BioEnergy Lists: Gasifiers & Gasification

For more information about Gasifiers and Gasification, please see our web site: http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org

To join the discussion list and see the current archives, please use this page: http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org

October 2004 Gasification Archive

For more messages see our 1996-2004 Gasification Discussion List Archives.

From tombreed at comcast.net Fri Oct 1 06:31:03 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 05:31:03 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Fw: World's largest and smallest gasifiers ...
Message-ID: <007701c4a7aa$227aab40$3201a8c0@OFFICE>

----- Original Message -----
From: TBReed
To: LWheeler45 at aol.com ; GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG ; STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Cc: Bill Ayres ; Garvin DeShazer
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 9:20 AM
Subject: World's largest and smallest gasifiers ...

Dear LW:

In answer to your question, the largest gasifiers I have seen are produced by PRIME ENERGY (see http://www.primenergy.com/Projects_detail_id12.htm?id=12.htm). I visited them about 1998. They have several dozen plants running around the world and are experimenting with other feedstocks. I believe they have gasified more biomass than all other gasifiers combined, including > 1 million in Europe during WWII. (Typically 20 to 200 kW).

Very impressive...

On the other hand, biomass is widely distributed and we also need smaller ones for distributed power. Here's a VERY small one that I carry in my pocket for demonstrations of the important difference between updraft (char burning, tar making) and downdraft (tar burning, char making) gasifiers. This is the tarburning, charmaking mode.

TOM REED Moderator - Gasification

Email didn't allow pics.

Construction Photograph
September 1995

Background Description
Early in 1995, PRM Energy Systems, Inc., (the gasification technology patent holder) was contracted by a multinational rice mill company in Greenville, Mississippi to convert 330 tons per day of rice hulls into renewable energy. Two (2) model KC-18 gasifiers, operating in parallel, produce about 120,000 pounds per hour of high pressure steam. The steam is directed to a steam turbine, electric generator with an extraction lobe to remove steam from the turbine for consumption in the rice milling operation. Heater Specialists, a sister company to Primenergy, completed the shop fabrication of the equipment in September of 1995 and shipped the system via barge to the Greenville docks. The equipment was unloaded at the docks by Heater Specialists sister field construction company, Mohawk Field Services, Inc. Field construction of the gasification equipment was completed in late fall of that year and the gasifiers were started in October of 1995.


The Project
Rice hulls are air conveyed from the rice mill and delivered into storage silos. On a level demand signal, hulls are transferred from storage into "metering bins". An energy demand signal from the centralized process controller varies the rate of feed of the rice hulls into each gasifier. Process conditions within the gasification vessels are automatically controlled to assure maximum conversion of the solid hull into hot, synthesis gas without the formation of glass or slag. The synthesis gases enter into a "pre-burn" combustion tube prior to introduction into the heat recovery, steam-generating boiler. The purpose of the pre-burn is to minimize the production of the air pollutant, nitrogen oxide. By partially burning the gases, nitrogen atoms recombine into atmospheric nitrogen rather than forming the air polluting nitrogen oxide. The final burning of the gases occurs at the entry point into the boiler. At normal operating conditions, sufficient steam is produced in the boiler to generate about five thousand two hundred kilowatts (5,200 kW) of high voltage electricity and thirty thousand (30,000) pounds per hour of medium pressure steam that is sent to the rice mill.


----- Original Message -----
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 10:51 PM
Subject: [Gasification] Questions

Where is the largest operational Gasification system located?
What is the fuel source and what is produced?

 

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

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041001/719f0660/attachment.html

From cicbcal at cal2.vsnl.net.in Fri Oct 1 07:53:57 2004
From: cicbcal at cal2.vsnl.net.in (Kollol Dey)
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:23:57 +0530
Subject: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
References: <007701c4a7aa$227aab40$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
Message-ID: <020901c4a7b6$05fd9d90$1332c3c0@KollolDey>

Dear All,

I am interested in knowing if anyone has catalogued a list of "Sucessfully Operating Gasifiers" world wide?
If such a list exists, I will be very obliged to receive a copy of the same.

Kolol Dey
India

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041001/23e477dd/attachment.html

From tmiles at trmiles.com Fri Oct 1 09:13:13 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 07:13:13 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
References: <007701c4a7aa$227aab40$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
<020901c4a7b6$05fd9d90$1332c3c0@KollolDey>
Message-ID: <011001c4a7c0$d46bcad0$6401a8c0@tomslaptop>

Kolol,

The criteria of "successfully operating" depends on whether you are talking to the inventor/developer, supplier, owner or banker. I started such a list for small scale systems but I found it difficult to maintain and difficult to find out what was actually operating. My criteria for demonstration of commercial operation is 5,000 hours. 5,000 hours per year is the typical duty that you would expect a gasifier to do in a typical industrial setting. In North America there are only a few that meet this criteria. They are making hot gas for industrial production like the PRM case. You can find the links below.

IEA Task force on Bioenergy does a good job of updating their Status of Gasification in Countries Participating in IEA and Gasnet Activity. Thanks to Harrie Knoef. 2002 is their latest update.

EPRI maintains a database of gasifiers that includes about 350 in the world. About 15 are industrial scale biomass projects at various stages of development and implementation.

BTG's biomass gasifier inventory is a good start as is Tom Reed's woodgas database. But everyone who works through these databases finds a very small number of systems actually operating.

A good inventory of the gasifiers operating in India and China would be useful.

It's always useful when someone can survey the suppliers themselves to see what systems (and where) they claim are operating.

Regards,

Tom

Gasification (REPP)
http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html

Small Scale Gasifiers (REPP)
http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html

Gasifier Inventory (BTG)
http://www.gasifiers.org/

Status of Gasifiers in IEA Countries (IEA) 2001
http://www.gastechnology.org/webroot/app/xn/xd.aspx?it=enweb&xd=iea/countries.xml

Survey of Biomass Gasification (2000) BEF
http://www.woodgas.com/Gasification.htm

----- Original Message -----
From: Kollol Dey
To: GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 5:53 AM
Subject: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers

Dear All,

I am interested in knowing if anyone has catalogued a list of "Sucessfully Operating Gasifiers" world wide?
If such a list exists, I will be very obliged to receive a copy of the same.

Kolol Dey
India

 

 

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

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041001/195d4d24/attachment.html

From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Oct 1 10:13:11 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:13:11 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Questions
Message-ID: <15.343d9196.2e8ece07@aol.com>

I believe that there are two 3000 megawatt coal fired gasifiers in Europe,
both Texaco-now GE, and of course we cannot forget the Northern Plains
gasification systems or the SASOL plants which are bigger. Biomass plants are typically
much smaller of course.
A funny comment made to me the other night-Chevron bought Texaco, primarily I
understand for the Texaco gasification technology. GE has bought the
gasification technology from Texaco because it wants the turbine market capture. Now
ChevronTexaco needs gasification systems and has to buy them from GE.

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 list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Fri Oct 1 12:02:17 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:02:17 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Questions
In-Reply-To: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGCEDODPAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
References: <90.4d119d4d.2e8bf9b8@aol.com>
<MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGCEDODPAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
Message-ID: <h43rl0hujkcfnah1vvtfcc5tkhfbohn1cl@4ax.com>

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 00:18:18 +0100, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:

>Sent on behalf of AJH whose email will not talk to REPP (or vice versa!!)
>AJH

Thanks for that Gav, unfortunately you snipped out the attribution for
Tom Reed, the original poster of the text which was too long for the
repp mailman program.

Whilst the post was held for stoves, where I thought it was probably
inappropriate, I saw that it had not got through to Gasification
either.

I cut the text and photos and replaced them with the url and a copy of
Tom's photo on a webpage so the post became small enough for the
mailman software.

I see Tom has since reposted the text less photos.

AJH

 

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Fri Oct 1 19:07:38 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 19:07:38 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Manitoba Hydro "Gasification Workshop"
Message-ID: <006f01c4a813$d46bb510$1900a8c0@a31server>

Hi ALL !!

Just an update on a workshop both Doug Williams (Fluidyne) and I attended.

On Sept. 30/04 I had the pleasure of meeting Doug in person for the first
time, I see that "yes, It's true", Doug is passionate about gasification
period!

I wish I had more time (and/or money) to "pick Doug's brain" as I am now a
very firm believer of Doug's expert qualifications.

As far as the workshop, the four main speakers where Fernando Preto Ph. D.
of Ottawa, Canada, (Physical Scientist, CANMET Energy Technology Centre,
Government of Canada), D.R.(Deny) St.George, MSc, P.Eng. of Winnipeg,
Manitoba (Biosystems Engineer, Manitoba Hydro), Dr. Eric Bibeau, of the
University of Manitoba (Alternative Energy & Modeling), and Mrs. Sebnem
Madrali Ph.D. also of the CANMET Energy Technology Centre.

All that spoke, had many valuable points & interests that I would deem
"Highly Beneficial" to anyone interested in procuring or investing in any
form of gasification both for "CHP" or "power only" generation (all sizes
and styles).

This was an "INTENSE" 8 1/2 hours of cramming, at one point or another I
would see somewhat "puzzled" looks on faces around the room (Myself included
at times), other times we all appeared to have a "common goal &
understanding" (Side note: that was a VERY nice "warm fuzzy feeling"). but
all in all, there was an intense amount of information shared around the
room, to everyone's advantage.

If anyone has any questions I would be happy to reply onlist with answers,
But due to ethical business constraints, I would be Speaking ONLY from a
gasification standpoint, NOT a power generation view.

Winter is coming,

Greg Manning,
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

 

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Sat Oct 2 00:07:46 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 01:07:46 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] thanks Tom for the info can you ans another question
Message-ID: <15b.404c718a.2e8f91a2@aol.com>

I was very involved with E 85 ethanol processing and always wondered why the
waste of cobs or cane bagasse was not gassified as opposed to being burned to
provide the process heat and electrical power for the process? Any answers?

Also where are the USDOE funded project reports? Cannot seem to find much on
this
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041002/6e919e2e/attachment.html

From cicbcal at cal2.vsnl.net.in Sun Oct 3 10:31:06 2004
From: cicbcal at cal2.vsnl.net.in (Kollol Dey)
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 21:01:06 +0530
Subject: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
References: <007701c4a7aa$227aab40$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
<020901c4a7b6$05fd9d90$1332c3c0@KollolDey>
<011001c4a7c0$d46bcad0$6401a8c0@tomslaptop>
Message-ID: <018801c4a95e$8be7f0f0$a3c441db@KollolDey>

Tom,

Yes, I am indeed looking for a list of gasifiers that has been "successful" in operating continuously for at least 8000 hours a year or so which is normally the minimum accepted period for any continuous process plants in the industry. In fact, refineries etc are now clocking two years of continuous operation between two major overhauls.
I agree with gasifiers even 8000 hours may be too long, and so accept the 5000 hours of operation, bench mark indicated by Tom.

I know for sure that many process industry have and publish such lists of plants the world over. Thus, if anyone is interested in knowing about ammonia plants, urea plants, sulphuric acids plants, refineries, ethylene crackers etc, etc, one only needs to pick up such list and get at least the names, the capacities, when the plant was commissioned, and who built it etc etc as ready references.

Actually, "Hydrocarbon Processing" also periodically publishes all the various plants (of course - Hydrocarbon Industry related only) being built the world over - it is a very useful information for many concerned with the industry.

In another posting Bill has asked me "May I inquire as to your interest in a list of successful gasification systems?". Well the answer is very simple, such a list will clearly indicate which are the tall claims which are the correct ones. I know for sure that there are many who claim a lot when they refer to their technology, well what better way can there be than to check their list of "operating" plants?

I think an authentic list published by a realiable independant body will also help the people concerned with this technology immensely - starting from those thinking of investing such units, to those designing and building such plants and also the various vendors and suppliers who play a very important roll in the development of any technology. In short, all concerned with this technology.

Regards

Kollol.
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Miles
To: Kollol Dey ; GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers

Kollol,

The criteria of "successfully operating" depends on whether you are talking to the inventor/developer, supplier, owner or banker. I started such a list for small scale systems but I found it difficult to maintain and difficult to find out what was actually operating. My criteria for demonstration of commercial operation is 5,000 hours. 5,000 hours per year is the typical duty that you would expect a gasifier to do in a typical industrial setting. In North America there are only a few that meet this criteria. They are making hot gas for industrial production like the PRM case. You can find the links below.

IEA Task force on Bioenergy does a good job of updating their Status of Gasification in Countries Participating in IEA and Gasnet Activity. Thanks to Harrie Knoef. 2002 is their latest update.

EPRI maintains a database of gasifiers that includes about 350 in the world. About 15 are industrial scale biomass projects at various stages of development and implementation.

BTG's biomass gasifier inventory is a good start as is Tom Reed's woodgas database. But everyone who works through these databases finds a very small number of systems actually operating.

A good inventory of the gasifiers operating in India and China would be useful.

It's always useful when someone can survey the suppliers themselves to see what systems (and where) they claim are operating.

Regards,

Tom

Gasification (REPP)
http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html

Small Scale Gasifiers (REPP)
http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html

Gasifier Inventory (BTG)
http://www.gasifiers.org/

Status of Gasifiers in IEA Countries (IEA) 2001
http://www.gastechnology.org/webroot/app/xn/xd.aspx?it=enweb&xd=iea/countries.xml

Survey of Biomass Gasification (2000) BEF
http://www.woodgas.com/Gasification.htm

----- Original Message -----
From: Kollol Dey
To: GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 5:53 AM
Subject: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers

Dear All,

I am interested in knowing if anyone has catalogued a list of "Sucessfully Operating Gasifiers" world wide?
If such a list exists, I will be very obliged to receive a copy of the same.

Kolol Dey
India

 

 

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

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041003/5a7058a8/attachment.html

From gasman at welho.com Sun Oct 3 11:49:34 2004
From: gasman at welho.com (Gasman)
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 19:49:34 +0300
Subject: [Gasification] Woodgas seminar in Germany 2-4.4.04
Message-ID: <00c401c4a968$f8491ad0$4f884e3e@P333>

 

Hello !

On the 29th of March this year I went to Germany for ten days with an assistant.
I was invited to go there to lecture on the subject "woodgas driven CHP" as a part
of a series of lectures and seminars, arranged by "RE-Energie Wendland".

During the weeks ahead of the seminary (2-4 April) it became quite evident that
the landlord and his assistants on the "CHP-site", could not get the engine to start,
what ever they tried. They had not bothered to build a gasmixer according to
advice I had published on the German "driving on woodgas" list, earlier in the winter.

As it seemed that the seminar should be postponed or completely abolished,
I offered to arrange an assistant and come over to partly rebuild the
gasification system, and a gasmixer, so that the already partly built system could
be taken in use for the seminar.

Proposal "granted", and we went from Hanko in south Finland over the Baltic Sea
with one of the new "Superfast Ferries" down to Travem?nde in northern Germany.

Then we drove down south, a bit over 200 km. Late at night 30.3.04 we arrived at
the site, Gedelitz, a Gasthaus and a farm. A nice welcome supper, and then to
the night quarters.

>From the next morning on, to Friday 2.4.04 late afternoon, we planned, negotiated
materials, and built the system. We were just about ready, when the first
co-participants already had arrived, and entered the "engine hall".

Prior to this moment the woodgas generator (in another building) was fanned,
and had reached its working (process) temperature.

Now, we fired up the engine (7,4 litre Valmet, former Diesel, now Otto) with
a short suck of gasoline from a VW GOLF carburettor (we had attached it on the side
of the gasmixture suction tube), a bit over the intake manifold. As my assistant
closed the gasoline carburettor throttle, I opened the gasmixer,
(2 ganged parallel ball valves)....
and the engine worked as no change of fuel ever should have happened!

The landlord immediately celebrated us all with well chilled CHAMPAGNE !
We were 15 anticipants from all over Germany, Switzerland, and Finland.
There were scholars, entrepreneurs, farmers, burocrats, you name it!

During this seminar, the German Bundestag (Parliament) 2.4.04 voted finally to
set the new payment for biofuel-produced electricity at small to medium sites,
to 21 eurocents/kWh.

The seminar continued 3 days with altering different lecturing, discussion, and
running, and "investigating" the woodgas CHP.

Yours, sincerely

Max Gasman

 

From snkm at btl.net Sun Oct 3 14:33:35 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 13:33:35 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Woodgas seminar in Germany 2-4.4.04
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041003112945.00957cb0@pop.btl.net>

At 07:49 PM 10/3/2004 +0300, Gasman wrote:
>
>
>Hello !
>
>
>On the 29th of March this year I went to Germany for ten days with an
assistant.
>I was invited to go there to lecture on the subject "woodgas driven CHP"
as a part
>of a series of lectures and seminars, arranged by "RE-Energie Wendland".
>

Wonderful story Max!!

and thanks for sharing.

I wish to print the list to this specific section of Max's com.

 

>During this seminar, the German Bundestag (Parliament) 2.4.04 voted
finally to
>set the new payment for biofuel-produced electricity at small to medium
sites,
>to 21 eurocents/kWh.

At today's rates of exchange that is = to:

21 Eurocents = .2603 US Dollar

Certainly -- at that price -- gasification becomes an extremely viable
enterprise!!

As does running Ormat ORC's -- or even standard old style thermal power
plants.

Actually -- for here in Belize -- one can make excellent profit operating a
Vermont Wood Chip type of thermal power plant (the one they had in
operation before they experimented with gasification) for 10 cents US per
kwh!!

Max -- you did not make a typo there -- and mean 2.1 Eurocents -- 2.6 cents
US per kwh??

Peter -- in Belize

>
>
>Yours, sincerely
>
>Max Gasman
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

From gasman at welho.com Sun Oct 3 15:30:49 2004
From: gasman at welho.com (Gasman)
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 23:30:49 +0300
Subject: [Gasification] Refirming Woodgas seminar in Germany...
Message-ID: <00e901c4a987$e44e1ca0$4f884e3e@P333>

 

Thank you all for the warming appreciations !

 

>During this seminar, the German Bundestag (Parliament) 2.4.04 voted
finally to
>set the new payment for biofuel-produced electricity at small to medium
sites,
>to 21 eurocents/kWh.

At today's rates of exchange that is = to:

21 Eurocents = .2603 US Dollar

Certainly -- at that price -- gasification becomes an extremely viable
enterprise!!

As does running Ormat ORC's -- or even standard old style thermal power
plants.

Actually -- for here in Belize -- one can make excellent profit operating a
Vermont Wood Chip type of thermal power plant (the one they had in
operation before they experimented with gasification) for 10 cents US per
kwh!!

Max -- you did not make a typo there -- and mean 2.1 Eurocents -- 2.6 cents
US per kwh??

