in the incoming wood. Having 20% of the welds fail in a process
plant construction is a very worrisome leading indicator of future process
difficulty.

We wish them success.

Kevin Chisholm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lewis L. Smith" <MMBTUPR@AOL.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 1:21 AM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Another way for turkey butts?

> to Gasifiers from Lewis L. Smith
>
> June 2004 Discover has an update on Carthage plant using
gasification
> technology by Changing World Technologies. I also talked to one of plant's
> officials on the phone last April.
>
> The plant is now expected online in the fall. Some production has
> already been successfully carried out.
>
> Biggest problem has not been with the technology but with a
traditional
> construction defect. Some 5,000 welds had to be reinspected, and some
1,000
> repaired !
>
> So keep your hopes up. If this process works as advertised, it could
be
> a big step forward for the gasification community.
>
> Builder and operator is Renewable Environmental Solutions, a joint
> venture of Conagra and CWT, but its website at < restdp.com > is still
"under
> construction".
>
> CWT at < changingworldtech.com/home/html > has nothing posted to
"news"
> since 11/03. My intuition tells me that they are lying low until they have
> "all their ducks in a row".
>
> Cordially.
>
> End.

From MMBTUPR at AOL.COM Tue Jun 22 22:55:35 2004
From: MMBTUPR at AOL.COM (Lewis L. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Another way for turkey butts?
Message-ID: <TUE.22.JUN.2004.225535.EDT.>

to Gasifier list from Lewis L. Smith

Ref Kevin Chisholm's latest posting on Changing World Technologies.

I am traveling, so my comments will be limited.

There are various ways of measuring efficiency. The most complete is to
include in the energy cost of a process, not only the energy used in
operating the process but also ?

? the energy used to transport the feedstock,

? The opportunity energy cost [if any] of the feedstock, due to
alternate uses foregone, and

? All of the energy "embedded" in the machinery and equipment
used for transporting and processing the feedstock.

[Incidentally many processes for making ethanol have come up short in the
above terms.]

However, my posting referred [quite clearly I hope] only to the energy
required to operate the process. I have no idea what its other energy costs
are. Nevertheless, since turkey entrails have no alternate energy use, and
process energy consumption is relatively modest, the odds are that the CWT process
has a favorable energy balance under the above, stringent conditions. Since
they ran a pilot plant in Philly for many years, they ought to have most of the
bugs out of the process. Moreover, I doubt that their joint-venture partner
ConAgra would have gone ahead with this without checking it out very carefully.

The real question is, At what price of crude oil will this project be
profitable ?

In my fairly extensive construction experience, problems with welds
usually do not reflect on the technology to be used in the project. Rather they
reflect such factors as client impatience, the need to use of special steels,
poor inspections by the client and poor supervision [or even dishonesty] by
the contractor.

Time will tell !

Cordially.

End.

From kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET Wed Jun 23 00:18:31 2004
From: kchisholm at CA.INTER.NET (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Another way for turkey butts?
Message-ID: <WED.23.JUN.2004.011831.0300.KCHISHOLM@CA.INTER.NET>

Dear Lewis

Your points are all good, and rational. We are trying to get a feel for
whether the proposed process is feasible or not, without the benefit of any
factual data.

In a case like this, the only way that we can pass a coherent judgement on
the process is to assess what is available to us. We are given a misleading
definition of "efficiency", which is correct strictly speaking, but which is
nowheres close to the more commonly understood efficiency of "Energy Out /
Energy In". While your points about energy inputs, and the fact that the
turkey offal is free and has no alternative use, the "conventional
efficiency is very important because it would give some indication of
process oil yield. The economics of the process may depend on revenue from
the oil, and if oil yield is down, so also will be the oil related income
necessary to assist in project viability.

Every job has a few bad welds. However, a process plant, using high
pressures, should have been constructed in a way where competent welders and
proper material were used. A weld failure rate of 20% is grossly excessive
and suggests a serious lacking somewhere.

The fact that Conagra is associated with the project does not tell us very
much. Their association may be as simple as "We will give you the offal at
no charge as long as you get rid of it for us." If that was the case, they
would not have to know anything about process soundness. It would be another
matter entirely if they were a substantial investor in the project.

So, while we all hope the project will be successful, from what we know and
what we can infer, there does not seem to be a rational basis to justify
getting enthused about the process at this stage.

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lewis L. Smith" <MMBTUPR@AOL.COM>
To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: [GASL] Another way for turkey butts?

to Gasifier list from Lewis L. Smith

Ref Kevin Chisholm's latest posting on Changing World Technologies.

I am traveling, so my comments will be limited.

There are various ways of measuring efficiency. The most complete is to
include in the energy cost of a process, not only the energy used in
operating the process but also ?

? the energy used to transport the feedstock,

? The opportunity energy cost [if any] of the feedstock, due
to
alternate uses foregone, and

? All of the energy "embedded" in the machinery and equipment
used for transporting and processing the feedstock.

[Incidentally many processes for making ethanol have come up short in the
above terms.]

However, my posting referred [quite clearly I hope] only to the energy
required to operate the process. I have no idea what its other energy costs
are. Nevertheless, since turkey entrails have no alternate energy use, and
process energy consumption is relatively modest, the odds are that the CWT
process
has a favorable energy balance under the above, stringent conditions. Since
they ran a pilot plant in Philly for many years, they ought to have most of
the
bugs out of the process. Moreover, I doubt that their joint-venture partner
ConAgra would have gone ahead with this without checking it out very
carefully.

The real question is, At what price of crude oil will this project be
profitable ?

In my fairly extensive construction experience, problems with welds
usually do not reflect on the technology to be used in the project. Rather
they
reflect such factors as client impatience, the need to use of special
steels,
poor inspections by the client and poor supervision [or even dishonesty] by
the contractor.

Time will tell !

Cordially.

End.

From MMBTUPR at AOL.COM Wed Jun 23 02:52:20 2004
From: MMBTUPR at AOL.COM (Lewis L. Smith)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Another way for turkey butts?
Message-ID: <WED.23.JUN.2004.025220.EDT.>

to Gasifier list from Lewis L. Smith

Oops !

Full energy cost should also include incremental energy used to produce
feedstock.

Cordially.

End.

From pels at ECN.NL Fri Jun 25 02:15:34 2004
From: pels at ECN.NL (Pels, J.R.)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Another way for turkey butts?
Message-ID: <FRI.25.JUN.2004.081534.0200.PELS@ECN.NL>

Dear Kevin,

Besides the fact that it is extremely difficult to get a consensus on the
"real efficiency", the definition is still useful energy out / total energy
in. The debate is on what is useful and what is total. That's what I taught
in my class.

Maybe some marketing guy has come up with the 85%?

Jan Pels
(Netherlands)

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Chisholm [mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 1:44 PM
To: GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [GASL] Another way for turkey butts?

Dear Lewis

This is starting to look like an "Oh, oh." project. As in "Oh, oh, something
doesn't look right with this picture."

We wish them success.

From LINVENT at AOL.COM Sun Jun 27 11:54:51 2004
From: LINVENT at AOL.COM (LINVENT@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:58 2004
Subject: Another way for turkey butts?
Message-ID: <SUN.27.JUN.2004.115451.EDT.>

I have an interesting and should be simple question-what is the Standard
Industrial Classification number for a biomass gasifier? I found one for coal, but
not for biomass or these other types of materials.

From tombreed at COMCAST.NET Tue Jun 29 09:20:21 2004
From: tombreed at COMCAST.NET (TBReed)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:59 2004
Subject: Bioconversion is ...?
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUN.2004.072021.0600.TOMBREED@COMCAST.NET>

Dear Paul:

Glad to have you on Bioconversion. I do Gasification.