Peter -- in Belize

 

Oh no, I am "stone cold sober", and it stands: 21/100 = 21 Eurocents / kWh !

It seems perhaps overwhelming, but big (and old) waterpower stations get about

7 Eurocents/kWh.

But this is just for small and medium sites, <5 MW , and additionally, if I remember

it right, they shall be newly built, or be built in the near future.

I could look up for the German government links, but it can be a job to find English
versions.

On links I have seen some of the government papers in German; they are like books
and as a slow reader it would take weeks to plough through them. And my mother
tongue isn't German, but Swedish.

Max

 

From gregoire.jovicic at jovicic.com Sun Oct 3 16:14:32 2004
From: gregoire.jovicic at jovicic.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Gr=E9goire_JOVICIC?=)
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 23:14:32 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Refirming Woodgas seminar in Germany...
In-Reply-To: <00e901c4a987$e44e1ca0$4f884e3e@P333>
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAjWHuzVeiQECyc+xYtT7dy8KAAAAQAAAAaTns2m2TeU2RO5SoIiGcMAEAAAAA@jovicic.com>

 

21 eurocents/kwh in Germany ! Wunderbach ! In Frankreich es ist n?r 0,08
Euro/kwh.
Wir haben nach Deutschland gehen arbeiten
Kennen sie sagen wo ist posted am Bundestag internet homepagne dieser
einkauf preis
Ist RWE der einkaufer ?

Gregoire jovicic/Paris, Frankreich

-----Message d'origine-----
De?: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] De la part de Gasman
Envoy??: dimanche 3 octobre 2004 22:31
??: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Objet?: [Gasification] Refirming Woodgas seminar in Germany...

 

Thank you all for the warming appreciations !

 

>During this seminar, the German Bundestag (Parliament) 2.4.04 voted
finally to
>set the new payment for biofuel-produced electricity at small to medium
sites,
>to 21 eurocents/kWh.

At today's rates of exchange that is = to:

21 Eurocents = .2603 US Dollar

Certainly -- at that price -- gasification becomes an extremely viable
enterprise!!

As does running Ormat ORC's -- or even standard old style thermal power
plants.

Actually -- for here in Belize -- one can make excellent profit operating a
Vermont Wood Chip type of thermal power plant (the one they had in
operation before they experimented with gasification) for 10 cents US per
kwh!!

Max -- you did not make a typo there -- and mean 2.1 Eurocents -- 2.6 cents
US per kwh??

Peter -- in Belize

 

Oh no, I am "stone cold sober", and it stands: 21/100 = 21 Eurocents /
kWh !

It seems perhaps overwhelming, but big (and old) waterpower stations get
about

7 Eurocents/kWh.

But this is just for small and medium sites, <5 MW , and additionally, if I
remember

it right, they shall be newly built, or be built in the near future.

I could look up for the German government links, but it can be a job to find
English
versions.

On links I have seen some of the government papers in German; they are like
books
and as a slow reader it would take weeks to plough through them. And my
mother
tongue isn't German, but Swedish.

Max

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

From gasman at welho.com Sun Oct 3 19:31:52 2004
From: gasman at welho.com (Gasman)
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 03:31:52 +0300
Subject: [Gasification] Correction on kWh price in Germany
Message-ID: <013601c4a9a9$99f73a20$4f884e3e@P333>

 

I have to apologise: In Germany, the kWh is paid

by 21,5 eurocent for small power plants CHP's ,

fed by biofuels, and bigger ones get less.

I tried to get confirmation for this on the German link

http://p208.ezboard.com/ffahrenmitholzgasfrm1 , but

it does not work so well that links can be copied.

There is one link about the government motivations
behind these new tariffs, also on the site itself
is "available" an example of a calculation of the different
components making up the price.
I will return with this, when the site eventually "heals".

Max Gasman

 

From snkm at btl.net Sun Oct 3 20:16:09 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 19:16:09 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Correction on kWh price in Germany
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041003191445.009788b0@pop.btl.net>

Hi again Max;

I believe I can speak for all the list on this subject. If america ever
started a program such as this -- paying the equivalent of 21,5 eurocent
for small power plants CHP's, it would be indeed a very happy time after
for all gasifier contractors in the US of A!!

It would breath new life into this now stagnant domain.

This kind of pricing would encourage all kinds of innovation -- great deeds
would be soon realized!!

It would be a true miracle in energy production!!

If only ---- but I doubt they ever will!

Hurray for Germany!! To take such a brave step forward!!

I can't understand why other gas-listers are not picking up on this --
probably all hanging their collective heads in shame!!

America once was a leader in advancing new technology and by means such as
this -- back when they kept a level playing field -- long time ago now.

Everyone was always under the impression that Europe was the dead lands as
far as encouraging energy innovation "policies".

Now -- we have to readjust our beliefs --

America is no longer a "leader" --

Peter

At 03:31 AM 10/4/2004 +0300, Gasman wrote:
>
>
>I have to apologise: In Germany, the kWh is paid
>
>by 21,5 eurocent for small power plants CHP's ,
>
>fed by biofuels, and bigger ones get less.
>
>I tried to get confirmation for this on the German link
>
>http://p208.ezboard.com/ffahrenmitholzgasfrm1 , but
>
>it does not work so well that links can be copied.
>
>There is one link about the government motivations
>behind these new tariffs, also on the site itself
>is "available" an example of a calculation of the different
>components making up the price.
>I will return with this, when the site eventually "heals".
>
>
>Max Gasman
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

From gasman at welho.com Mon Oct 4 04:38:54 2004
From: gasman at welho.com (Gasman)
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 12:38:54 +0300
Subject: [Gasification] kWh price in Germany...
Message-ID: <000701c4a9f5$f8afa9c0$f88ff3d5@P333>

Still I haven't been able to get confirmation, but out of a (fading) memory: "Nothing lasts for ever ..." The kWh prices will be rounded off by time; there is a schedule, in steps, but it has to wait, until
it can be confirmed. But now, and for some years, there is a
"window of opportunity".

Max

From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Mon Oct 4 06:39:57 2004
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 08:39:57 -0300
Subject: [Gasification] kWh price in Germany...
References: <000701c4a9f5$f8afa9c0$f88ff3d5@P333>
Message-ID: <001d01c4aa06$e4c97470$d99a0a40@kevin>

Dear Max

Small scale power generation is very costly. Also, biomass fuel cost might
be relatively expensive in Germany. The payment of .21 EURO per kw-hr is
certainly very attractive to a large scale biomass fuelled facility, running
on low cost or zero cost biomass.

Labour cost can be very significant for small facilities. A 6 MW biomass
plant requiring one operator has a labour cost per kw-hr that is 100 times
greater than a 600 MW fossil plant that can also be operated by one
operator.

Small new plants are certainly far more costly per unit of output than are
large existing units...

Is the .21 EURO perhaps a sensible price for small scale biomass power in
Germany? Would an unimaginative German Banker loan money for such a
facility? :-)

Kevin Chisholm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gasman" <gasman at welho.com>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 6:38 AM
Subject: [Gasification] kWh price in Germany...

 

Still I haven't been able to get confirmation, but out of a (fading) memory:
"Nothing lasts for ever ..." The kWh prices will be rounded off by time;
there is a schedule, in steps, but it has to wait, until
it can be confirmed. But now, and for some years, there is a
"window of opportunity".

Max
_______________________________________________

 

From tombreed at comcast.net Mon Oct 4 07:56:14 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 06:56:14 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
References: <007701c4a7aa$227aab40$3201a8c0@OFFICE><020901c4a7b6$05fd9d90$1332c3c0@KollolDey><011001c4a7c0$d46bcad0$6401a8c0@tomslaptop>
<018801c4a95e$8be7f0f0$a3c441db@KollolDey>
Message-ID: <003601c4aa11$8828aeb0$3201a8c0@OFFICE>

Dear Kollol Dey, Tom Miles and All:

The only gasifiers I know that come to this standard are the PRM rice hull gasifiers, PRIME ENERGY.

When I published my "Survey of Biomass Gasification" for the US DOE in 2000 I had a picture of the Cargill (then) Greenville, Mississippi rice hull gasifiers on the cover (300 t/day) and I said "Possibly more biomass has been gasified in PRMES gasifiers than all other gasifiers combined, including the million gasifiers in WWIII.* It is truly commercial with over 20 current installations and another 8 planned." I put a picture of this gasifier on the cover of the draft of the book.

The US DOE was paying for the book and for the development of the FERCO (developed by Battelle) gasifier, so they said I should remove the PRIME gasifier from the cover and substitute their FERCO gasifier installed in Burlington, Vt.

I said that since the FERCO gasifier was not commercial yet, it could prove an embarrassment to them. They have funded a number of gasifiers that have failed, probably $100 million in development money come to naught. But I doubt if they embarrass easily.

The US DOE has primarily funded megawatt sized gasifiers, forgetting that it is wise to learn to walk before you run.

I have hopes that the CPC BIOMAX gasifiers will clock 5000 hours soon... They are running nicely at 15 kW (turnkey, tarfree) and they are testing 5 kW and 50 kW units this year. Makes good sense when you need combined heat and power. Our 3 kW woodgas stoves are spreading nicely, and the 3 burner stove in Ward may clock > 500 meals/yr - OK for cookstoves.

Yours truly,

TOM REED BEF MODERATOR

* Over a million biomass gasifier trucks, buses, cars, boats operated during WWII according to reliable oil industry sources. Of course maybe that statistic was generated to scare the oil companies into re-establishing cheap oil after the war as soon as possible. That was the "Golden Age of Gasification".

If we don't develop advanced gasification for liquid fuels soon, we may be running our vehicles on wood again.
----- Original Message -----
From: Kollol Dey
To: Tom Miles ; GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers

Tom,

Yes, I am indeed looking for a list of gasifiers that has been "successful" in operating continuously for at least 8000 hours a year or so which is normally the minimum accepted period for any continuous process plants in the industry. In fact, refineries etc are now clocking two years of continuous operation between two major overhauls.
I agree with gasifiers even 8000 hours may be too long, and so accept the 5000 hours of operation, bench mark indicated by Tom.

I know for sure that many process industry have and publish such lists of plants the world over. Thus, if anyone is interested in knowing about ammonia plants, urea plants, sulphuric acids plants, refineries, ethylene crackers etc, etc, one only needs to pick up such list and get at least the names, the capacities, when the plant was commissioned, and who built it etc etc as ready references.

Actually, "Hydrocarbon Processing" also periodically publishes all the various plants (of course - Hydrocarbon Industry related only) being built the world over - it is a very useful information for many concerned with the industry.

In another posting Bill has asked me "May I inquire as to your interest in a list of successful gasification systems?". Well the answer is very simple, such a list will clearly indicate which are the tall claims which are the correct ones. I know for sure that there are many who claim a lot when they refer to their technology, well what better way can there be than to check their list of "operating" plants?

I think an authentic list published by a realiable independant body will also help the people concerned with this technology immensely - starting from those thinking of investing such units, to those designing and building such plants and also the various vendors and suppliers who play a very important roll in the development of any technology. In short, all concerned with this technology.

Regards

Kollol.
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Miles
To: Kollol Dey ; GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers

Kollol,

The criteria of "successfully operating" depends on whether you are talking to the inventor/developer, supplier, owner or banker. I started such a list for small scale systems but I found it difficult to maintain and difficult to find out what was actually operating. My criteria for demonstration of commercial operation is 5,000 hours. 5,000 hours per year is the typical duty that you would expect a gasifier to do in a typical industrial setting. In North America there are only a few that meet this criteria. They are making hot gas for industrial production like the PRM case. You can find the links below.

IEA Task force on Bioenergy does a good job of updating their Status of Gasification in Countries Participating in IEA and Gasnet Activity. Thanks to Harrie Knoef. 2002 is their latest update.

EPRI maintains a database of gasifiers that includes about 350 in the world. About 15 are industrial scale biomass projects at various stages of development and implementation.

BTG's biomass gasifier inventory is a good start as is Tom Reed's woodgas database. But everyone who works through these databases finds a very small number of systems actually operating.

A good inventory of the gasifiers operating in India and China would be useful.

It's always useful when someone can survey the suppliers themselves to see what systems (and where) they claim are operating.

Regards,

Tom

Gasification (REPP)
http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html

Small Scale Gasifiers (REPP)
http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html

Gasifier Inventory (BTG)
http://www.gasifiers.org/

Status of Gasifiers in IEA Countries (IEA) 2001
http://www.gastechnology.org/webroot/app/xn/xd.aspx?it=enweb&xd=iea/countries.xml

Survey of Biomass Gasification (2000) BEF
http://www.woodgas.com/Gasification.htm

----- Original Message -----
From: Kollol Dey
To: GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 5:53 AM
Subject: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers

Dear All,

I am interested in knowing if anyone has catalogued a list of "Sucessfully Operating Gasifiers" world wide?
If such a list exists, I will be very obliged to receive a copy of the same.

Kolol Dey
India

 

 

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

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

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

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041004/7ae163d9/attachment.html

From kssustain at provide.net Mon Oct 4 09:13:00 2004
From: kssustain at provide.net (kermit schlansker)
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:13:00 -0000
Subject: [Gasification] Energy Recovery
Message-ID: <007401c38a89$a91cdea0$c54656d8@kermit>

Energy from Steam

During the gasification process there are two sources of heat energy that might be turned into steam and into mechanical power. One of these is cooling of the hot gas as it comes from the generator. Some of this heat could be used to heat the air going into the gasifier but I think that need is small compared to the heat available. Another source of heat is that from the exhaust fumes of the engine. It seems to me that there should be considerable Rankine energy from these two sources. Obviously there should be an effort to use this energy. Can anyone more experienced than me do an analysis of the overall efficiency involved in the process of converting wood to power. It seems to me that the efficiency could be improved considerably.
In my opinion the ideal system would be one suited for combined heat and power in a large building. This could be of a size of 200k btu to one megabtu input.

Kermit Schlansker
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041004/0182b75b/attachment.html

From Enoojibail at aol.com Mon Oct 4 09:22:38 2004
From: Enoojibail at aol.com (Enoojibail at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:22:38 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Energy balance
Message-ID: <1d6.2ca0e71a.2e92b6ae@aol.com>

Does any one has energy "input and output" numbers when we gasify organic
materials? What is the energy efficiency of the gasifier? How much enegy is
consumed to "remove" moisture (60-75%) contained in the material? How much
energy is used to gasify the dry material?

Esh
Anergen
_enoojibail at anergen.com_ (mailto:enoojibail at anergen.com)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041004/56a0bd11/attachment.html

From luiz.pellegrini at poli.usp.br Mon Oct 4 09:51:54 2004
From: luiz.pellegrini at poli.usp.br (Luiz Felipe Pellegrini)
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:51:54 -0300
Subject: RES: [Gasification] Energy Recovery
In-Reply-To: <007401c38a89$a91cdea0$c54656d8@kermit>
Message-ID: <NIBBLMOKCLLDMGHMIMNPEEMICAAA.luiz.pellegrini@poli.usp.br>

Dear Kermit and all,

Last year, I have developed a simple model for bagasse gasification in order
to evaluate some aspects concerning the use of such technology as an option
for electricity generation in sugarcane mills. I have studied a combined
cycle in which bagasse is gasified and the gas is used in a gas turbine to
produce electricity. The heat from exhaust gases was used for the generation
of steam for a Rankine cogeneration system. The production of electricity
was 10 times higher than the one from the current technology, althoug the
heat generation suffered a 40% reduction. This result leads to the
well-known conclusion that the use of such technology in sugarcane mills is
dependable on a steam consumption in the processes. In respect to
efficencies, it should be clear that efficiencies based only on energy
balances show little information regarding improvements related to
gasification (for cogeneration systems!!!!), so the efficiency should be
related to energy end entropy balances. In my study there was an increase
from 17% to 21-25%.
One last word, the use of heat from cooling of the produced gas does no seem
a good idea, in my opinion! I am not an expert in gasification process, so
my opinion is based on technical papers that explore the problem of
cleaning/conditioning of the gas, please correct me if I am wrong.
Well, I hope this information is useful.

Regards,

Luiz F. Pellegrini
Polytechnic School - University of S?o Paulo
-----Mensagem original-----
De: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]Em nome de kermit schlansker
Enviada em: S?bado, 4 de Outubro de 2003 12:09
Para: Gasification
Assunto: [Gasification] Energy Recovery

Energy from Steam

During the gasification process there are two sources of heat energy
that might be turned into steam and into mechanical power. One of these is
cooling of the hot gas as it comes from the generator. Some of this heat
could be used to heat the air going into the gasifier but I think that need
is small compared to the heat available. Another source of heat is that from
the exhaust fumes of the engine. It seems to me that there should be
considerable Rankine energy from these two sources. Obviously there should
be an effort to use this energy. Can anyone more experienced than me do an
analysis of the overall efficiency involved in the process of converting
wood to power. It seems to me that the efficiency could be improved
considerably.
In my opinion the ideal system would be one suited for combined heat
and power in a large building. This could be of a size of 200k btu to one
megabtu input.

Kermit Schlansker
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041004/6e29d210/attachment.html

From TK at tke.dk Mon Oct 4 10:35:06 2004
From: TK at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:35:06 +0200
Subject: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
Message-ID: <A1CF906CC309D642B8B9567A4D2D79F10351B3@EXCHSERVER.tke.local>

________________________________

Fra: Thomas Koch
Sendt: 4. oktober 2004 17:24
Til: 'TBReed'; Kollol Dey; Tom Miles; GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Cc: Sam Baldwin; Robb Walt
Emne: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers

Dear Tom, Tom and Kollol and other gasification nerds.

It is a very interesting conversation you are having.

In the joint IEA-GASNET meeting in Strasbourg 2 years ago we discussed the quality of the country reports and the official contributions about the national activities.

I was surpriced to read about some gasification projects classified as "alive" although I would have classified them as "Completely DEAD".

I learned that it was not easy to agree on a common definition on how to evaluate gasifyers.

Operating hours, money spend on the technology, quality of the business proposal behind the proposal, enthusiasm of the inventor behind the process or ???

On the meeting it was proposed that I should come up with some new criteria for the coming country reports. Of course a logical decision because I was the one criticising, and as coming from a private enterprise I had no money to pay for such an exercise I realized that it was a too big job for me.

I Denmark we have one gasifier that can full fill the criteria of 5000 hours operation. This an updraft gasifiyer in Harboore operating with two 700 kW gas engines. We have a small gasifier (Viking) that have operated approx 2000 hours.

Nice plants both of them, I just wonder why the commercial interest is so small. They have both been around for approx. 10 years but no plants sold.

Then there are a number of gasification plants that are trying to enter the world of commercial gasifyers.