What do you see as the area of Bioconversion over and above Stoves,
Gasification, Ethanol, Digestion etc.? It would be nice if you could draw
us a map.

Thanks,

TOM REED GASIFICATION
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Harris" <paul.harris@ADELAIDE.EDU.AU>
To: <BIOCONVERSION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 10:56 PM
Subject: [BIOC] G'day

> G'day,
>
> Having looked at the posts for this year I see that not many messages are
> received, because not many are sent.
>
> I have just joined this list (I moderate the anaerobic digestion list) to
> see what goes on in the wider world and as I have an increasing
involvement
> in renewable energy.
>
> In my other life I am a lecturer at The Univerity of Adelaide, trying to
> teach agricultural engineering to agriculture students.
>
> All the best,
> HOOROO
> Paul Harris,
> Roseworthy, South Australia

From hlbrodie at BLUECRAB.ORG Tue Jun 29 10:42:09 2004
From: hlbrodie at BLUECRAB.ORG (hlbrodie)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:59 2004
Subject: Another way for turkey butts?
In-Reply-To: <1a5.24e971f3.2e0a82a4@aol.com>
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUN.2004.104209.0400.HLBRODIE@BLUECRAB.ORG>

There is no positive economic value of the residual or byproduct (waste)
of another process unless there is a buyer for that byproduct. There is
no energy or energy cost associated with the existence of that byproduct
because the cost of energy for the production from which it is derived
is entirely charged to the products that are sold. The byproduct
actually represents negative energy and energy cost when there is a need
for disposal.

So the byproduct should be considered a new source of energy. Any cost
to retrieve energy from the byproduct is independent of the origin of
the byproduct. The cost of removing energy from the byproduct is
affected by the cost of the technology used as well as the economic
values of other opportunities to utilize the byproduct .

An attempt at an energy balance to compare technologies for energy
retrieval from a feedstock has to be within the limits of the actual
processes being compared. If we attempt to define energy retrieval
efficiency beyond that then where do we stop? For example if we need to
build a facility component are we going to account for the incremental
energy required to obtain the materials used to manufacture the pipe
wrench that was used by a workman? And do we account for the energy
required to sustain the workman; get him to the job; or for that matter
the long account of energy required for the workman actually existing?

We can't make this assessment with units of energy. We make the
assessment with units of economic value. Unfortunately, in the
development of economic value there is most often a failure to recognize
or give true value to direct or indirect impact on others.

Herb Brodie

Lewis L. Smith wrote:

> to Gasifier list from Lewis L. Smith
>
> Oops !
>
> Full energy cost should also include incremental energy used to produce
> feedstock.
>
> Cordially.
>
> End.
>

From mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA Tue Jun 29 17:23:23 2004
From: mpottinger at RENEWABLEPLANET.CA (Matthew Pottinger)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:59 2004
Subject: Another way for turkey butts?
Message-ID: <TUE.29.JUN.2004.172323.0400.MPOTTINGER@RENEWABLEPLANET.CA>

Right on. That is exactly my point of view also. Worrying about the total
energy cost of turning a waste into an energy product seems very unnecessary
when it costs more to dispose of it. In my humble opinon, any form of
re-use, if done in an environmentally responsible manner, is better than
disposal

Whether or not it is profitable and the initial investment required to
implement it seem to be the main concerns to me. I don't see energy balance
as a concern when dealing with waste. Will it make or save money, is what
anyone actually doing this would be interested in.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "hlbrodie" <hlbrodie@BLUECRAB.ORG>
> To: <GASIFICATION@LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 10:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [GASL] Another way for turkey butts?
>
>
> > There is no positive economic value of the residual or byproduct (waste)
> > of another process unless there is a buyer for that byproduct. There is
> > no energy or energy cost associated with the existence of that byproduct
> > because the cost of energy for the production from which it is derived
> > is entirely charged to the products that are sold. The byproduct
> > actually represents negative energy and energy cost when there is a need
> > for disposal.
> >
> > So the byproduct should be considered a new source of energy. Any cost
> > to retrieve energy from the byproduct is independent of the origin of
> > the byproduct. The cost of removing energy from the byproduct is
> > affected by the cost of the technology used as well as the economic
> > values of other opportunities to utilize the byproduct .
> >
> > An attempt at an energy balance to compare technologies for energy
> > retrieval from a feedstock has to be within the limits of the actual
> > processes being compared. If we attempt to define energy retrieval
> > efficiency beyond that then where do we stop? For example if we need to
> > build a facility component are we going to account for the incremental
> > energy required to obtain the materials used to manufacture the pipe
> > wrench that was used by a workman? And do we account for the energy
> > required to sustain the workman; get him to the job; or for that matter
> > the long account of energy required for the workman actually existing?
> >
> > We can't make this assessment with units of energy. We make the
> > assessment with units of economic value. Unfortunately, in the
> > development of economic value there is most often a failure to recognize
> > or give true value to direct or indirect impact on others.
> >
> > Herb Brodie
> >
> > Lewis L. Smith wrote:
> >
> > > to Gasifier list from Lewis L.
> Smith
> > >
> > > Oops !
> > >
> > > Full energy cost should also include incremental energy used to
> produce
> > > feedstock.
> > >
> > > Cordially.
> > >
> > > End.
> > >
>

From snkm at BTL.NET Wed Jun 30 15:33:23 2004
From: snkm at BTL.NET (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:59 2004
Subject: Bioconversion is ...?
Message-ID: <WED.30.JUN.2004.133323.0600.SNKM@BTL.NET>

At 07:20 AM 6/29/2004 -0600, TBReed wrote:
>Dear Paul:
>
>Glad to have you on Bioconversion. I do Gasification.
>
>What do you see as the area of Bioconversion over and above Stoves,
>Gasification, Ethanol, Digestion etc.? It would be nice if you could draw
>us a map.
>
>Thanks,
>
>TOM REED GASIFICATION

Well -- this should be of interest then: (Peter in Belize)

June 28, 2004

Note to Journalists: A publication-quality file photograph of Nancy Ho
is available at http://ftp.purdue.edu/pub/uns/+2004/ho.ethanol.jpg.
Writer Emil Venere will be out of town from July 1-9. During that
period, reporters can contact public affairs representative Jeanine
Phipps for assistance at (765) 494-0748,
jsphipps@purdueresearchfoundation.org.

PURDUE YEAST MAKES ETHANOL FROM AGRICULTURAL WASTE MORE EFFECTIVELY

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. - A strain of yeast developed at Purdue University
more effectively makes ethanol from agricultural residues that would
otherwise be discarded or used as animal feed, and the first license
for the yeast has been issued to the biotechnology company Iogen Corp.

Purdue's genetically altered yeast allows about 40 percent more ethanol
to be made from sugars derived from agricultural residues, such as corn
stalks and wheat straw, compared with "wild-type" yeasts that occur in
nature.

The agricultural residues are primarily made up of cellulose and
"hemicellulose," which are known as cellulosic materials. Unlike
traditional ethanol feedstocks, such as corn kernels, the cellulosic
materials contain two major sugars, glucose and xylose, which cannot
both be fermented into ethanol by natural Saccharomyces yeast, the
microorganism used by industry to produce ethanol, said Nancy Ho, a
senior research scientist and leader of the molecular genetics group in
Purdue's Laboratory of Renewable Resources Engineering, or LORRE.

Iogen specializes in producing ethanol from cellulosic material.

A team led by Ho developed the more efficient yeast during the 1980s
and 1990s. Conventional yeast can ferment glucose to ethanol, but it
cannot ferment xylose. Xylose makes up about 30 percent of the sugar
from agricultural residues, and the inability to ferment xylose would
represent a major loss of ethanol yield, Ho said.