One project has millions of dollars from DOE (in Denmark???) and millions of Euro from EU and millions of Kroner from DEA (Danish Energy Agency).

Others have enthusiastic inventors and less money.

And some are (almost) DEAD, only kept alive as a grant that still exists as a number somewhere.

I have heard similar stories from other countries.

I have come to the conclusion that I only believe in the state of art for a certain gasifyer if I have touched it my selves.

Best regards

Thomas Koch

________________________________

Fra: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] P? vegne af TBReed
Sendt: 4. oktober 2004 14:56
Til: Kollol Dey; Tom Miles; GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Cc: Sam Baldwin; Robb Walt
Emne: Re: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers

Dear Kollol Dey, Tom Miles and All:

The only gasifiers I know that come to this standard are the PRM rice hull gasifiers, PRIME ENERGY.

When I published my "Survey of Biomass Gasification" for the US DOE in 2000 I had a picture of the Cargill (then) Greenville, Mississippi rice hull gasifiers on the cover (300 t/day) and I said "Possibly more biomass has been gasified in PRMES gasifiers than all other gasifiers combined, including the million gasifiers in WWIII.* It is truly commercial with over 20 current installations and another 8 planned." I put a picture of this gasifier on the cover of the draft of the book.

The US DOE was paying for the book and for the development of the FERCO (developed by Battelle) gasifier, so they said I should remove the PRIME gasifier from the cover and substitute their FERCO gasifier installed in Burlington, Vt.

I said that since the FERCO gasifier was not commercial yet, it could prove an embarrassment to them. They have funded a number of gasifiers that have failed, probably $100 million in development money come to naught. But I doubt if they embarrass easily.

The US DOE has primarily funded megawatt sized gasifiers, forgetting that it is wise to learn to walk before you run.

I have hopes that the CPC BIOMAX gasifiers will clock 5000 hours soon... They are running nicely at 15 kW (turnkey, tarfree) and they are testing 5 kW and 50 kW units this year. Makes good sense when you need combined heat and power. Our 3 kW woodgas stoves are spreading nicely, and the 3 burner stove in Ward may clock > 500 meals/yr - OK for cookstoves.

Yours truly,

TOM REED BEF MODERATOR

* Over a million biomass gasifier trucks, buses, cars, boats operated during WWII according to reliable oil industry sources. Of course maybe that statistic was generated to scare the oil companies into re-establishing cheap oil after the war as soon as possible. That was the "Golden Age of Gasification".

If we don't develop advanced gasification for liquid fuels soon, we may be running our vehicles on wood again.


http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041004/a7b8fc5d/attachment.html

From jonpratt76 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 4 11:21:49 2004
From: jonpratt76 at hotmail.com (Jonathan Pratt)
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 12:21:49 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Creating Liquid Fuels from woodgas using
Fischer-Tropsch processes
Message-ID: <BAY17-F19y3SpwBGpEI0004534c@hotmail.com>

I would like to know what the most promising technology is for small or
micro scale production of methanol and other liquid fuels from woodgas.

What method has been found to be most economical for producing liquid fuels
from woodgas on a small scale, say using a 20kw to 50kw gasifier?

I am very interested in fischer-tropsch catalyzer units that can be built to
generate modest amounts of fuel to say power the family vehicles. I know
that on a smaller scale it is generally more expensive per unit, however
there must be a way to get it in the ballpark, especially if the process is
done by a home operator and does not require any employee overhead costs as
commercial plants would.

Reliable wood gasifiers have been developed by CPC that can operate
continuously and are easy to maintain to provide combined heat and power for
home use. I can't see it being that much greater a leap to combine these
gasifiers with an economical fischer-tropsche catalyzer so that not only can
a gasifier such as the one CPC has developed be used to meet home energy
needs for heat and electricity but can also serve to generate fuel for the
family vehicles. This would result in an all in one unit to meet total home
energy and family transportation needs all on woodchips, yard waste and
other biomass.

With steadily rising oil and natural gas costs it only makes sense to do
this. Not even getting into the fact that the day is fast coming when the
United States massive trade deficit financed consumer economy will come to a
screeching halt and we will be without 60% of our current oil supply that we
now import. We should be implemening emergency energy indepence policies to
prepare. If the government won't do it (which is likely until it's too
late), than it will be up to us.

Jonathan Pratt
Norfolk, VA (USA)

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

 

From arnt at c2i.net Mon Oct 4 14:42:09 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 21:42:09 +0200
Subject: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <A1CF906CC309D642B8B9567A4D2D79F10351B3@EXCHSERVER.tke.local>
References: <A1CF906CC309D642B8B9567A4D2D79F10351B3@EXCHSERVER.tke.local>
Message-ID: <20041004214209.4edc8d45.arnt@c2i.net>

On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:35:06 +0200, Thomas wrote in message
<A1CF906CC309D642B8B9567A4D2D79F10351B3 at EXCHSERVER.tke.local>:

> Nice plants both of them, I just wonder why the commercial interest is
> so small. They have both been around for approx. 10 years but no
> plants sold.

..profitability? ;-) If a gasifier or _anything_ is "commersial",
then it _must_, by definition, be able to generate a profit. ;-)

..now, profits can be generated off "cheap junk thrown away every
month", without any unit ever doing the 2000-5000-8000 hour
certified runs on "social security."

..that's profits from power and heat, not from snake oil slicks. ;-)
So obviously the business and _plant_ operation must make
those profits for at least that long, and with no real asset capital
loss, such as plant site pollution, piping corrosion etc that
threatensfuture profits or tax payments.

..profits are _not_ made until _after_ the investment, salaries, fees,
running costs, etc are _all_ paid off. If and as profits are made, the
government will want their share of it, usually they call it tax. ,-)

..the real test is; "It pays enough tax to pay salary for a teacher or a
nurse or a fireman etc, for a year?". _Then_, you can call it
"commersial." ;-)

..I have an operating gasifier, shut down for re-rigging. I have yet
to prove it commersial. That will be done guerilla style, I simply
report what the meter says, just like the law says ;-), and as the
utility "launches", call in the media to "land" them. ;-)

--
..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 LWheeler45 at aol.com Mon Oct 4 16:40:09 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:40:09 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Question
Message-ID: <12a.4cde9872.2e931d39@aol.com>

I have received the industry publications for Ethanol and Renewable Energy
and Hydrogen and even Fla meetings and trade shows but I have not located any
for Gasifiers and NOTHING in Fla. Can you direct me to any industry
publications?
Leonard Wheeler Eustis, Fla
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041004/39cde89e/attachment.html

From TK at tke.dk Tue Oct 5 02:29:30 2004
From: TK at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 09:29:30 +0200
Subject: SV: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
Message-ID: <A1CF906CC309D642B8B9567A4D2D79F10351B4@EXCHSERVER.tke.local>

Dear Arnt.

Does that mean that you suggest that one condition for a gasifiyer to be classified "commercial" is that it (potentially) gains profit?

Best regards

Thomas

 

 

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] P? vegne af Arnt Karlsen
Sendt: 4. oktober 2004 21:42
Til: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Emne: Re: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers

On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:35:06 +0200, Thomas wrote in message
<A1CF906CC309D642B8B9567A4D2D79F10351B3 at EXCHSERVER.tke.local>:

> Nice plants both of them, I just wonder why the commercial interest is
> so small. They have both been around for approx. 10 years but no
> plants sold.

..profitability? ;-) If a gasifier or _anything_ is "commersial",
then it _must_, by definition, be able to generate a profit. ;-)

..now, profits can be generated off "cheap junk thrown away every
month", without any unit ever doing the 2000-5000-8000 hour
certified runs on "social security."

..that's profits from power and heat, not from snake oil slicks. ;-)
So obviously the business and _plant_ operation must make
those profits for at least that long, and with no real asset capital
loss, such as plant site pollution, piping corrosion etc that
threatensfuture profits or tax payments.

..profits are _not_ made until _after_ the investment, salaries, fees,
running costs, etc are _all_ paid off. If and as profits are made, the
government will want their share of it, usually they call it tax. ,-)

..the real test is; "It pays enough tax to pay salary for a teacher or a
nurse or a fireman etc, for a year?". _Then_, you can call it
"commersial." ;-)

..I have an operating gasifier, shut down for re-rigging. I have yet
to prove it commersial. That will be done guerilla style, I simply
report what the meter says, just like the law says ;-), and as the
utility "launches", call in the media to "land" them. ;-)

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

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

From Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk Tue Oct 5 03:12:00 2004
From: Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 09:12:00 +0100
Subject: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <A1CF906CC309D642B8B9567A4D2D79F10351B4@EXCHSERVER.tke.local>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGIEGFDPAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>

Thomas,
The only definition of commercial is that the product makes a profit to
the manufacturer.
And provides a service for an acceptable cost for the user.

For a machine making (say tin cans) the profit is that it turns steel sheet
into cans so that the sale of cans pays for the machine , its operator and
all the associated costs of running and paying for the machine.

For a dishwasher at home theprofit is that it just saves me having to wash
dishes!!

For a piece of generation technology or CHP it has to convert fuel into
electricity and heat. Reliably and at a cost that is satisfactory to the
user.

This cost will be different for different situations but for gasifiers will
generally be judged against the alternative methods available. So depending
on scale against a gasoline fuelled Honda generator for a mobile home or
against as Combined cycle Gas turbine for a 20MW power station.
Both these technologies are reliable- they run for a long time between
service shutdown. They are responsive to demand changes, they are relatively
cheap to buy and are efficient in converting fuel energy to electricity for
us to waste leaving lightbulbs on.

Any gasifier in this world needs to meet those criteria. Maybe people will
take a hit on capital cost if the fuel is cheap,
Less likely people will take a hit on maintenance costs because fuel is
cheap.
People wioll not accept lack of reliability or frequent maintenance stops
because that means the light they left on will go out ;-)

Cheers
Gavin

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Thomas Koch
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 8:29
To: Arnt Karlsen; gasification at listserv.repp.org
Subject: SV: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers

Dear Arnt.

Does that mean that you suggest that one condition for a gasifiyer to be
classified "commercial" is that it (potentially) gains profit?

Best regards

Thomas

 

 

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] P? vegne af Arnt Karlsen
Sendt: 4. oktober 2004 21:42
Til: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Emne: Re: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers

On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:35:06 +0200, Thomas wrote in message
<A1CF906CC309D642B8B9567A4D2D79F10351B3 at EXCHSERVER.tke.local>:

> Nice plants both of them, I just wonder why the commercial interest is
> so small. They have both been around for approx. 10 years but no
> plants sold.

..profitability? ;-) If a gasifier or _anything_ is "commersial",
then it _must_, by definition, be able to generate a profit. ;-)

..now, profits can be generated off "cheap junk thrown away every
month", without any unit ever doing the 2000-5000-8000 hour
certified runs on "social security."

..that's profits from power and heat, not from snake oil slicks. ;-)
So obviously the business and _plant_ operation must make
those profits for at least that long, and with no real asset capital
loss, such as plant site pollution, piping corrosion etc that
threatensfuture profits or tax payments.

..profits are _not_ made until _after_ the investment, salaries, fees,
running costs, etc are _all_ paid off. If and as profits are made, the
government will want their share of it, usually they call it tax. ,-)

..the real test is; "It pays enough tax to pay salary for a teacher or a
nurse or a fireman etc, for a year?". _Then_, you can call it
"commersial." ;-)

..I have an operating gasifier, shut down for re-rigging. I have yet
to prove it commersial. That will be done guerilla style, I simply
report what the meter says, just like the law says ;-), and as the
utility "launches", call in the media to "land" them. ;-)

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

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

From kuntze at mastergas.de Tue Oct 5 03:09:35 2004
From: kuntze at mastergas.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_Kuntze?=)
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 10:09:35 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] kWh-Prices for biomass energy feded into the German
grid
Message-ID: <LJEKIGIKHPNEKFGCPEHNMEHECJAA.kuntze@mastergas.de>

Hello everybody,

just some more information about the german Renewable Energies Law called
EEG (Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz):

In the section "bioenergy" there are the following rules for new power
plants:

- basic tarif:
up to 150 kW: 11.5 (Euro) cents / kWh
151 ... 500 kW: 9.9 cents
501 ... 5000 kW: 8.9 cents

- extra payments if wood is used for electricity production: 2.5 cents / kWh
if the wood is "out of the forests" (let?s say: if the wood is not a
by-product of another production purpose (e.g. chips of a sawmill): 6 cents
/ kWh instead of 2.5

- extra payments if a new technology is involved (e.g. thermochemical
gasification or ORC or things like that): 2 cents / kWh; but: only if the
plant works - at least temporarily as a CHP-Plant

- extra paymanty for CHP-plants: 2 cents / kWh; but: only for that share of
the electricity production, that was prouced in the CHP-mode with an overall
efficiency of 80 %.

That means: all in all the maximum you can get is 21,5 cents / kWh.

In reality you will have lower average prices since:
- not all the produced heat can be used outside the plant during the whole
year
- bigger installations will get a lower basic tarif
- "renewable" wood is more expensice (about 60 - 70 Euro / ton (dry basis))
than waste wood from sawmills or so.

So: at the end it is always the same: be careful with figures.

But nevertheless: in Germany there is now a good chance for viable
gasification projects.

Regards
Bj?rn Kuntze, Germany

 

From gasman at welho.com Tue Oct 5 06:27:45 2004
From: gasman at welho.com (Gasman)
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 14:27:45 +0300
Subject: [Gasification] kWh price in Germany
Message-ID: <001701c4aace$69eb7500$df884e3e@P333>

 

Hi! Kevin, and all!

For example, in the central parts of Germany, a "sparsely" populated
agricultural district, where many farmers have substantial forests,
the "fresh" wood, straight from the forest, chipped and transported
on own tractor loads can make sense in small villages. The CHP heat,
on the other hand can substitute/backup the heating of the homes,
and be used for hotwater-production in bigger households, as at
Gasthaus'es with frequent dishwashing, bathing and where big laundry
"is the day".
In the Autumn heat for drying crops could be welcome. On the other
hand efficient and fast crop drying asks for far greater energies.

When I can "get" the links, the "roll off" by time can be verified.

Max

 

From tombreed at comcast.net Tue Oct 5 07:47:38 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 06:47:38 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Piet Verhaart's Address?
Message-ID: <001401c4aad9$7f2b8440$3201a8c0@OFFICE>

Gasifiers:

Received this today...

Does anyone have a functioning address for Piet Verhaart?

Tom Reed GASIFICATION MODERATOR
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mail Delivery Subsystem" <mailer-daemon at comcast.net>
To: <tombreed at comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 8:11 PM
Subject: Returned mail: delivery problems encountered

> A message (from <tombreed at comcast.net>) was received at 5 Oct 2004
2:11:41 +0000.
>
> The following addresses had delivery problems:
>
> <pverhaart at OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
> Permanent Failure: 553_5.3.0_<pverhaart at optusnet.com.au>..._No_such_user
> Delivery last attempted at Tue, 5 Oct 2004 02:11:44 -0000
>

 

From brunoM1 at telenet.be Tue Oct 5 11:31:32 2004
From: brunoM1 at telenet.be (Bruno M.)
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 17:31:32 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Piet Verhaart's Address?
In-Reply-To: <001401c4aad9$7f2b8440$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
References: <001401c4aad9$7f2b8440$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20041005165800.04dcdc80@in.telenet.be>

Hi Tom,

Maybe try the one you have again;
the server told you that there was "no such a user";
but sometimes thats an error from the server,
and the person is still a client on that server.

O, and he used this in september on the Stoves list :

pverhaart at IPRIMUS.COM.AU

So maybe he did has changed from provider.

;-)
Bruno Meersman

======================
At 13:47 05/10/2004, TOM wrote:
>Gasifiers:
>Received this today...
>Does anyone have a functioning address for Piet Verhaart?
>
>Tom Reed GASIFICATION MODERATOR
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mail Delivery Subsystem" <mailer-daemon at comcast.net>
>To: <tombreed at comcast.net>
>Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 8:11 PM
>Subject: Returned mail: delivery problems encountered
> > A message (from <tombreed at comcast.net>) was received at 5 Oct 2004
> > The following addresses had delivery problems:
> >
> > <pverhaart at OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
> > Permanent Failure: 553_5.3.0_<pverhaart at optusnet.com.au>..._No_such_user
> > Delivery last attempted at Tue, 5 Oct 2004 02:11:44 -0000
>_______________________________________________

 

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Oct 5 11:42:09 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 18:42:09 +0200
Subject: SV: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <A1CF906CC309D642B8B9567A4D2D79F10351B4@EXCHSERVER.tke.local>
References: <A1CF906CC309D642B8B9567A4D2D79F10351B4@EXCHSERVER.tke.local>
Message-ID: <20041005184209.5c563db8.arnt@c2i.net>

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 09:29:30 +0200, Thomas wrote in message
<A1CF906CC309D642B8B9567A4D2D79F10351B4 at EXCHSERVER.tke.local>:

> Dear Arnt.
>
> Does that mean that you suggest that one condition for a gasifiyer to
> be classified "commercial" is that it (potentially) gains profit?

..yes.

--
..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 Oct 5 11:48:15 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 18:48:15 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] kWh-Prices for biomass energy feded into the
German grid
In-Reply-To: <LJEKIGIKHPNEKFGCPEHNMEHECJAA.kuntze@mastergas.de>
References: <LJEKIGIKHPNEKFGCPEHNMEHECJAA.kuntze@mastergas.de>
Message-ID: <20041005184815.6f01035b.arnt@c2i.net>

<LJEKIGIKHPNEKFGCPEHNMEHECJAA.kuntze at mastergas.de>:

> Hello everybody,
>
> just some more information about the german Renewable Energies Law
> called EEG (Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz):
>
> In the section "bioenergy" there are the following rules for new power
> plants:
>
> - basic tarif:
> up to 150 kW: 11.5 (Euro) cents / kWh
> 151 ... 500 kW: 9.9 cents
> 501 ... 5000 kW: 8.9 cents
>
> - extra payments if wood is used for electricity production: 2.5 cents
> / kWh if the wood is "out of the forests" (let?s say: if the wood is
> not a by-product of another production purpose (e.g. chips of a
> sawmill): 6 cents/ kWh instead of 2.5

..and if it burns off MSW?

--
..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 gasman at welho.com Tue Oct 5 14:42:19 2004
From: gasman at welho.com (Gasman)
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 22:42:19 +0300
Subject: [Gasification] Woodgas seminar in Germany 2-4.4.04
Message-ID: <00ee01c4ab13$8be9a510$df884e3e@P333>

Hi, Thomas Wirth !

It's on its way!