The Purdue researchers altered the genetic structure of the yeast so
that it now contains three additional genes that make it possible to
simultaneously convert glucose and xylose to ethanol. The ability to
ferment xylose increases the yield of ethanol from straw by about 40
percent. Being able to simultaneously ferment glucose and xylose is
important because both sugars are found together in agricultural
residues, Ho said.

"It would cost too much money to separate the two sugars before
proceeding with fermentation to ethanol, so being able to ferment both
sugars together to ethanol is critical," she said. "To be more cost
competitive with gasoline, the two sugars have to be converted together
to ethanol.

"Until we developed our yeast, no suitable microorganism could convert
these two sugars together."

Iogen has obtained a non-exclusive license from the Purdue Research
Foundation for the yeast and related patents. Its Ottawa, Canada,
demonstration facility is the first plant in the world to produce
ethanol from cellulosic materials. Iogen is using the Purdue yeast to
produce ethanol from the sugars the company derives from wheat straw.

"We have confirmed that Purdue's recombinant glucose- and
xylose-fermenting yeast is the most effective microorganism available
for the production of ethanol from cellulosic materials," said Jeffrey
S. Tolan, senior research scientist for Iogen. "The ethanol yield and
productivity from the Purdue yeast in our plant matches that obtained
by Dr. Ho's group in the lab at Purdue. The Purdue yeast is also easy
to work with and is favored by our plant operators because of this."

The ethanol made in Iogen's plant is blended into gasoline at the
Petro-Canada refinery in Montreal. Cars use the ethanol-gasoline blend
without any modifications; typically, drivers are not even aware of the
presence of the ethanol, except for the label on the gas pump. The
Ottawa plant represents the latest step toward Iogen's goal of making
ethanol from cellulosic materials widely available as a fuel, Tolan
said.

In Iogen's process, about two-thirds of the straw is converted to
ethanol, with a yield of about 75 gallons of ethanol per ton of straw.
Most of the remaining one-third of the agricultural residue, which
cannot be fermented, is burned to generate power to run the plant, and
there is little waste or use of fossil fuels, he said.

"The use of cellulose ethanol offers advantages to the environment that
are not obtained with other transportation fuels that are available,"
Tolan said.

Also known as ethyl alcohol, ethanol can be used as fuel by itself or
blended with gasoline. The Purdue yeast is used in combination with
other technologies under development that first convert agricultural
materials to xylose and glucose, said Purdue's Michael Ladisch,
Distinguished Professor of Agricultural and Biological Engineering and
director of LORRE.

"Iogen's efforts are beneficial to companies in Indiana and elsewhere
in the United States by providing an industrial test bed for the
fermentation part of the cellulose conversion technology, hence
speeding its development for uses on a range of crops and crop residues
once the other technologies, including preprocessing of the cellulosic
materials and converting these materials to sugars, are developed and
proven in the industry," Ladisch said.

Ethanol is environmentally friendly and a cleaner fuel than gasoline,
he said.

"The carbon dioxide that is generated from burning ethanol is recycled
back into plant material because plants incorporate CO2 into cellulose
as part of the photosynthesis cycle," Ladisch said. "This reduces the
net generation of the greenhouse gas since part of it is recycled."

Ethanol currently is produced when yeast ferments glucose and related
hexose - or six-carbon sugars in food crops such as cane sugar, corn
and other starch-rich grains. However, Ho said, because these crops are
expensive and in relatively limited supply, they can't yield sufficient
amounts of ethanol for transportation needs.

Cellulosic materials represent an opportunity to address this problem,
she said. Cellulosic materials cost only about half as much as corn per
ton but are more difficult than corn to convert to ethanol. Part of the
difficulty is the fermentation to ethanol of the xylose, which is a
five-carbon sugar. This sugar is not naturally fermented by yeast or
other microorganisms.