Max

From cicbcal at cal2.vsnl.net.in Wed Oct 6 00:30:19 2004
From: cicbcal at cal2.vsnl.net.in (Kollol Dey)
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:00:19 +0530
Subject: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
References: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGIEGFDPAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
Message-ID: <009c01c4ab65$bc7187a0$85b841db@KollolDey>

Dear Gavin,

I would like to limit this discussion to the Industrial scenario only and
NOT bring in comparision with white goods etc.

Assume for a moment, that you are trying to sell a Biomass Gasifier of your
/ or anyother design to a food processing industry which also produces
considerable amount of waste biomass (that is the biomass is available free
of cost at the the site), and is presently a solid waste disposal problem
for the Company.
The Company uses electricity in its main food processing plant and also uses
fuel like say diesel oil in some furnaces etc in its process. Also let us
assume that the management of the Company has NO past exposure to gasifier
technology.

You will surely admit that this is a very attractive case for setting up a
gasifier that will consume all the solid biowaste and produce fuel gas that
can partly be used to replace the liquid fuel and partly or wholly to
generate electricity and hot water/steam in a reciprocating engine. You are
trying to promote your case to the Company management.

The processing plant that the Company is operating is a continuous one (24
hours per day 7 days a week) and operates for say 7500 hours per year.
Now, if I was one of the decision makers of this company, and you came to
us trying to sell your gasifier as a solution to our waste disposal problem
and simultaneously generating electric power and fuel gas, how do you think
you will convince me that what you are saying is workable and a viable, and
profitable solution for our company?

While obviously I will look into the so called "theoretical" returns from
operating the gasifier, but to calculate same the first thing I need to know
is how many hours the gasifier will operate in a year - otherwise how does
one work out the projected profitability in an industrial scenario? Amongst
other things that I will look into (as a person not having any experiance on
gasifiers), is, of course whether a gasifier will operate reliabily and
operate at least as long as my main process plant operates ! Otherwise, how
do I know if what you claim is something I can rely on?

Actually faced with such problems myself, I requested to know if there is
any authentic compilation of gasifiers successfully operating the world over
which can obviously come very handy in convincing persons not having any
background of gasifiers that gasifiers are workable propositions. Such a
list can also help all concerned with this technology.

Since in projecting profitability the basis is the number of working hours
per year I am of the opinion that this is the sole criteria by which we can
identify a successul gasifier technology, whether it is profitable or not is
the next step. A successful gasifier may be a profitable gasifier in one
scenario and may again NOT be a profitable one in another scenario.

Its no use having paper profits if the gasifier cannot in reality deliver
what it set out to !!

Regards

Kollol Dey.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gavin Gulliver-Goodall" <Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 1:42 PM
Subject: RE: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers

> Thomas,
> The only definition of commercial is that the product makes a profit to
> the manufacturer.
> And provides a service for an acceptable cost for the user.
>
> For a machine making (say tin cans) the profit is that it turns steel
sheet
> into cans so that the sale of cans pays for the machine , its operator
and
> all the associated costs of running and paying for the machine.
>
> For a dishwasher at home theprofit is that it just saves me having to
wash
> dishes!!
>
> For a piece of generation technology or CHP it has to convert fuel into
> electricity and heat. Reliably and at a cost that is satisfactory to the
> user.
>
> This cost will be different for different situations but for gasifiers
will
> generally be judged against the alternative methods available. So
depending
> on scale against a gasoline fuelled Honda generator for a mobile home or
> against as Combined cycle Gas turbine for a 20MW power station.
> Both these technologies are reliable- they run for a long time between
> service shutdown. They are responsive to demand changes, they are
relatively
> cheap to buy and are efficient in converting fuel energy to electricity
for
> us to waste leaving lightbulbs on.
>
> Any gasifier in this world needs to meet those criteria. Maybe people
will
> take a hit on capital cost if the fuel is cheap,
> Less likely people will take a hit on maintenance costs because fuel is
> cheap.
> People wioll not accept lack of reliability or frequent maintenance stops
> because that means the light they left on will go out ;-)
>
> Cheers
> Gavin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Thomas Koch
> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 8:29
> To: Arnt Karlsen; gasification at listserv.repp.org
> Subject: SV: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
>
> Dear Arnt.
>
> Does that mean that you suggest that one condition for a gasifiyer to be
> classified "commercial" is that it (potentially) gains profit?
>
> Best regards
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] P? vegne af Arnt Karlsen
> Sendt: 4. oktober 2004 21:42
> Til: gasification at listserv.repp.org
> Emne: Re: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
>
> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:35:06 +0200, Thomas wrote in message
> <A1CF906CC309D642B8B9567A4D2D79F10351B3 at EXCHSERVER.tke.local>:
>
> > Nice plants both of them, I just wonder why the commercial interest is
> > so small. They have both been around for approx. 10 years but no
> > plants sold.
>
> ..profitability? ;-) If a gasifier or _anything_ is "commersial",
> then it _must_, by definition, be able to generate a profit. ;-)
>
> ..now, profits can be generated off "cheap junk thrown away every
> month", without any unit ever doing the 2000-5000-8000 hour
> certified runs on "social security."
>
> ..that's profits from power and heat, not from snake oil slicks. ;-)
> So obviously the business and _plant_ operation must make
> those profits for at least that long, and with no real asset capital
> loss, such as plant site pollution, piping corrosion etc that
> threatensfuture profits or tax payments.
>
> ..profits are _not_ made until _after_ the investment, salaries, fees,
> running costs, etc are _all_ paid off. If and as profits are made, the
> government will want their share of it, usually they call it tax. ,-)
>
> ..the real test is; "It pays enough tax to pay salary for a teacher or a
> nurse or a fireman etc, for a year?". _Then_, you can call it
> "commersial." ;-)
>
> ..I have an operating gasifier, shut down for re-rigging. I have yet
> to prove it commersial. That will be done guerilla style, I simply
> report what the meter says, just like the law says ;-), and as the
> utility "launches", call in the media to "land" them. ;-)
>
> --
> ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
> ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
> Scenarios always come in sets of three:
> best case, worst case, and just in case.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

From TK at tke.dk Wed Oct 6 03:47:30 2004
From: TK at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:47:30 +0200
Subject: SV: SV: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
Message-ID: <A1CF906CC309D642B8B9567A4D2D79F10351C3@EXCHSERVER.tke.local>

Dear Arnt.

I have seen many calculations on the economy of operating a gasifier.

All these calculations are faced with a number of uncertainties.
The 2 main uncertainties are:
The electricity price is usually subsidised. How long time?
What does O&M cost?

An other problem is that information about gasification technology generally is far too optimistic or maybe political.
I just went through the IEA country report from 2002 to see which of the information about plant that is still valid two years later.
Seen in this context it is hardly worth reading the next IEA report.

Do you know any gasifiers producing electricity that are commercial?

Best regards

Thomas


 

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] P? vegne af Arnt Karlsen
Sendt: 5. oktober 2004 18:42
Til: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Emne: Re: SV: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 09:29:30 +0200, Thomas wrote in message
<A1CF906CC309D642B8B9567A4D2D79F10351B4 at EXCHSERVER.tke.local>:

> Dear Arnt.
>
> Does that mean that you suggest that one condition for a gasifiyer to
> be classified "commercial" is that it (potentially) gains profit?

..yes.

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

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Oct 6 18:07:12 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 01:07:12 +0200
Subject: SV: SV: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <4163A7C300003DF1@smtp023.prod.mgc>
References: <4163A7C300003DF1@smtp023.prod.mgc>
Message-ID: <20041007010712.03e9b01d.arnt@c2i.net>

<4163A7C300003DF1 at smtp023.prod.mgc>:

> Has somebody experience with scrapped tires gasification ?

..only a few experimental runs with shredded tires to verify it
works. ;-)

--
..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 Oct 6 18:58:04 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 01:58:04 +0200
Subject: SV: SV: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <A1CF906CC309D642B8B9567A4D2D79F10351C3@EXCHSERVER.tke.local>
References: <A1CF906CC309D642B8B9567A4D2D79F10351C3@EXCHSERVER.tke.local>
Message-ID: <20041007015804.1382341e.arnt@c2i.net>

On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:47:30 +0200, Thomas wrote in message
<A1CF906CC309D642B8B9567A4D2D79F10351C3 at EXCHSERVER.tke.local>:

> Dear Arnt.
>
> I have seen many calculations on the economy of operating a gasifier.
>
> All these calculations are faced with a number of uncertainties.
> The 2 main uncertainties are:
> The electricity price is usually subsidised.

..not here in Norway, here the scheme is keep up gas gurus locked
up, shot down or whatever it takes "to prove it does not work".

> How long time?

..moot, see above.

..you forgot "How?". For MSW etc, anytime you get get paid to
accept "free" fuel, you're subsidised.

> What does O&M cost?

..time will show, I have a few guesstimates, and I keep it cheap
so I stay in control.

> An other problem is that information about gasification technology
> generally is far too optimistic or maybe political. I just went
> through the IEA country report from 2002 to see which of the
> information about plant that is still valid two years later. Seen in
> this context it is hardly worth reading the next IEA report.
>
> Do you know any gasifiers producing electricity that are commercial?

..nope. So, someooone will have to go first, eh? ;-)

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

 

From MMBTUPR at aol.com Wed Oct 6 19:30:20 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:30:20 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Renewable Environmental Solutions
Message-ID: <64.4588f76e.2e95e81c@aol.com>

?? ???? to?? Gasifiers???? ???? ???? from?? Lewis L. Smith

????
???? The following excerpt is from a West Carthage IL newspaper of recent
vintage ?

*********************

???? In other business, Councilmember Donnie Stearnes said he received one
call and Mayor Kenneth Johnson said he received six calls about smells from
Renewable Environmental Solutions.
Mayor Johnson said RES shut down Monday after running Friday, Saturday and
Sunday and producing the smell. "They're still in the process of working it
out," the mayor said, "Some people said it wasn't as bad but still bad."

???? "It's our time to suffer," said Chair Bill Johnson. "I think they'll get
it to work but it's a process."
The chair also said RES is sometimes blamed wrongly. He also said, "If they
smell something, it's usually theirs."

**********************

???? Cordially.

???? End.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041006/75818b39/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Wed Oct 6 20:37:03 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:37:03 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Re Question for group Where is the PR?
Message-ID: <198.300a2b99.2e95f7bf@aol.com>

Unfortunately not all suppliers of technology are as particular as Bill
Klein. In matter of fact Bill supplied me the best presentation and guarantee
faster on all his systems than any one else. He is quite an accomplished presenter.

I do presentations for clients and investigations of technology for
investors. I am currently seeking a range of options for dealing with the process
energy requirements of cement making facilities. I am also seeking the range of
sizes from that that Bill 's company has made to ones nearly the size of the rice
husk burner which also submitted a proposal.

We have over 450,000 yards of woody waste on the ground in Citrus County
which is mostly rural. It is being placed in pits and air curtain burned at $20.00
a yard. Based on one FEMA estimate there is over 300,000 TONS of woody
debris in Orange Co. alone ready to be pit burned.

This is a shameless waste of renewable energy. About $50,000,000 dollars in
oil value equivalent. More if the price goes up.

What is confusing to me and some potential investors that are speaking to me
on this is why the Gasification makers have not approached these needs with
some PR or marketing efforts?

The Hydrogen Producers, Renewable Fuels Coalition, Ethanol Producers,
Governor's Ethanol Coalition have really established themselves in the political
arena and have some really slick PR. and technical presentations on a national
basis. By contrast Gasification has nothing like that... I am aware of and is
solid and mature as a technological process.

Why is this so?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041006/71ee4cff/attachment.html

From sigma at ix.netcom.com Thu Oct 7 07:57:40 2004
From: sigma at ix.netcom.com (Len Walde)
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 05:57:40 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Re Question for group Where is the PR?
References: <198.300a2b99.2e95f7bf@aol.com>
Message-ID: <15cc01c4ac6d$3c066000$0000a398@Len>

Hello to L. Wheeler, and all:

Here is some great PR I received today and want to share. It has been a long time coming.

Len Walde, P.E.

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

E-mail: sigma at ix.netcom.com
_________________________________________________________________________________

Source: http://www.enn.com/aff.html?id=65

EERC Project Generating Electricity with Biomass is First of its kind in the U.S.

October 01, 2004 - By Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC)
(GRAND FORKS, N.D.) - The University of North Dakota (UND) Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) has successfully generated electricity from biomass with an exciting, cost- effective gasification technology in a diesel engine. Biomass includes forest residues, wood chips, sawdust, and agricultural by-products.

This fall, the EERC has completed over 100 hours of continuous operation of a biomass gasifier firing wood chips. The process converts wood chips into gas (similar to natural gas) that can be fired in a small gas turbine (microturbine), diesel, or conventional combustion engine. The technology can run automatically, providing a clean, quality gas for power generation. This gas was successfully utilized to operate a 100-horsepower John Deere diesel engine and conduct emission testing.

"We believe this demonstration project utilizing biomass to produce a gas that is burned in a diesel engine is the first of its kind in North America," said Darren Schmidt, EERC Research Manager in charge of the project.

"The major opportunities for this technology are at remote sites where it's difficult to bring in fuels, such as many Indian reservations in the West," said EERC Director Gerald Groenewold. "This provides many exciting opportunities for enhancing national energy independence and could significantly reduce the use of landfills," Groenewold said.

Project sponsors include the U.S. Department of Energy; the California Energy Commission; FlexEnergy; the North Dakota Department of Commerce Division of Community Services; Primeboard, Inc.; the Biomass Energy Resource Center; the National Renewable Energy Laboratory; and the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative.

To further demonstrate and support commercialization of the technology, the EERC and its commercial partners are seeking partnerships with industries interested in biomass management and demonstrating the technology at forest product sites around the country.

The EERC operates essentially as a high-tech business within UND, allowing great flexibility to quickly craft teams and provide timely technical answers to address critical worldwide energy and environmental issues. Since 1987, the EERC has established working relationships with more than 780 clients from the public and private sectors in all 50 states and 47 countries around the world.

# # # #

For more information contact:
Darren Schmidt
Research Manager
Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC)
Telephone: (701) 777-5120
E-mail: dschmidt at undeerc.org
Web site: www.undeerc.org

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

----- Original Message -----
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 6:37 PM
Subject: [Gasification] Re Question for group Where is the PR?

Unfortunately not all suppliers of technology are as particular as Bill Klein. In matter of fact Bill supplied me the best presentation and guarantee faster on all his systems than any one else. He is quite an accomplished presenter.

I do presentations for clients and investigations of technology for investors. I am currently seeking a range of options for dealing with the process energy requirements of cement making facilities. I am also seeking the range of sizes from that that Bill 's company has made to ones nearly the size of the rice husk burner which also submitted a proposal.

We have over 450,000 yards of woody waste on the ground in Citrus County which is mostly rural. It is being placed in pits and air curtain burned at $20.00 a yard. Based on one FEMA estimate there is over 300,000 TONS of woody debris in Orange Co. alone ready to be pit burned.

This is a shameless waste of renewable energy. About $50,000,000 dollars in oil value equivalent. More if the price goes up.

What is confusing to me and some potential investors that are speaking to me on this is why the Gasification makers have not approached these needs with some PR or marketing efforts?

The Hydrogen Producers, Renewable Fuels Coalition, Ethanol Producers, Governor's Ethanol Coalition have really established themselves in the political arena and have some really slick PR. and technical presentations on a national basis. By contrast Gasification has nothing like that... I am aware of and is solid and mature as a technological process.

Why is this so?

 

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

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041007/7db6c729/attachment.html

From LINVENT at aol.com Thu Oct 7 08:29:42 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 09:29:42 -0400
Subject: SV: SV: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
Message-ID: <0D15C795.44B9425B.00168ACC@aol.com>

Under DOE and our own resources, we have had extensive experience with gasification of tires going back to the 80's. The ash passes TCLP tests and successful removal of sulfur compounds without specific equipment to do so resulted in zero detectable sulfur in the produced gas stream. There are activities which will result in a tire and other waste fired gasification system for replacement of natural gas here in Albuquerque.
--
Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
7100-F 2nd St. NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107
Phone: 505-761-5633, fax: 505-341-0424 Web:thermogenics.com

 

From Bill_Klein at 3iAlternativePower.com Thu Oct 7 09:47:35 2004
From: Bill_Klein at 3iAlternativePower.com (Bill Klein)
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 10:47:35 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Re Question for group Where is the PR?
References: <198.300a2b99.2e95f7bf@aol.com>
<15cc01c4ac6d$3c066000$0000a398@Len>
Message-ID: <41655707.7252CB06@3iAlternativePower.com>

Len Walde wrote:
>
> Here is some great PR I received today and want to share. It has been
> a long time coming.
> Source: http://www.enn.com/aff.html?id=65
>
> EERC Project Generating Electricity with Biomass is First of its kind in the U.S.
>
> October 01, 2004 ? By Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC)
>
> (GRAND FORKS, N.D.) - The University of North Dakota (UND) Energy &
> Environmental Research Center (EERC) has successfully generated
> electricity from biomass with an exciting, cost- effective
> gasification technology in a diesel engine.
> "We believe this demonstration project utilizing biomass to produce a
> gas that is burned in a diesel engine is the first of its kind in
> North America," said Darren Schmidt, EERC Research Manager in charge
> of the project.

===> Gosh! This is exciting and about as accurate as an article about
alien space invaders!

In 1987, the same year that he sold Fluidyne to a welder's helper, Doug
Williams, Jack Humpheries came to the U.S. to build a biomass
gasification system in Dumont, Maine. The gasifier was operated
successfully, producing electricity, until the factory that housed it
closed its doors, years later.

In 1991, Jack Humphries built a TRAILER mounted biomass gasification
system and, subsequently, toured the northeastern part of the country
until late 1994.

The gasifier was demonstrated at colleges, universities, lumber mills -
anywhere, including numerous State Office complexes. Jack would use wood
waste from the area and use it to generate electricity on the spot!
Quite exciting, even in the 90s and the quiet northeast.

Along with the practical demonstration of the gasifier, many different
sized and types of engines were fueled - just to prove that it was
possible to run engines on this hot, clean gas, made by Jack's fixed
bed, downdraft, linear hearth biomass gasification system, first
designed and tested at Georgia Tech in 1984!

The story continues, but to what end? My point is that the project in ND
is only a recent development and far from a first except, perhaps in the
Dakotas. Since we don't have a proper clearing house for reliable
gasification information, we don't always have access to the most
accurate facts. We, within the industry, are the losers, deprived of
good information and living in a vacuum of skepticism and cynicism.

My rant is over. I'm taking deep breaths.

My very best regards to len and the folks in ND! Good job!