"Corn-based ethanol production in the United States currently is about
3 billion gallons per year," Ho said. "According to conservative
estimates, 30 percent of the residue left behind in the cornfield after
harvest could produce another 4 billion to 5 billion gallons annually.

"The use of cellulosic materials also could open up new markets for
crops such as grasses, which can be grown on marginal lands, creating
jobs and providing more energy independence."

An added advantage of yeast strains developed by Ho is that they are
based on environmentally safe Saccharomyces yeast, which has been used
for centuries to make wine and bread and is the only microorganism used
by industry for large-scale ethanol production from glucose.

Ho has worked for 20 years to produce and perfect a yeast that can
effectively convert more of the sugars in plant matter - corn stalks,
tree leaves, wood chips, grass clippings, and even cardboard - into
ethanol.

"Ethanol produced from cellulosic materials is an ideal, domestically
available fuel," Ho said.

In 1993, Ho's group became the first in the world to produce a
genetically engineered Saccharomyces yeast that can effectively ferment
both glucose and xylose.

Ho's research has been funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
the Department of Energy, the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology
Research Inc., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and industry
sources.

Ho holds a doctoral degree in molecular biology from Purdue, a master's
degree in organic chemistry from Temple University and a bachelor's
degree in chemical engineering from the National Taiwan University.

Writer: Emil Venere, (765) 494-4709, venere@purdue.edu

Sources: Nancy Ho, (765) 494-7046, nwyho@ecn.purdue.edu

Michael Ladisch, (765)494-7022, ladisch@purdue.edu

Jeffrey S. Tolan, (613) 733 9830 (Ext. 3407), jefft@iogen.ca

Simran Trana, Purdue Research Foundation licensing contact, (765)
494-6725, strana@purdueresearchfoundation.org

Related Web sites:

Laboratory of Renewable Resources Engineering:
https://engineering.purdue.edu/IIES/LORRE/

Iogen Corp.: http://www.iogen.ca

PHOTO CAPTION:

A genetically engineered form of yeast developed at Purdue's Laboratory
of Renewable Resources Engineering can produce about 40 percent more
ethanol from sugars derived from agricultural residues that would
otherwise be discarded or used as animal feed. Nancy Ho, a senior
research scientist and leader of the lab's molecular genetics group,
holds cultures of the new yeast strain (in the Petri dish) and a sample
of ethanol. (Purdue News Service file photo/David Umberger)

A publication-quality photo is available at
http://ftp.purdue.edu/pub/uns/+2004/ho.ethanol.jpg

------------------------
Purdue University News Service
400 Centennial Mall Drive Room 324
West Lafayette, IN 47906-2016
purduenews@purdue.edu
Office (765) 494-2096
Fax (765) 494-0401

From CAVM at AOL.COM Wed Jun 30 21:51:33 2004
From: CAVM at AOL.COM (C. Van Milligen)
Date: Tue Aug 10 18:24:59 2004
Subject: NY not recognize thermal conversion as renewable
Message-ID: <WED.30.JUN.2004.215133.EDT.>

Promising Renewable Energy Source Excluded from New York State Retail
Renewable Portfolio Standard

Keyspan Advocates for Thermal Conversion Process

WEST HEMPSTEAD, N.Y., June 30 /PRNewswire/ -- A technology hailed by the
scientific community as one of the most promising new sources of renewable
energy in the world today has been excluded from New York State's proposed Retail
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), a guideline designed to increase to 25%
the amount of electricity purchased in the state that is generated from
renewable sources. KeySpan Corporation, one of the state's largest utilities, has
appealed for a broader definition of eligible renewable energy sources, to
include the organic process developed by Changing World Technologies (CWT) to
produce a sustainable source of high grade oil and natural gas from
agricultural residue and animal waste.

The New York State Public Service Commission released its Recommended
Decision (RD) defining eligibility for RPS on June 3. Eligible under the RD are
wood-based sources of biomass; as well as biogas derived from landfills, sewage
and manure digestion; fuel cells; and hydroelectric, solar, tidal and wind
sources. Absent from the list are plant, animal and landfill-based sources of
renewable, carbon-neutral biomass.