Bill Klein
3i

>

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Oct 7 10:54:23 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 17:54:23 +0200
Subject: SV: SV: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <0D15C795.44B9425B.00168ACC@aol.com>
References: <0D15C795.44B9425B.00168ACC@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20041007175423.0831fe75.arnt@c2i.net>

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 09:29:42 -0400, LINVENT at aol.com wrote in message
<0D15C795.44B9425B.00168ACC at aol.com>:

> Under DOE and our own resources, we have had extensive experience with
> gasification of tires going back to the 80's. The ash passes TCLP
> tests and successful removal of sulfur compounds without specific
> equipment to do so resulted in zero detectable sulfur in the produced
> gas stream. There are activities which will result in a tire and other
> waste fired gasification system for replacement of natural gas here in
> Albuquerque.

..the ash looks good, my consern was that blue sheen on the flare
head that led me to suspect free or bound sulphur in the 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 LWheeler45 at aol.com Thu Oct 7 15:14:31 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 16:14:31 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Why not a proper clearing house for reliable
gasification information?
Message-ID: <159.40fc76c3.2e96fda7@aol.com>

I second what Bill says. Compared to Plasma, ethanol, E 85, renewable fuels
association. Governors ethanol coalition, National Hydrogen Assn. traditional
Gasification this group is involved with is relatively unknown and politically
invisible except for the failures like the 300 million dollar failure in Palm
Beach and the sugar one in HI.
Leonard Wheeler
Eustis

The story continues, but to what end? My point is that the project in ND
is only a recent development and far from a first except, perhaps in the
Dakotas. Since we don't have a proper clearing house for reliable
Gasification information, we don't always have access to the most
accurate facts. We, within the industry, are the losers, deprived of
good information and living in a vacuum of skepticism and cynicism.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041007/93b2af0e/attachment.html

From Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk Thu Oct 7 17:35:54 2004
From: Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 23:35:54 +0100
Subject: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <009c01c4ab65$bc7187a0$85b841db@KollolDey>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGAEIIDPAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>

Kollol,

In this scenario (which I am very well acquainted with) we must look at the
both the capital and operational costs associated with the project, the
benefits of disposal of the "waste" the costs of any post combustion
/gasification clean up, disposal of as residues and the value of the (fossil
fuel) energy displaced we must also conduct commercial due diligence on the
quality and reliability ( bankability) of the technology proposed.

To date in my experience gasification has not achieved a competitive overall
package compared to straight combustion for heat or Heat and steam for a
turbine.

The critical factor - which again I have much experience of is balancing
the waste production to the energy needs. Selling electricity to the grid is
seldom profitable.

A high tech and complicated piece of equipment that is not part of the core
business of any manufacturing company is always considered a risk as it
required different management and technical skills.

So say the bean canners and porrage makers when CHP is suggested- leave
electricity making to the power generators -we will stick to beans/ porrage
because we know how to do it well.

This is a reasonable business philosophy and especially as CHP gasifiers or
otherwise are very expensive and necessarily complicated.- DO NOT kid
yourself otherwise.

Kind regards
gavin

-----Original Message-----
From: Kollol Dey [mailto:cicbcal at cal2.vsnl.net.in]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 6:30
To: Gavin Gulliver-Goodall; gasification at listserv.repp.org
Subject: Re: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers

Dear Gavin,

I would like to limit this discussion to the Industrial scenario only and
NOT bring in comparision with white goods etc.

Assume for a moment, that you are trying to sell a Biomass Gasifier of your
/ or anyother design to a food processing industry which also produces
considerable amount of waste biomass (that is the biomass is available free
of cost at the the site), and is presently a solid waste disposal problem
for the Company.
The Company uses electricity in its main food processing plant and also uses
fuel like say diesel oil in some furnaces etc in its process. Also let us
assume that the management of the Company has NO past exposure to gasifier
technology.

You will surely admit that this is a very attractive case for setting up a
gasifier that will consume all the solid biowaste and produce fuel gas that
can partly be used to replace the liquid fuel and partly or wholly to
generate electricity and hot water/steam in a reciprocating engine. You are
trying to promote your case to the Company management.

The processing plant that the Company is operating is a continuous one (24
hours per day 7 days a week) and operates for say 7500 hours per year.
Now, if I was one of the decision makers of this company, and you came to
us trying to sell your gasifier as a solution to our waste disposal problem
and simultaneously generating electric power and fuel gas, how do you think
you will convince me that what you are saying is workable and a viable, and
profitable solution for our company?

While obviously I will look into the so called "theoretical" returns from
operating the gasifier, but to calculate same the first thing I need to know
is how many hours the gasifier will operate in a year - otherwise how does
one work out the projected profitability in an industrial scenario? Amongst
other things that I will look into (as a person not having any experiance on
gasifiers), is, of course whether a gasifier will operate reliabily and
operate at least as long as my main process plant operates ! Otherwise, how
do I know if what you claim is something I can rely on?

Actually faced with such problems myself, I requested to know if there is
any authentic compilation of gasifiers successfully operating the world over
which can obviously come very handy in convincing persons not having any
background of gasifiers that gasifiers are workable propositions. Such a
list can also help all concerned with this technology.

Since in projecting profitability the basis is the number of working hours
per year I am of the opinion that this is the sole criteria by which we can
identify a successul gasifier technology, whether it is profitable or not is
the next step. A successful gasifier may be a profitable gasifier in one
scenario and may again NOT be a profitable one in another scenario.

Its no use having paper profits if the gasifier cannot in reality deliver
what it set out to !!

Regards

Kollol Dey.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gavin Gulliver-Goodall" <Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 1:42 PM
Subject: RE: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers

> Thomas,
> The only definition of commercial is that the product makes a profit to
> the manufacturer.
> And provides a service for an acceptable cost for the user.
>
> For a machine making (say tin cans) the profit is that it turns steel
sheet
> into cans so that the sale of cans pays for the machine , its operator
and
> all the associated costs of running and paying for the machine.
>
> For a dishwasher at home theprofit is that it just saves me having to
wash
> dishes!!
>
> For a piece of generation technology or CHP it has to convert fuel into
> electricity and heat. Reliably and at a cost that is satisfactory to the
> user.
>
> This cost will be different for different situations but for gasifiers
will
> generally be judged against the alternative methods available. So
depending
> on scale against a gasoline fuelled Honda generator for a mobile home or
> against as Combined cycle Gas turbine for a 20MW power station.
> Both these technologies are reliable- they run for a long time between
> service shutdown. They are responsive to demand changes, they are
relatively
> cheap to buy and are efficient in converting fuel energy to electricity
for
> us to waste leaving lightbulbs on.
>
> Any gasifier in this world needs to meet those criteria. Maybe people
will
> take a hit on capital cost if the fuel is cheap,
> Less likely people will take a hit on maintenance costs because fuel is
> cheap.
> People wioll not accept lack of reliability or frequent maintenance stops
> because that means the light they left on will go out ;-)
>
> Cheers
> Gavin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Thomas Koch
> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 8:29
> To: Arnt Karlsen; gasification at listserv.repp.org
> Subject: SV: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
>
> Dear Arnt.
>
> Does that mean that you suggest that one condition for a gasifiyer to be
> classified "commercial" is that it (potentially) gains profit?
>
> Best regards
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] P? vegne af Arnt Karlsen
> Sendt: 4. oktober 2004 21:42
> Til: gasification at listserv.repp.org
> Emne: Re: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
>
> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:35:06 +0200, Thomas wrote in message
> <A1CF906CC309D642B8B9567A4D2D79F10351B3 at EXCHSERVER.tke.local>:
>
> > Nice plants both of them, I just wonder why the commercial interest is
> > so small. They have both been around for approx. 10 years but no
> > plants sold.
>
> ..profitability? ;-) If a gasifier or _anything_ is "commersial",
> then it _must_, by definition, be able to generate a profit. ;-)
>
> ..now, profits can be generated off "cheap junk thrown away every
> month", without any unit ever doing the 2000-5000-8000 hour
> certified runs on "social security."
>
> ..that's profits from power and heat, not from snake oil slicks. ;-)
> So obviously the business and _plant_ operation must make
> those profits for at least that long, and with no real asset capital
> loss, such as plant site pollution, piping corrosion etc that
> threatensfuture profits or tax payments.
>
> ..profits are _not_ made until _after_ the investment, salaries, fees,
> running costs, etc are _all_ paid off. If and as profits are made, the
> government will want their share of it, usually they call it tax. ,-)
>
> ..the real test is; "It pays enough tax to pay salary for a teacher or a
> nurse or a fireman etc, for a year?". _Then_, you can call it
> "commersial." ;-)
>
> ..I have an operating gasifier, shut down for re-rigging. I have yet
> to prove it commersial. That will be done guerilla style, I simply
> report what the meter says, just like the law says ;-), and as the
> utility "launches", call in the media to "land" them. ;-)
>
> --
> ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
> ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
> Scenarios always come in sets of three:
> best case, worst case, and just in case.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

From cicbcal at cal2.vsnl.net.in Fri Oct 8 00:07:53 2004
From: cicbcal at cal2.vsnl.net.in (Kollol Dey)
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 10:37:53 +0530
Subject: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
References: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGAEIIDPAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
Message-ID: <012501c4acf7$267d4520$6cb441db@KollolDey>

Dear Gavin,

Exactly, that is the point, how does one make a bankable document after
calculating the operating costs, unless the operating hours per year are
known? When you say "we must conduct commercial due diligence on quality and
reliability of the technology - are you also not indirectly referring to a
reliable authentic reference list of gasifiers in operations that can be
used for such purpose?
This is the very reason why I think there should be such a list and gasifier
technologist should come forward and contribute to the reference list - as
it will surely help in getting the reliability factor settled surely and
squarely. Question is of course, who will bell the cat?

What ever we say and do, unless the likes of the "porridge makers" etc are
made to realize the benefits that they can derive by setting up a gasifier
at their complexes, the technology will never really get going. All business
men are keen to invest where their money will multiply, but there are very
few takers when it comes to trying unestablished technologies.

Regards

Kollol Dey.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gavin Gulliver-Goodall" <Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
To: "Kollol Dey" <cicbcal at cal2.vsnl.net.in>;
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 4:05 AM
Subject: RE: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers

> Kollol,
>
> In this scenario (which I am very well acquainted with) we must look at
the
> both the capital and operational costs associated with the project, the
> benefits of disposal of the "waste" the costs of any post combustion
> /gasification clean up, disposal of as residues and the value of the
(fossil
> fuel) energy displaced we must also conduct commercial due diligence on
the
> quality and reliability ( bankability) of the technology proposed.
>
> To date in my experience gasification has not achieved a competitive
overall
> package compared to straight combustion for heat or Heat and steam for a
> turbine.
>
> The critical factor - which again I have much experience of is balancing
> the waste production to the energy needs. Selling electricity to the grid
is
> seldom profitable.
>
> A high tech and complicated piece of equipment that is not part of the
core
> business of any manufacturing company is always considered a risk as it
> required different management and technical skills.
>
> So say the bean canners and porrage makers when CHP is suggested- leave
> electricity making to the power generators -we will stick to beans/
porrage
> because we know how to do it well.
>
> This is a reasonable business philosophy and especially as CHP gasifiers
or
> otherwise are very expensive and necessarily complicated.- DO NOT kid
> yourself otherwise.
>
> Kind regards
> gavin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kollol Dey [mailto:cicbcal at cal2.vsnl.net.in]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 6:30
> To: Gavin Gulliver-Goodall; gasification at listserv.repp.org
> Subject: Re: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
>
> Dear Gavin,
>
> I would like to limit this discussion to the Industrial scenario only and
> NOT bring in comparision with white goods etc.
>
> Assume for a moment, that you are trying to sell a Biomass Gasifier of
your
> / or anyother design to a food processing industry which also produces
> considerable amount of waste biomass (that is the biomass is available
free
> of cost at the the site), and is presently a solid waste disposal problem
> for the Company.
> The Company uses electricity in its main food processing plant and also
uses
> fuel like say diesel oil in some furnaces etc in its process. Also let us
> assume that the management of the Company has NO past exposure to gasifier
> technology.
>
> You will surely admit that this is a very attractive case for setting up a
> gasifier that will consume all the solid biowaste and produce fuel gas
that
> can partly be used to replace the liquid fuel and partly or wholly to
> generate electricity and hot water/steam in a reciprocating engine. You
are
> trying to promote your case to the Company management.
>
> The processing plant that the Company is operating is a continuous one (24
> hours per day 7 days a week) and operates for say 7500 hours per year.
> Now, if I was one of the decision makers of this company, and you came to
> us trying to sell your gasifier as a solution to our waste disposal
problem
> and simultaneously generating electric power and fuel gas, how do you
think
> you will convince me that what you are saying is workable and a viable,
and
> profitable solution for our company?
>
> While obviously I will look into the so called "theoretical" returns from
> operating the gasifier, but to calculate same the first thing I need to
know
> is how many hours the gasifier will operate in a year - otherwise how does
> one work out the projected profitability in an industrial scenario?
Amongst
> other things that I will look into (as a person not having any experiance
on
> gasifiers), is, of course whether a gasifier will operate reliabily and
> operate at least as long as my main process plant operates ! Otherwise,
how
> do I know if what you claim is something I can rely on?
>
> Actually faced with such problems myself, I requested to know if there is
> any authentic compilation of gasifiers successfully operating the world
over
> which can obviously come very handy in convincing persons not having any
> background of gasifiers that gasifiers are workable propositions. Such a
> list can also help all concerned with this technology.
>
> Since in projecting profitability the basis is the number of working hours
> per year I am of the opinion that this is the sole criteria by which we
can
> identify a successul gasifier technology, whether it is profitable or not
is
> the next step. A successful gasifier may be a profitable gasifier in one
> scenario and may again NOT be a profitable one in another scenario.
>
> Its no use having paper profits if the gasifier cannot in reality deliver
> what it set out to !!
>
> Regards
>
> Kollol Dey.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gavin Gulliver-Goodall" <Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
> To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 1:42 PM
> Subject: RE: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
>
>
> > Thomas,
> > The only definition of commercial is that the product makes a profit
to
> > the manufacturer.
> > And provides a service for an acceptable cost for the user.
> >
> > For a machine making (say tin cans) the profit is that it turns steel
> sheet
> > into cans so that the sale of cans pays for the machine , its operator
> and
> > all the associated costs of running and paying for the machine.
> >
> > For a dishwasher at home theprofit is that it just saves me having to
> wash
> > dishes!!
> >
> > For a piece of generation technology or CHP it has to convert fuel into
> > electricity and heat. Reliably and at a cost that is satisfactory to the
> > user.
> >
> > This cost will be different for different situations but for gasifiers
> will
> > generally be judged against the alternative methods available. So
> depending
> > on scale against a gasoline fuelled Honda generator for a mobile home or
> > against as Combined cycle Gas turbine for a 20MW power station.
> > Both these technologies are reliable- they run for a long time between
> > service shutdown. They are responsive to demand changes, they are
> relatively
> > cheap to buy and are efficient in converting fuel energy to electricity
> for
> > us to waste leaving lightbulbs on.
> >
> > Any gasifier in this world needs to meet those criteria. Maybe people
> will
> > take a hit on capital cost if the fuel is cheap,
> > Less likely people will take a hit on maintenance costs because fuel is
> > cheap.
> > People wioll not accept lack of reliability or frequent maintenance
stops
> > because that means the light they left on will go out ;-)
> >
> > Cheers
> > Gavin
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> > [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Thomas Koch
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 8:29
> > To: Arnt Karlsen; gasification at listserv.repp.org
> > Subject: SV: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
> >
> > Dear Arnt.
> >
> > Does that mean that you suggest that one condition for a gasifiyer to be
> > classified "commercial" is that it (potentially) gains profit?
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> > Fra: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> > [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] P? vegne af Arnt Karlsen
> > Sendt: 4. oktober 2004 21:42
> > Til: gasification at listserv.repp.org
> > Emne: Re: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
> >
> > On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:35:06 +0200, Thomas wrote in message
> > <A1CF906CC309D642B8B9567A4D2D79F10351B3 at EXCHSERVER.tke.local>:
> >
> > > Nice plants both of them, I just wonder why the commercial interest is
> > > so small. They have both been around for approx. 10 years but no
> > > plants sold.
> >
> > ..profitability? ;-) If a gasifier or _anything_ is "commersial",
> > then it _must_, by definition, be able to generate a profit. ;-)
> >
> > ..now, profits can be generated off "cheap junk thrown away every
> > month", without any unit ever doing the 2000-5000-8000 hour
> > certified runs on "social security."
> >
> > ..that's profits from power and heat, not from snake oil slicks. ;-)
> > So obviously the business and _plant_ operation must make
> > those profits for at least that long, and with no real asset capital
> > loss, such as plant site pollution, piping corrosion etc that
> > threatensfuture profits or tax payments.
> >
> > ..profits are _not_ made until _after_ the investment, salaries, fees,
> > running costs, etc are _all_ paid off. If and as profits are made, the
> > government will want their share of it, usually they call it tax. ,-)
> >
> > ..the real test is; "It pays enough tax to pay salary for a teacher or a
> > nurse or a fireman etc, for a year?". _Then_, you can call it
> > "commersial." ;-)
> >
> > ..I have an operating gasifier, shut down for re-rigging. I have yet
> > to prove it commersial. That will be done guerilla style, I simply
> > report what the meter says, just like the law says ;-), and as the
> > utility "launches", call in the media to "land" them. ;-)
> >
> > --
> > ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
> > ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
> > Scenarios always come in sets of three:
> > best case, worst case, and just in case.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gasification mailing list
> > Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> > http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gasification mailing list
> > Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> > http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gasification mailing list
> > Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> > http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Oct 8 04:31:08 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 05:31:08 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Re Question for group Where is the PR?
Message-ID: <1f6.6f81d3.2e97b85c@aol.com>

to anyone interested, we did this in the 80's with a Cummins natural gas SI
non-turbocharged engine/generator set and it was written up by the group that
developed the Cummings natural gas engine system. The report of the operation
of the engine/generator set is available in electronic format if wanted. The
operation then has since been well advanced with a new design of reactor and gas
cleaning train.

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 Fri Oct 8 07:32:43 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:32:43 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Re Question for group Where is the PR?
In-Reply-To: <1f6.6f81d3.2e97b85c@aol.com>
References: <1f6.6f81d3.2e97b85c@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20041008143243.65bd0a53.arnt@c2i.net>

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 05:31:08 EDT, LINVENT at aol.com wrote in message
<1f6.6f81d3.2e97b85c at aol.com>:

> to anyone interested, we did this in the 80's with a Cummins natural
> gas SI non-turbocharged engine/generator set and it was written up by
> the group that developed the Cummings natural gas engine system. The
> report of the operation of the engine/generator set is available in
> electronic format if wanted.

..url?

> The operation then has since been well
> advanced with a new design of reactor and gas cleaning train.

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

 

From Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk Fri Oct 8 08:21:33 2004
From: Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:21:33 +0100
Subject: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <012501c4acf7$267d4520$6cb441db@KollolDey>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGGEJDDPAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>

Dear Kollol,
I think you have discovered the secret... there isn't any proven
gasification to internal combustion engine system system so far working
reliably ...
Some pyrolysis show promise,
Many people (including me ) are investing time and money in gasifiers.

Coal gasification as was practised in the UK until the 1960's was horribly
smelly, messy and labour intensive with bell hopper retorts etc.
Automating the coal system wasn't technically and financially viable and was
(probably -otehrs may know better??) easier than biomass which has a huge
variation in water content and physical properties to contend with.

Onward as tom says...

Kind regards
Gavin
-----Original Message-----
<snip >

 

From oscar at geprop.cu Fri Oct 8 08:52:29 2004
From: oscar at geprop.cu (Oscar Jimenez)
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:52:29 -0400
Subject: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
Message-ID: <A6C7CDF4EB4F92459A97B5514EC9F1D9092030@geprop-server.172.16.1.254>

Dear All...!!

I've been carefully reading the "List of Operating Gasifiers" messages exchange among all of you and a big concern is creeping up on me.
We are in involved in implementing a GEF funded project in which biomass gasification power plant is envisaged to install for supplying 3.5 MWe on a small island. From the very beginning setting up the project on COMMERCIAL BASIS was one of our major milestone. Honestly speaking I am rather on the learning curve on this matter so reading the reasoning and knowing the experience of all of you have been really valuable to me.
I did know that biomass gasification is not a really mature technology but the level of uncertainty you are stressing out is really high when compared with my modest knowledge on this issue.
I'd been in India and the image I received from them was rather different, certain amount of confidence on the technology was always up in conversation, meeting and disccussion on this matter.
If you were asked to qualify (1,2,3,4,5), one for the lowest and five for the highest, degree of confidence in implementing biomass gasification technology on COMMERCIAL BASIS, which qualification would be yours ...????

Thanking all of you in advance.

Kindest regards.

Oscar.

 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Gavin Gulliver-Goodall [mailto:Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk]
Enviado el: viernes, 08 de octubre de 2004 8:22
Para: Kollol Dey; gasification at listserv.repp.org
Asunto: RE: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers

Dear Kollol,
I think you have discovered the secret... there isn't any proven
gasification to internal combustion engine system system so far working
reliably ...
Some pyrolysis show promise,
Many people (including me ) are investing time and money in gasifiers.

Coal gasification as was practised in the UK until the 1960's was horribly
smelly, messy and labour intensive with bell hopper retorts etc.
Automating the coal system wasn't technically and financially viable and was
(probably -otehrs may know better??) easier than biomass which has a huge
variation in water content and physical properties to contend with.

Onward as tom says...

Kind regards
Gavin
-----Original Message-----
<snip >

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Oct 8 10:25:51 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:25:51 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
Message-ID: <15c.4075b1c1.2e980b7f@aol.com>

Dear Tom,
I would like to raise the issue of the nomenclature that the Prime Energy
gasifiers are actually gasifiers, but two stage combustors. My preferred
nomenclature for a gasifier is one where the gas can be transported a distance
from the gasifier and used which is not the case in Prime Energy's configuration.

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

From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Oct 8 10:28:45 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:28:45 EDT
Subject: SV: SV: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
Message-ID: <1f1.2bf43040.2e980c2d@aol.com>

The gas analysis conducted by Sandia National Laboratories showed no sulfur
in any form in the gas, FTIR analysis. The blue color arises from hydrogen
combustion or well mixed other gases including methane. At higher fuel air ratios,
the gas becomes yellow until mixed with the proper air for complete
combustion.

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

From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Oct 8 10:31:17 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:31:17 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] kWh price in Germany...
Message-ID: <fa.32e3c86.2e980cc5@aol.com>

as a humorous note, when I worked at Sandia National Laboratories in laser
physics groups, there were two optical system designers, both Germans, Dave
Lenz, and Dan Fenstermacher. Now we have a Gasman in the gasification field.
Aren't the Germans good at knowing what their occupations are supposed to be?

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 LWheeler45 at aol.com Fri Oct 8 14:29:04 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 15:29:04 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Couple of Points to add to this " discussion"
Message-ID: <a0.185f96dc.2e984480@aol.com>

 

I have more than a little interest and more than a little
time and money invested in Plasma Redux Ethanol and Gassifier for Fla.

I also have ONLY TWO workable proposals with guarantees, lease sale joint
venture financial arrangements and sole ownership on projects starting at 6
million and growing to over 100 million dollars.

Additionally I have verified engineering data EPA / ISO certification on few
working commercial operations. None in the USA.

At some scales of operation I make money over all cost including system
replacement with ZERO tipping fees. That is defined in my book as Commercial.

Where the gassifier group seem to have some problems are the following areas:

1. You have a disjointed and conflicting understanding of the state of the
art of your respective systems and competition. Your expert opinions are in
conflict with one another. Are you running for political office?

2. You have ZERO data base of successes.

3. However the industry has many documented failures of grand scale
proportions such as the Hawaii Bagasse system and the 300 million dollar Sugar waste to
energy in Clewiston.

4. Producers have failed to connect with other industry in supportive roles.
The Ethanol industry finally got this idea THIS YEAR. An Ethanol plant is
about 70% of a conventional power plant. There is lots of heat energy and steam
that is not used and could make power or work a sawmill or process water to
distill it. Do they use this yet? NO.

I am a resident of FLAAAAADAH and we are advocating renewable fuel vehicles
that can run on ethanol and yet we shut down the only ethanol plant in the
state and PLOWED UNDER 10,000 acres of cane. You can also make hydrogen from
ethanol and fuel space rockets. We use that stuff here too. Flaaaaaadaaaaah. Wait
till you see our elections performance in Nov..... aaaaahhhhaaaah Try Counting
hanging electrons......

It amazes me that of all the talented and well informed folks in this group
only THREE have shown me any understanding of these vast markets and only two
have sent any business type documented results of personal commercial
applications.

When someone tells me their needs. 100 TPD 40 MW 3,000,000 BTU process heat.
I expect that with little effort on my part I can find a company in a mature
industry such as Gasification technology that has existed for over 100 years
that can meet those specifics with an off the shelf system built with off the
shelf parts in an ISO certified facility. I have been barraged with wishes,
excuses, timelines of nearly a year or more and ZERO that is ZERO examples and
specifics of working and successful and guaranteed designs I can see it working
now on large projects.. There have only been three exceptions to this. Only
one proposal made it to second round discussion with decision makers in
Flaaaaaaha.

Clearly You Gassifier Manufacturers need to have an organization like E 85 or
the Renewable Energy groups or even the National Hydrogen groups or even the
waste disposal groups and you don't have one. WHY IS THAT? You fail to have an
organizational web page with links to your businesses.

This quote is repeated in my business communications daily.

While obviously I will look into the so called "theoretical" returns from
operating the gasifier, but to calculate same the first thing I need to know
is how many hours the gasifier will operate in a year - otherwise how does
one work out the projected profitability in an industrial scenario? Amongst
other things that I will look into (as a person not having any experience on
gasifiers), is, of course whether a gasifier will operate reliably and
operate at least as long as my main process plant operates! Otherwise, how
do I know if what you claim is something I can rely on?

Actually faced with such problems myself, I requested to know if there is
any authentic compilation of gasifiers successfully operating the world over
which can obviously come very handy in convincing persons not having any
background of gasifiers that gasifiers are workable propositions. Such a
list can also help all concerned with this technology.

Thank you,

Leonard Wheeler
Eustis, Fla
352 483 9555

 

 

 


 

 

While obviously I will look into the so called "theoretical" returns from
operating the gasifier, but to calculate same the first thing I need to know
is how many hours the gasifier will operate in a year - otherwise how does
one work out the projected profitability in an industrial scenario? Amongst
other things that I will look into (as a person not having any experience on
gasifiers), is, of course whether a gasifier will operate reliably and
operate at least as long as my main process plant operates! Otherwise, how
do I know if what you claim is something I can rely on?

Actually faced with such problems myself, I requested to know if there is
any authentic compilation of gasifiers successfully operating the world over
which can obviously come very handy in convincing persons not having any
background of gasifiers that gasifiers are workable propositions. Such a
list can also help all concerned with this technology.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041008/8ccbc478/attachment.html

From jonpratt76 at hotmail.com Fri Oct 8 14:33:33 2004
From: jonpratt76 at hotmail.com (Jonathan Pratt)
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:33:33 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Gasifier Catalog
Message-ID: <BAY17-F2499ir3wSimD000475ed@hotmail.com>

While we are on the subject of a good list of working commercial gasifiers
worldwide. I would like to ask - Are there any catalogs of small gasifier
units that are being manufacured? There's a whole mountain of small
gasifiers that have been made and some that have been sold and are now
discontinued. Instead of trying to deal with dozens of companies and
compiling a list, a catalog of gasifier systems would be MUCH better.

I would like to see a worldwide catalog including price, picture,
specifications and ordering information particularly for small 10Kw-100Kw
gasifiers. I just ordered Tom Reeds Survey of Biomass gasification and it
has a section listing companies worldwide involved in research, and small
and large gasifier systems. But just a list is not much good when trying to
compare different systems or make a determination of who to buy from.

CPC's modular gasifier designed for mass production looks like it has a lot
of potential but it is still not available for purchase. And the feedback I
received was that the base system cost would still be over $5000.

Just a basic mass produced gasifier and gas cleanup system should be very
economical, something barebones that people can add onto with more
components for home and water heating, power generation, and automobile use.
Obviously something automated with a feeder system is going to cost
considerably more but people's appetite can get wetted and a much higher
volume of units can be sold with something manually operated for a cost of
only a few hundred dollars. If small gasifiers can be made from scrap 55
gallon drums, homemade cyclone filters, and sawdust filtration units than a
mass marketed manually operated unit can surely be commercially successful.

It's time for a model T of wood gasifiers. If such a unit already exists
and is available for purchase please do tell me. There is surely a large
market for a manually operated unit that only has to be filled with wood
fuel periodically and cleaned out daily especially if using it can entirely
replace a households, electric and natural gas bills. And if something can
be made that can also burn their trash then it is all the more attractive to
eliminate the trash collection bill as well. A lot of positive attention
can be brought to such a mass marketed and produced system. Which can use
other multi fuels as backup.

Maybe a different approach is in order to promote the adoption of this
technology targeting the mass market. With more exposure of smaller units
the promotion of larger multi-million dollar systems and plants will follow
naturally because of the greater public awareness and economics of higher
volume gas generation. This industry needs to crawl and walk before it can
run. Is it even an industry yet? Regarldess of the current state of
gasification an enormous potential exists for it. Especially with new more
efficient catalyst technology for converting syngas to liquid fuels.

Jonathan Pratt

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Fri Oct 8 15:15:47 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 16:15:47 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Try this for an example. Where are the gassifiers
listed regards Leonard Wheeler
Message-ID: <d6.16b2d1b0.2e984f73@aol.com>

GlobalSpec, the Web's largest searchable database of technical products and
services
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041008/37f1390c/attachment.html

From tbollman at twlakes.net Fri Oct 8 23:02:04 2004
From: tbollman at twlakes.net (tbollman)
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:02:04 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] (no subject)
Message-ID: <01LFT0ID31XM91G5IR@SMTP00.InfoAve.Net>

To all the August Scholars that read this list, I submit the following;

http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/e...s/message/64063

I would greatly appreciate your opinions as to the accuracy and reliability of the info contained therein.

Thanks in advance
Tim

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sat Oct 9 10:56:56 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 16:56:56 +0100
Subject: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGAEIIDPAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
References: <009c01c4ab65$bc7187a0$85b841db@KollolDey>
<MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGAEIIDPAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
Message-ID: <0c2gm0p6873df25hfg086srlc0lvrghg05@4ax.com>

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 23:35:54 +0100, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:

>
>The critical factor - which again I have much experience of is balancing
>the waste production to the energy needs. Selling electricity to the grid is
>seldom profitable.

The wannabe biomass to electricity via gasification is in a bit of a
cleft stick here then, if he supplies via a private wire he forgoes
all the incentives of renewable energy certificates, which in UK seem
to be worth about 2.5 times the open market energy value.

AJH

 

From TK at tke.dk Sat Oct 9 04:42:14 2004
From: TK at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:42:14 +0200
Subject: SV: [Gasification] Re Question for group Where is the PR?
Message-ID: <A1CF906CC309D642B8B9567A4D2D79F10351E0@EXCHSERVER.tke.local>

Dear Leland

Where can I get a copy of this report?

Best regards

Thomas Koch

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] P? vegne af LINVENT at aol.com
Sendt: 8. oktober 2004 11:31
Til: sigma at ix.netcom.com; LWheeler45 at aol.com; gasification at listserv.repp.org
Emne: Re: [Gasification] Re Question for group Where is the PR?

to anyone interested, we did this in the 80's with a Cummins natural gas SI
non-turbocharged engine/generator set and it was written up by the group that
developed the Cummings natural gas engine system. The report of the operation
of the engine/generator set is available in electronic format if wanted. The
operation then has since been well advanced with a new design of reactor and gas
cleaning train.

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

 

From TK at tke.dk Sat Oct 9 04:53:14 2004
From: TK at tke.dk (Thomas Koch)
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:53:14 +0200
Subject: SV: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
Message-ID: <A1CF906CC309D642B8B9567A4D2D79F10351E1@EXCHSERVER.tke.local>

Hi Oscar

That is exately the relevant problem you point out.

You have to write "your gasifier" is commercial to get support, you raise expectation too high and the reputation of gasification get even vorse.

I had the hounour of being involved in the last GEF gasification project in Brasil. I understand your vorries.

Best regards

Thomas Koch

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] P? vegne af Oscar Jimenez
Sendt: 8. oktober 2004 15:52
Til: Gavin Gulliver-Goodall; Kollol Dey; gasification at listserv.repp.org
Emne: RE: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers

Dear All...!!

I've been carefully reading the "List of Operating Gasifiers" messages exchange among all of you and a big concern is creeping up on me.
We are in involved in implementing a GEF funded project in which biomass gasification power plant is envisaged to install for supplying 3.5 MWe on a small island. From the very beginning setting up the project on COMMERCIAL BASIS was one of our major milestone. Honestly speaking I am rather on the learning curve on this matter so reading the reasoning and knowing the experience of all of you have been really valuable to me.
I did know that biomass gasification is not a really mature technology but the level of uncertainty you are stressing out is really high when compared with my modest knowledge on this issue.
I'd been in India and the image I received from them was rather different, certain amount of confidence on the technology was always up in conversation, meeting and disccussion on this matter.
If you were asked to qualify (1,2,3,4,5), one for the lowest and five for the highest, degree of confidence in implementing biomass gasification technology on COMMERCIAL BASIS, which qualification would be yours ...????

Thanking all of you in advance.

Kindest regards.

Oscar.

 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Gavin Gulliver-Goodall [mailto:Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk]
Enviado el: viernes, 08 de octubre de 2004 8:22
Para: Kollol Dey; gasification at listserv.repp.org
Asunto: RE: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers

Dear Kollol,
I think you have discovered the secret... there isn't any proven
gasification to internal combustion engine system system so far working
reliably ...
Some pyrolysis show promise,
Many people (including me ) are investing time and money in gasifiers.

Coal gasification as was practised in the UK until the 1960's was horribly
smelly, messy and labour intensive with bell hopper retorts etc.
Automating the coal system wasn't technically and financially viable and was
(probably -otehrs may know better??) easier than biomass which has a huge
variation in water content and physical properties to contend with.

Onward as tom says...

Kind regards
Gavin
-----Original Message-----
<snip >

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sat Oct 9 11:26:56 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 17:26:56 +0100
Subject: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGGEJDDPAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
References: <012501c4acf7$267d4520$6cb441db@KollolDey>
<MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGGEJDDPAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
Message-ID: <4a4gm0pri5csbf8rqkficks6ga1lta45cl@4ax.com>

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:21:33 +0100, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:

>Coal gasification as was practised in the UK until the 1960's was horribly
>smelly, messy and labour intensive with bell hopper retorts etc.

Not to mention having byproducts that contaminated the site.
Still it was pyrolysis with some high temperature cracking, the two co
products, coke and town gas, were made with an overall cold efficiency
of 85%.

>Automating the coal system wasn't technically and financially viable and was
>(probably -otehrs may know better??) easier than biomass which has a huge
>variation in water content and physical properties to contend with.

But wouldn't it have failed in competition with natural gas anyway?
Natural gas is a better and safer fuel. In fact would we ever go back
to a CO H2 mixture even with advances like high pressure oxygen
separation, to blow the carbon? I suspect not and any process to make
a gaseous fuel from carbonaceous material, on a large scale, would
have an element of electrical co generation in it.

Perhaps the fact it was a pyrolysis step with production of coke, an
hence inherent extra costs in transport and handling, in the absence
of cheaply excluding nitrogen from the gasification stage that limited
its use?

AJH

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sat Oct 9 11:26:56 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 17:26:56 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Energy balance
In-Reply-To: <1d6.2ca0e71a.2e92b6ae@aol.com>
References: <1d6.2ca0e71a.2e92b6ae@aol.com>
Message-ID: <d84gm0dap563kc99idj0nc390r8p34nce6@4ax.com>

On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:22:38 EDT, Enoojibail at aol.com wrote:

>Does any one has energy "input and output" numbers when we gasify organic
>materials?

This is too broad a question to answer easily. If you look at the
gasifier and its offgas product consumer as a black box then heat in
is the HHV of the biomass, on the other side of the equation are
losses from the box, flue gas enthalpy and energy remaining in
char+ash. the difference of these should equate to the useful work out
of the system, around 14% seems likely.

>What is the energy efficiency of the gasifier?

I suspect you mean what portion of the energy in the feedstock ends up
in the gasifier offgas when in a form it can be used by a downstream
process? This is the cold gas efficiency and figures quoted for simple
systems seem to be around 70%. There are techniques for raising this
dramatically with heat and chemical feedback and using oxygen instead
of air to blow the system.

> How much enegy is
>consumed to "remove" moisture (60-75%) contained in the material?

Do you mean to dry the material to an optimal moisture content prior
to entering the gasifier? Say to maybe 12% mc wwb? This is a
relatively easy calculation, commercial driers need around 4MJ/kg of
water removed, this can be improved with higher capital expense, and
dryers are not cheap. So 1kg of 75%mc wwb biomass with a notional cv
of 18MJ/kg LHV oven dry will contain 4.5MJ of energy and require about
2MJ to dry it in a clean burn and 3MJ to dry it in a simple external
dryer, such as like a farmer would use to dry grain. The arguments for
pre drying are mostly to do with transport and process requirements of
pre existing plant to be fired.