In its brief, KeySpan states: "Agricultural and animal waste are viable
biomass sources, and the process developed by CWT is environmentally benign and
carbon-neutral ... The exclusion of animal waste and other organic materials
as eligible biomass sources appears arbitrary in light of the fact that
animal and other organic waste, unless otherwise disposed of, will end up in
landfills, and landfill gas is eligible for main-tier incentives. There is also
an inconsistency in that animal manure is an eligible biomass source, but
offal is not ... [By] broadening the definition of eligible biomass sources to
include offal and other organic waste, the Commission will increase the
likelihood of meeting the RPS targets and improving the state's economic and
energy security."

Scientific Support

In December 2003, Scientific American magazine named Changing World
Technologies the most important energy company in America, as part of its annual
Scientific American 50 issue. The Scientific American 50 recognizes the
"singular accomplishments of those who have contributed to the advancement of
technology in the realms of science, engineering, commerce and public policy."

Other scientific journals, from Discover magazine to Massachusetts Institute
of Technology's Technology Review, have also hailed CWT's technology --
called Thermal Conversion Process (TCP) -- as one of the most important new
sources in sustainable energy development.

Discover reports in its July 2004 issue, "Out of 100 Btus in a given unit of
feedstock, only 15 Btus are used to power the [TCP] process, with the
remainder residing in oil, gas and chemicals. Most important, the oil produced in
these tests easily meets the specifications for diesel fuel."

About TCP

CWT's Thermal Conversion Process is a method of reforming organic waste into
a high-value energy resource, without hazardous emissions to the
environment. The first refinery utilizing TCP to produce and sell oil commercially
commenced operation in Carthage, Mo., in May under a joint venture between CWT
and ConAgra Foods.

Because TCP utilizes above-ground waste streams to produce a new energy
source, it also has the potential to arrest global warming by reducing the use of
fossil fuels, and to create a means of energy independence by reducing U.S.
reliance on imported oil.

TCP succeeds in breaking down long chains of organic polymers into their
smallest units and reforming them into new combinations to produce clean solid,
liquid and gaseous alternative fuels and specialty chemicals. The process
emulates the earth's natural geothermal activity, whereby organic material is
converted into fossil fuel under conditions of extreme heat and pressure over
millions of years. It mimics the earth's system by using pipes and
controlling temperature and pressure to reduce the bio-remediation process from
millions of years to mere hours.

The process entails five steps:

(1) Pulping and slurrying the organic feed with water.

(2) Heating the slurry under pressure to the desired temperature.

(3) Flashing the slurry to a lower pressure to separate the mixture.

(4) Heating the slurry again (coking) to drive off water and produce

light hydrocarbons.

(5) Separating the end products.

TCP is more than 80% energy efficient. In addition, it generates its own
energy to power the system, and uses the steam naturally created by the process
to heat incoming feedstock. In addition, TCP produces no emissions and no
secondary hazardous waste streams.

Said Brian Appel, Chairman and CEO of Changing World Technologies, "New York
State is one of the largest importers of foreign oil in the U.S. New York
should have a vested interest in supporting the RPS eligibility of a
sustainable domestic energy source that meets every criteria for environmental
responsibility. The Biomass Eligibility working group, which formulated the
definition of eligible renewable sources in this category, was dominated by special
interests that excluded every viable and environmentally responsible biomass
source other than wood. The Public Service Commission still has an
opportunity to broaden the definition to be more inclusive, and we are hopeful they
will make the right decision."

For more information, log onto http://www.changingworldtech.com.

SOURCE Changing World Technologies

CO: Changing World Technologies

ST: New York

SU:

Web site: http://www.changingworldtech.com

http://www.prnewswire.com

06/30/2004 16:40 EDT

BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

June 2004 Gasification Archive