Greg posts to this list about a simple drying effect he achieves in
his "monorater" gasifier hopper where fuel moisture is distilled out
of the fuel and disposed separately, I think.

There seem to be differing ways of tackling this, some moisture in the
fuel is a good thing if a high speed reciprocating engine is the user
of the gas, as it adds a bit more hydrogen to the offgas. Any water in
the fuel consumes a lot of heat to reduce it to H2 and CO (the water
gas reaction) so it reduces the temperature of the hearth, which is a
bad thing, as high temperatures here drive the reactions towards an
equilibrium which favours the small molecules, like CO and H2, rather
than condensible tars which need to be filtered out before they reach
a reciprocating engine. High temperatures in the hearth especially
around the points where there is still excess air, lead to damage to
the hearth materials.

So it's all a highly dynamic balancing act which it appears there is
no current viable economic solution to. In the past before, highly
refined liquid fossil fuels were available, engines were competitively
run off coal gas and anthracite gasifiers but their cold gas
efficiency was probably low and in real terms the price of electricity
generated was very high. Electricity probably has a demand curve a bit
like food, when you have none you are prepared to pay an awful lot for
a small amount, and use it for high profit activity (often cinemas in
the early days), as it becomes more readily available competition
drives the price down and consumers use it for personal comfort.

> How much
>energy is used to gasify the dry material?

None, the basic gasification process is exothermic so apart from
losses from the fabric of the gasifier all the energy of the biomass
ends up in the offgas (excepting some unreacted char), the trouble is
that in a poor gasifier much of this energy will be output as a high
temperature flue gas rather than as chemical energy available by later
completing the oxidising of that flue gas in an engine.

So with a dry wood fuel you may need about six times the weight of the
fuel plus say 10% excess air to completely burn it to an acceptable
level of flue gas pollutants but to gasify that same amount of wood
would only need its own weight of air, in round terms. The air for
complete combustion then being supplied in the engine being powered.

AJH

 

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Sat Oct 9 09:44:15 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 09:44:15 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] (no subject) Yahoo Post
In-Reply-To: <01LFT0ID31XM91G5IR@SMTP00.InfoAve.Net>
Message-ID: <00cf01c4ae0e$73b6c6f0$1900a8c0@a31server>

Tried the link, but Yahoo comes back "No such group"

Mind you, e...s doesn't look valid anyhow.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of tbollman
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 11:02 PM
To: Gasificationlistservrepporg
Subject: [Gasification] (no subject)

To all the August Scholars that read this list, I submit the following;

http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/e...s/message/64063

I would greatly appreciate your opinions as to the accuracy and reliability
of the info contained therein.

Thanks in advance
Tim

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

From sylva at iname.com Sat Oct 9 07:50:31 2004
From: sylva at iname.com (sylva at iname.com)
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 13:50:31 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Energy balance
In-Reply-To: <1d6.2ca0e71a.2e92b6ae@aol.com>
References: <1d6.2ca0e71a.2e92b6ae@aol.com>
Message-ID: <vskfm016d14mr7cb71m1nmm1hb6i1ajkmq@4ax.com>

On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:22:38 EDT, Enoojibail at aol.com wrote:

>Does any one has energy "input and output" numbers when we gasify organic
>materials?

This is too broad a question to answer easily. If you look at the
gasifier and its offgas product consumer as a black box then heat in
is the HHV of the biomass, on the other side of the equation are
losses from the box, flue gas enthalpy and energy remaining in
char+ash. the difference of these should equate to the useful work out
of the system, around 14% seems likely.

>What is the energy efficiency of the gasifier?

I suspect you mean what portion of the energy in the feedstock ends up
in the gasifier offgas when in a form it can be used by a downstream
process? This is the cold gas efficiency and figures quoted for simple
systems seem to be around 70%. There are techniques for raising this
dramatically with heat and chemical feedback and using oxygen instead
of air to blow the system.

> How much enegy is
>consumed to "remove" moisture (60-75%) contained in the material?

Do you mean to dry the material to an optimal moisture content prior
to entering the gasifier? Say to maybe 12% mc wwb? This is a
relatively easy calculation, commercial driers need around 4MJ/kg of
water removed, this can be improved with higher capital expense, and
dryers are not cheap. So 1kg of 75%mc wwb biomass with a notional cv
of 18MJ/kg LHV oven dry will contain 4.5MJ of energy and require about
2MJ to dry it in a clean burn and 3MJ to dry it in a simple external
dryer, such as like a farmer would use to dry grain. The arguments for
pre drying are mostly to do with transport and process requirements of
pre existing plant to be fired.

Greg posts to this list about a simple drying effect he achieves in
his "monorater" gasifier hopper where fuel moisture is distilled out
of the fuel and disposed separately, I think.

There seem to be differing ways of tackling this, some moisture in the
fuel is a good thing if a high speed reciprocating engine is the user
of the gas, as it adds a bit more hydrogen to the offgas. Any water in
the fuel consumes a lot of heat to reduce it to H2 and CO (the water
gas reaction) so it reduces the temperature of the hearth, which is a
bad thing, as high temperatures here drive the reactions towards an
equilibrium which favours the small molecules, like CO and H2, rather
than condensible tars which need to be filtered out before they reach
a reciprocating engine. High temperatures in the hearth especially
around the points where there is still excess air, lead to damage to
the hearth materials.

So it's all a highly dynamic balancing act which it appears there is
no current viable economic solution to. In the past before, highly
refined liquid fossil fuels were available, engines were competitively
run off coal gas and anthracite gasifiers but their cold gas
efficiency was probably low and in real terms the price of electricity
generated was very high. Electricity probably has a demand curve a bit
like food, when you have none you are prepared to pay an awful lot for
a small amount, and use it for high profit activity (often cinemas in
the early days), as it becomes more readily available competition
drives the price down and consumers use it for personal comfort.

> How much
>energy is used to gasify the dry material?

None, the basic gasification process is exothermic so apart from
losses from the fabric of the gasifier all the energy of the biomass
ends up in the offgas (excepting some unreacted char), the trouble is
that in a poor gasifier much of this energy will be output as a high
temperature flue gas rather than as chemical energy available by later
completing the oxidising of that flue gas in an engine.

So with a dry wood fuel you may need about six times the weight of the
fuel plus say 10% excess air to completely burn it to an acceptable
level of flue gas pollutants but to gasify that same amount of wood
would only need its own weight of air, in round terms. The air for
complete combustion then being supplied in the engine being powered.

AJH

 

From sylva at iname.com Sat Oct 9 07:50:31 2004
From: sylva at iname.com (sylva at iname.com)
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 13:50:31 +0100
Subject: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGGEJDDPAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
References: <012501c4acf7$267d4520$6cb441db@KollolDey>
<MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGGEJDDPAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
Message-ID: <8ukfm019n5n8m82ir6oli0nak7krohpo8u@4ax.com>

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:21:33 +0100, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:

>Coal gasification as was practised in the UK until the 1960's was horribly
>smelly, messy and labour intensive with bell hopper retorts etc.

Not to mention having byproducts that contaminated the site.
Still it was pyrolysis with some high temperature cracking, the two co
products, coke and town gas, were made with an overall cold efficiency
of 85%.

>Automating the coal system wasn't technically and financially viable and was
>(probably -otehrs may know better??) easier than biomass which has a huge
>variation in water content and physical properties to contend with.

But wouldn't it have failed in competition with natural gas anyway?
Natural gas is a better and safer fuel. In fact would we ever go back
to a CO H2 mixture even with advances like high pressure oxygen
separation, to blow the carbon? I suspect not and any process to make
a gaseous fuel from carbonaceous material, on a large scale, would
have an element of electrical co generation in it.

Perhaps the fact it was a pyrolysis step with production of coke, an
hence inherent extra costs in transport and handling, in the absence
of cheaply excluding nitrogen from the gasification stage that limited
its use?

AJH

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sat Oct 9 11:57:01 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 17:57:01 +0100
Subject: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
In-Reply-To: <8ukfm019n5n8m82ir6oli0nak7krohpo8u@4ax.com>
References: <012501c4acf7$267d4520$6cb441db@KollolDey>
<MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGGEJDDPAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
<8ukfm019n5n8m82ir6oli0nak7krohpo8u@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <726gm0dt59gldfdpfmi48k1l6r992nap91@4ax.com>

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 13:50:31 +0100, sylva at iname.com wrote:

My apologies for duplicate posting, I assumed it was my email address
that was being rejected so I reposted it from another account. Repp
must have been having a slight delay so both posts propagated.

AJH

From tbollman at twlakes.net Sat Oct 9 10:57:58 2004
From: tbollman at twlakes.net (tbollman)
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 09:57:58 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Incorrect URL
Message-ID: <01LFTPHYRS348XM2V6@SMTP00.InfoAve.Net>

My apologies Gentlemen,

Try this URL rather than the one I submitted earlier.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/downloads.html

 

From Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk Sat Oct 9 15:29:25 2004
From: Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 21:29:25 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Gasifier Catalog
In-Reply-To: <BAY17-F2499ir3wSimD000475ed@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGGEJPDPAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>

 

Jonathan Pratt wrote

SNIP.

I would like to see a worldwide catalog including price, picture,
specifications and ordering information particularly for small 10Kw-100Kw
gasifiers. I just ordered Tom Reeds Survey of Biomass gasification and it
has a section listing companies worldwide involved in research, and small
and large gasifier systems. But just a list is not much good when trying to
compare different systems or make a determination of who to buy from.

SNIP
[GGG]
So would I!!
Gavin

 

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Sun Oct 10 00:26:26 2004
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:26:26 +1300
Subject: [Gasification] Re Question for group Where is the PR?
References: <198.300a2b99.2e95f7bf@aol.com><15cc01c4ac6d$3c066000$0000a398@Len>
<41655707.7252CB06@3iAlternativePower.com>
Message-ID: <000901c4ae8a$151787c0$cf8f58db@newpc>

> Dear Bill and Gasification Colleagues

You wrote:

The story continues, but to what end? My point is that the project in
ND
> is only a recent development and far from a first except, perhaps in the
> Dakotas. Since we don't have a proper clearing house for reliable
> gasification information, we don't always have access to the most
> accurate facts. We, within the industry, are the losers, deprived of
> good information and living in a vacuum of skepticism and cynicism.
>
> My rant is over. I'm taking deep breaths.
>

Well, I couldn't agree more, so I will start by correcting the information
that you consider correct even if you are misinformed on the origins of the
technology you promote. So that you have absolutely confirmable information,
I have extracted the following statements from Fluidyne's company records,
and archive material, from 1976 to 1978.

1: I joined Fluidyne R & D, Jack Humphries' company in 1975, to supervise
the manufacturing of bypass oil filters that his company made at that time.

2: We built the first gasifier out of an old oil drum in 1976 and with my
fabrication skills as a boilermaker continued to make every gasifier over
the following years. No gasifiers were built before this time even by Jack
who was an apprentice Boilermaker in the New Zealand Railway workshops in
the early 1940's, until he joined the Air Force.

3: We jointly developed the improvements to the gasification process that
had similarities but was not a copy of the original Imbert gasifiers.
Accordingly, both our names appear on the patent papers for that process,
and later on the early model of dual fuelling conversion kits for diesel
engines. I went on to develop the dual fuel technology further when Jack
left the company in 1986.

4: As Managing Director of Fluidyne R & D, Jack submitted the technology for
the 1980 BP New Zealand Energy Conservation Awards, and in a letter dated
22nd April 1980, was advised that he was one of seven to receive awards or
certificates. The applicants including Jack who did not win the main award,
were presented with a cheque and a certificate for their efforts.

5: In 1983 Jack sold the controlling interest of Fluidyne R & D to Northern
Engineering Industries (NEI) of Newcastle upon Tyne through their office in
Sydney, Australia, at that time called NEI Pacific. I was given 10% of our
49% of the shares as recognition of my contribution to the technology. Our
new company name became NEI Fluidyne Limited.

6: On completion of the Pacific Class gasifier design in 1983, it was
submitted as an entry to the 1984 Steel Awards, winning both the industrial
section and named outright winner of all categories. We received two
trophies and $1500 each in prize money. NEI Pacific directors allowed Jack
and I to keep the prize money and years later I made sure Jack got one of
the trophies. We won no international awards.
We placed four of the Pacific Class gasifiers for testing in Fiji,Malaysia,
South Africa, and North America, during 1984-5 but none of these were
actually installed by us as a working installation. This came later after
Jack left the company. We also began researching and experimenting with what
we called Trough Hearths in 1985, today referred to as linear bed
gasification, so be assured it is an ongoing pathway for gasification into
the future, but like round hearths have their own specific scale up problems
as you will discover if and when you build larger versions of your single
demonstration gasifier.

7: In January 1986, Jack's resignation as Managing Director was accepted
with immediate severance. The reasons remain private. His employment
contract with NEI required a five year abstinence from gasification activity
on leaving the company was not observed, as you have clearly stated on his
return to the USA. That caused a lot of unnecessary problems.

8: I continued to run the company as General Manager until December 1988
when NEI Pacific was ordered to close all peripheral business activity
outside of large scale power generation.

9: NEI Pacific directors facilititated my continuation of the company
activity, and I was able to buy the assets and license from NEI to continue.
My obligations to the license ended in 1994 and Jack had no involvement in
my purchase of the company assets which he did not own.. He sold me
nothing. The company name then became Fluidyne Gasification and NEI Pacific
went on to become Rolls Royce Power, with whom I still retain occasional
links.

10: How you have managed to link Georgia Tech in 1984 to what Jack and I did
at Fluidyne is quite a mystery, because they never tested anything we made,
and certainly not with hot clean gas! Georgia Tech is most famous for their
large updraught process heat gasifier installed at a hospital in Rome, Ga.
in 1980-81, not downdraught systems as you state. Where on earth are you
getting this information from?

11: Your response to the PR release from EERC is a little over reacting
isn't it? Darren clearly states it is believed to be the first dual fuel
engine trials (under strictly monitored conditions), and if you have
information other than hearsay to the contrary, then you should clarify the
situation by supplying specifics of the engine, dates, and those involved as
well as Jack. Personally I only see it as another staggering slow step
towards implementing gasification, but just for the "true" record, I can
tell you that the EERC engine trial was more for the purpose of establishing
reliable information at a local level on dual fuel engine performance
parameters. As I was part of testing these parameters at EERC with Darren's
team, you should be aware that we cannot live on past credits in an age of
environmental protection and we have to prove every thing we say and do.

Bill, keep taking deep breaths, but don't make it sound like huffing and
puffing. Just present your true facts for public scrutiny and with time and
proven experience, your credibility might grow, instead of being the loser
as you say, from not accessing good information. I hope this assists you in
future to truthfully present the company and Jack Humphries whom you
represent, and you should check with him before making incorrect public
statements in future. I suggest you consider this subject now closed, and
get on with the job of implementing the technology.

Doug Williams
Fluidyne Gasification.

 

From Bill_Klein at 3iAlternativePower.com Sun Oct 10 04:29:41 2004
From: Bill_Klein at 3iAlternativePower.com (Bill Klein)
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 05:29:41 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Re Question for group Where is the PR?
References: <198.300a2b99.2e95f7bf@aol.com><15cc01c4ac6d$3c066000$0000a398@Len>
<41655707.7252CB06@3iAlternativePower.com>
<000901c4ae8a$151787c0$cf8f58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <41690105.914E1AEE@3iAlternativePower.com>

Dear Doug:

Thank you. That was great! Your dissertation underscores why there is
chocolate and vanilla ice cream and I apologize for, inadvertently,
becoming a party to such a ruckus.

Incidentally, Jack and I speak regularly, sometimes several times a day.
Please be assured that we shall deal with the inaccuracies brought to
this forum, personally.

Thanks again!

Sincerely,

Bill Klein

From arnt at c2i.net Sun Oct 10 07:56:42 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 14:56:42 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] ..tar flaring to scale up gasifiers,
was: Question for group Where is the PR?
In-Reply-To: <000901c4ae8a$151787c0$cf8f58db@newpc>
References: <198.300a2b99.2e95f7bf@aol.com>
<15cc01c4ac6d$3c066000$0000a398@Len>
<41655707.7252CB06@3iAlternativePower.com>
<000901c4ae8a$151787c0$cf8f58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <20041010145642.191d0443.arnt@c2i.net>

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:26:26 +1300, Graeme wrote in message
<000901c4ae8a$151787c0$cf8f58db at newpc>:

> 2: We built the first gasifier out of an old oil drum

..heh. ;-)

> We also began researching and experimenting with what we called
> Trough Hearths in 1985, today referred to as linear bed gasification,
> so be assured it is an ongoing pathway for gasification into the
> future, but like round hearths have their own specific scale up
> problems as you will discover if and when you build larger versions
> of your single demonstration gasifier.

..did you try tar flares on top of the combustion zone? Like here?:
http://solstice.crest.org/discussion/gasification/199903/gif00019.gif
http://solstice.crest.org/discussion/gasification/199903/msg00055.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 tombreed at comcast.net Sun Oct 10 08:14:50 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 07:14:50 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Re Question for group Where is the PR?
References: <198.300a2b99.2e95f7bf@aol.com><15cc01c4ac6d$3c066000$0000a398@Len><41655707.7252CB06@3iAlternativePower.com>
<000901c4ae8a$151787c0$cf8f58db@newpc>
Message-ID: <003501c4aecb$231cca60$3201a8c0@OFFICE>

Dear Doug, Bill and All:

Glad to see facts from Doug's files. I met Jack Humphries at a conference
in Indonesia ~1984. He visited us in Maine ~1995 and we spent a happy
afternoon together talking gasifiers. I hope someday I will meet Doug here
or there. I hope they will both continue to develop good gasifiers and stay
friends. 12,000 miles of ocean should be sufficient to keep their spheres
of influence from overlapping.

Glad to see that facts are emerging and tempers are cool. Gasification
needs all the goodwill it can get, and there is plenty of potential business
for all competent developers. Each success, like Darrell's helps all.

Ultimately human relationships determine the course of technology
development, good or bad, fast or slow. Keep cool.

TOM REED
----- Original Message -----
From: "Graeme Williams" <graeme at powerlink.co.nz>
To: "Bill Klein" <Bill_Klein at 3iAlternativePower.com>
Cc: <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 11:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Re Question for group Where is the PR?

> > Dear Bill and Gasification Colleagues
>
> You wrote:
>
> The story continues, but to what end? My point is that the project in
> ND
> > is only a recent development and far from a first except, perhaps in the
> > Dakotas. Since we don't have a proper clearing house for reliable
> > gasification information, we don't always have access to the most
> > accurate facts. We, within the industry, are the losers, deprived of
> > good information and living in a vacuum of skepticism and cynicism.
> >
> > My rant is over. I'm taking deep breaths.
> >
>
> Well, I couldn't agree more, so I will start by correcting the information
> that you consider correct even if you are misinformed on the origins of
the
> technology you promote. So that you have absolutely confirmable
information,
> I have extracted the following statements from Fluidyne's company records,
> and archive material, from 1976 to 1978.
>
> 1: I joined Fluidyne R & D, Jack Humphries' company in 1975, to supervise
> the manufacturing of bypass oil filters that his company made at that
time.
>
> 2: We built the first gasifier out of an old oil drum in 1976 and with my
> fabrication skills as a boilermaker continued to make every gasifier over
> the following years. No gasifiers were built before this time even by Jack
> who was an apprentice Boilermaker in the New Zealand Railway workshops in
> the early 1940's, until he joined the Air Force.
>
> 3: We jointly developed the improvements to the gasification process that
> had similarities but was not a copy of the original Imbert gasifiers.
> Accordingly, both our names appear on the patent papers for that process,
> and later on the early model of dual fuelling conversion kits for diesel
> engines. I went on to develop the dual fuel technology further when Jack
> left the company in 1986.
>
> 4: As Managing Director of Fluidyne R & D, Jack submitted the technology
for
> the 1980 BP New Zealand Energy Conservation Awards, and in a letter dated
> 22nd April 1980, was advised that he was one of seven to receive awards or
> certificates. The applicants including Jack who did not win the main
award,
> were presented with a cheque and a certificate for their efforts.
>
> 5: In 1983 Jack sold the controlling interest of Fluidyne R & D to
Northern
> Engineering Industries (NEI) of Newcastle upon Tyne through their office
in
> Sydney, Australia, at that time called NEI Pacific. I was given 10% of
our
> 49% of the shares as recognition of my contribution to the technology.
Our
> new company name became NEI Fluidyne Limited.
>
> 6: On completion of the Pacific Class gasifier design in 1983, it was
> submitted as an entry to the 1984 Steel Awards, winning both the
industrial
> section and named outright winner of all categories. We received two
> trophies and $1500 each in prize money. NEI Pacific directors allowed
Jack
> and I to keep the prize money and years later I made sure Jack got one of
> the trophies. We won no international awards.
> We placed four of the Pacific Class gasifiers for testing in
Fiji,Malaysia,
> South Africa, and North America, during 1984-5 but none of these were
> actually installed by us as a working installation. This came later after
> Jack left the company. We also began researching and experimenting with
what
> we called Trough Hearths in 1985, today referred to as linear bed
> gasification, so be assured it is an ongoing pathway for gasification into
> the future, but like round hearths have their own specific scale up
problems
> as you will discover if and when you build larger versions of your single
> demonstration gasifier.
>
> 7: In January 1986, Jack's resignation as Managing Director was accepted
> with immediate severance. The reasons remain private. His employment
> contract with NEI required a five year abstinence from gasification
activity
> on leaving the company was not observed, as you have clearly stated on his
> return to the USA. That caused a lot of unnecessary problems.
>
> 8: I continued to run the company as General Manager until December 1988
> when NEI Pacific was ordered to close all peripheral business activity
> outside of large scale power generation.
>
> 9: NEI Pacific directors facilititated my continuation of the company
> activity, and I was able to buy the assets and license from NEI to
continue.
> My obligations to the license ended in 1994 and Jack had no involvement in
> my purchase of the company assets which he did not own.. He sold me
> nothing. The company name then became Fluidyne Gasification and NEI
Pacific
> went on to become Rolls Royce Power, with whom I still retain occasional
> links.
>
> 10: How you have managed to link Georgia Tech in 1984 to what Jack and I
did
> at Fluidyne is quite a mystery, because they never tested anything we
made,
> and certainly not with hot clean gas! Georgia Tech is most famous for
their
> large updraught process heat gasifier installed at a hospital in Rome, Ga.
> in 1980-81, not downdraught systems as you state. Where on earth are you
> getting this information from?
>
> 11: Your response to the PR release from EERC is a little over reacting
> isn't it? Darren clearly states it is believed to be the first dual fuel
> engine trials (under strictly monitored conditions), and if you have
> information other than hearsay to the contrary, then you should clarify
the
> situation by supplying specifics of the engine, dates, and those involved
as
> well as Jack. Personally I only see it as another staggering slow step
> towards implementing gasification, but just for the "true" record, I can
> tell you that the EERC engine trial was more for the purpose of
establishing
> reliable information at a local level on dual fuel engine performance
> parameters. As I was part of testing these parameters at EERC with
Darren's
> team, you should be aware that we cannot live on past credits in an age of
> environmental protection and we have to prove every thing we say and do.
>
> Bill, keep taking deep breaths, but don't make it sound like huffing and
> puffing. Just present your true facts for public scrutiny and with time
and
> proven experience, your credibility might grow, instead of being the loser
> as you say, from not accessing good information. I hope this assists you
in
> future to truthfully present the company and Jack Humphries whom you
> represent, and you should check with him before making incorrect public
> statements in future. I suggest you consider this subject now closed,
and
> get on with the job of implementing the technology.
>
> Doug Williams
> Fluidyne Gasification.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

From tombreed at comcast.net Sun Oct 10 09:04:08 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 08:04:08 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Methanol at MIT and End of Oil
References: <01LFTPHYRS348XM2V6@SMTP00.InfoAve.Net>
Message-ID: <004e01c4aed2$0329c210$3201a8c0@OFFICE>

Dear Gasification:

I began work on gasification of trash to make methanol at MIT in 1974. It
was killed by big oil. Read about it in two pdfs at
http://www.woodgas.com/methanol.htm.

The site http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/downloads.html gives a likely
scenario for the Oil end game. Is it too late to get serious about a
replacement, mostly using gasification of biomass?

Comments?

TOM REED

----- Original Message -----
From: "tbollman" <tbollman at twlakes.net>
To: "Gasificationlistservrepporg" <Gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 9:57 AM
Subject: [Gasification] Incorrect URL

> My apologies Gentlemen,
>
> Try this URL rather than the one I submitted earlier.
>
> http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/downloads.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sun Oct 10 09:10:54 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 15:10:54 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Re Question for group Where is the PR?
In-Reply-To: <003501c4aecb$231cca60$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
References: <198.300a2b99.2e95f7bf@aol.com><15cc01c4ac6d$3c066000$0000a398@Len><41655707.7252CB06@3iAlternativePower.com>
<000901c4ae8a$151787c0$cf8f58db@newpc>
<003501c4aecb$231cca60$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
Message-ID: <rmgim0dds90oq7oqfr9s0i09kfpqaebtme@4ax.com>

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 07:14:50 -0600, TBReed wrote:

>
>Glad to see facts from Doug's files. I met Jack Humphries at a conference
>in Indonesia ~1984.

Fluidyne introduced me to gasification in about 1983, when I
corresponded with Mrs. Humphreys about gasifiers. At that time they
offered a conversion for the large number of NATO Unimog 404s which
were being cast from service. It was the nearest I got to coupling a
reciprocating engine to run on wood derived gas.

>
>Glad to see that facts are emerging and tempers are cool. Gasification
>needs all the goodwill it can get,

Amen

AJH

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sun Oct 10 09:29:23 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 15:29:23 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Re Question for group Where is the PR?
In-Reply-To: <rmgim0dds90oq7oqfr9s0i09kfpqaebtme@4ax.com>
References: <198.300a2b99.2e95f7bf@aol.com><15cc01c4ac6d$3c066000$0000a398@Len><41655707.7252CB06@3iAlternativePower.com>
<000901c4ae8a$151787c0$cf8f58db@newpc>
<003501c4aecb$231cca60$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
<rmgim0dds90oq7oqfr9s0i09kfpqaebtme@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <jjhim091p8ilomvd56j1vqj6gqrd7j7pot@4ax.com>

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 15:10:54 +0100, list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk wrote:

>Fluidyne introduced me to gasification in about 1983, when I
>corresponded with Mrs. Humphreys about gasifiers. At that time they
>offered a conversion for the large number of NATO Unimog 404s which
>were being cast from service.

I have had a rapid reply from someone off list asking for
specifications of this, I may well have some old documents. It did
make me think a bit harder though and whilst the Fluidyne gasifier was
offered I wonder if it was a Lambiotte which was coupled to the
Unimog.

AJH

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Sun Oct 10 10:09:37 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 10:09:37 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Methanol at MIT and End of Oil
In-Reply-To: <004e01c4aed2$0329c210$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
Message-ID: <00d001c4aedb$297d60d0$1900a8c0@a31server>

Dear Tom and all..

I just finished reading the book by Matt Savinar that you list in the link
below.

I found it very enlightening, as well as it's references to "Mad Max" (the
movie) (Loved that movie). I'm to the point in all of this, as to thinking
I'm the "Little Man" as said in the movie, (Pun intended) and this "Peak
Oil" term that has surfaced of late, is truly real.

As I thought, the methanol thing is one of many of "Big oils" investments
however only 30 miles from me, they make Methanol from grain-byproduct (not
the preferred "trash") as what you where working on.

I wonder how much "Sideline" investment 'Big oil" has done to retard other
"fuels", what if they had spent this money on more wells & such, would the
cost of a barrel of oil be lower now ??? (Not in my neck of the woods!!).

I will continue to "Forge on" with my downdraft system, as all of this has
simply re-confirmed my original thoughts of my "District CHP system" in the
first place...

As Tom says... "Onward!"

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of TBReed
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 9:04 AM
To: tbollman; Gasificationlistservrepporg
Subject: [Gasification] Methanol at MIT and End of Oil

Dear Gasification:

I began work on gasification of trash to make methanol at MIT in 1974. It
was killed by big oil. Read about it in two pdfs at
http://www.woodgas.com/methanol.htm.

The site http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/downloads.html gives a likely
scenario for the Oil end game. Is it too late to get serious about a
replacement, mostly using gasification of biomass?

Comments?

TOM REED

----- Original Message -----
From: "tbollman" <tbollman at twlakes.net>
To: "Gasificationlistservrepporg" <Gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 9:57 AM
Subject: [Gasification] Incorrect URL

> My apologies Gentlemen,
>
> Try this URL rather than the one I submitted earlier.
>
> http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/downloads.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

From tombreed at comcast.net Sun Oct 10 11:51:51 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 10:51:51 -0600
Subject: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
References: <012501c4acf7$267d4520$6cb441db@KollolDey><MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGGEJDDPAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
<8ukfm019n5n8m82ir6oli0nak7krohpo8u@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <006301c4aee9$71054400$3201a8c0@OFFICE>

Dear Andrew and All:

Yes, natural gas is a better fuel than coal or biomass. Too bad we wasted
half our supply before we figures out how to make long distance pipelines.
Too bad the US Govt. didn't figure out that coal was great for power and
keep the gas for distributed power. Lots of utilities have bought natural
gas turbines for peaking, driving up the cost of gas as fast as oil. We
live in a technological age, but don't have technological politicians.

~~~~~~~~~`
Coal gasification was a done deal when gas pipelines started spreading in
the 1930s. (New welding technology?) At the BEF Press we publish a book
"Modern Gas Producers" by N.E. Rambush, 1923. It tells in 550 pages all you
need to know about coal gasification and much that you should also know
about biomass gasification. Great stuff, coal and we'll be using a lot of
it as we pass the oil peak. Check our book site at www.woodgas.com.

Yours truly, TOM REED

 

----- Original Message -----
From: <sylva at iname.com>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 6:50 AM
Subject: Re: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:21:33 +0100, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:

>Coal gasification as was practised in the UK until the 1960's was horribly
>smelly, messy and labour intensive with bell hopper retorts etc.

Not to mention having byproducts that contaminated the site.
Still it was pyrolysis with some high temperature cracking, the two co
products, coke and town gas, were made with an overall cold efficiency
of 85%.

>Automating the coal system wasn't technically and financially viable and
was
>(probably -otehrs may know better??) easier than biomass which has a huge
>variation in water content and physical properties to contend with.

But wouldn't it have failed in competition with natural gas anyway?
Natural gas is a better and safer fuel. In fact would we ever go back
to a CO H2 mixture even with advances like high pressure oxygen
separation, to blow the carbon? I suspect not and any process to make
a gaseous fuel from carbonaceous material, on a large scale, would
have an element of electrical co generation in it.

Perhaps the fact it was a pyrolysis step with production of coke, an
hence inherent extra costs in transport and handling, in the absence
of cheaply excluding nitrogen from the gasification stage that limited
its use?

AJH

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

From cicbcal at cal2.vsnl.net.in Mon Oct 11 07:56:45 2004
From: cicbcal at cal2.vsnl.net.in (Kollol Dey)
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:26:45 +0530
Subject: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
References: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGGEJDDPAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
Message-ID: <004801c4af92$13f55df0$1332c3c0@KollolDey>

Dear Gavin,

I have a little experience in both gasification of coal and carbonization
(Low temp and high temp carbonization).
Yes, coal is messy. But one thing is for sure, both the coal gasification
technology and the coal carbonization technology are all very well
established and commercialized. There is no if's and but's in these
technologies.
This is mainly because the raw material, in spite of being varied, is not as
diversified as biomass. Hence, the parameters were well established long
long ago.The other reason could be is that when these coal technologies were
being developed there was no competition from natural gas and crude oil.
That really meant that all attention was on coal and coal only.
Under similar circumstances, I am sure technologies on biomass would also
have been well established. Biomass is still, lets face it the step child,
totally uncared for as yet.

Regards

Kollol.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gavin Gulliver-Goodall" <Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
To: "Kollol Dey" <cicbcal at cal2.vsnl.net.in>;
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 6:51 PM
Subject: RE: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers

> Dear Kollol,
> I think you have discovered the secret... there isn't any proven
> gasification to internal combustion engine system system so far working
> reliably ...
> Some pyrolysis show promise,
> Many people (including me ) are investing time and money in gasifiers.
>
> Coal gasification as was practised in the UK until the 1960's was horribly
> smelly, messy and labour intensive with bell hopper retorts etc.
> Automating the coal system wasn't technically and financially viable and
was
> (probably -otehrs may know better??) easier than biomass which has a huge
> variation in water content and physical properties to contend with.
>
> Onward as tom says...
>
> Kind regards
> Gavin
> -----Original Message-----
> <snip >
>

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Mon Oct 11 14:24:33 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:24:33 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Wales UK gasification system
Message-ID: <12e.4e0e53a0.2e9c37f1@aol.com>

I have been told that there is a gasification system in or South of Wales,
UK. Is there any awareness of this project?

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 ppsgas at globalnet.co.uk Mon Oct 11 14:33:31 2004
From: ppsgas at globalnet.co.uk (Paul Clark)
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:33:31 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Wales UK gasification system
References: <12e.4e0e53a0.2e9c37f1@aol.com>
Message-ID: <000701c4afc9$31b1f510$42a5bd50@NO2>

The only working plant I know of in this part of the UK is located in
Avonmouth Nr. Bristol and operated by Compact Power Ltd details on
www.compactpower.co.uk.

Paul Clark
Power Plant Services Ltd uk
----- Original Message -----
From: <LINVENT at aol.com>
To: <tombreed at comcast.net>; <sylva at iname.com>;
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 8:24 PM
Subject: [Gasification] Wales UK gasification system

> I have been told that there is a gasification system in or South of Wales,
> UK. Is there any awareness of this project?
>
> Leland T. Taylor
> President
> Thermogenics Inc.
> 7100-F 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107 Phone: 505-761-5633,
fax:
> 341-0424, website: thermogenics.com.
> In order to read the compressed files forwarded under AOL, it is necessary
to
> download Aladdin's freeware Unstuffit at
> http://www.stuffit.com/expander/index.html
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Mon Oct 11 14:58:12 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:58:12 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Thank you for your E mails and phone calls. Yes I
will give you a demo
Message-ID: <79.3620c56f.2e9c3fd4@aol.com>

Gassifiers:

You have all been most helpful and informative with my exploration of
renewable energy from Gasification.

Bill Klein at 3AI gave me the best commercial presentation of the group and
it is being considered.

There were three others that have really good stuff but slightly flawed
presentations for the scale of operations proposed and cost analysis MTBF, BE,
waste stream composition, scale up validation proof, etc., leaves much to the
imagination or possibly optimistic and wishful thinking.

As an established industry global in scope you are all wanting for an
organizational structure such as Ethanol Producers, Renewable Fuels Association etc.
You have no apparent political advocate, no political voice and are impotent
in PR comparatively to even National Hydrogen Assn. and Plasma. ABC Network did
plasma Gasification in March. Lastly where are the tax breaks?

You do not need to reinvent the wheel. California and these trade
associations already did that work for you. What most of you all can use is a good
industrial engineer and cost accountant.

You processes as presented to me are at best two layered. Consume wood waste
municipal sludge etc and produce steam or / and electrical power. If you
build a big plant you consume all the nearby fuel and are eaten up by the
transport cost. If you build too small the economy of large scale disappears.

I recommend a modified USA Vision 21 plan. One site provides waste disposal,
electrical power, waste water treatment, drinking water supplies and fuel for
vehicles hydrogen or ethanol. Or an industrial distributed power system for a
plant making concrete or food processor.

Nobody I know is going to write anyone a check for 30 million without some
really good demonstration that the process or a one off custom design that will
economically make a real profit given unforeseen expenses, permits, labor
cost, raw material shortage etc. And nobody is going to go one on one just right
now with big energy Coal Oil or Gas in their markets.

However, there are some opportunities in process energy heat steam electrical
power with "like minded" associated renewable fuels industry. You all need
to do is become a member of the E 85 group and renewable energy coalitions and
you will get the idea and the contact info in a nice shinny publication
complete with contact info and politically wired lobbyist.

There is at least 45 to 65 million in woody debris in Central Fla right now
this hurricane season being collected and being air curtain burned at 20
dollars a YARD that is not a ton that is a yard. Any ideas how you can cash in?
Apparently two of you have. They submitted a proposal that they would guarantee
and fund.

NOW Who in the USA wants to go on TV with a tour of operational plant? Who
wants an interview? Who wants to speak to the taxpayers of Fla in one minute
sound bite and make them a business deal to get rid of this debris and build
their gassifier business in Fla. That is by TUES. this Tues. gasifiers... Send
me your presentation in PDF. Bill Klein got his in first.

Albest,
Leonard Wheeler
Eustis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041011/43d2eb12/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Mon Oct 11 15:11:21 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:11:21 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Waste_Age_Wire@newsletters.primediabusiness.com BE A
MEMBER!
Message-ID: <13d.33a5010.2e9c42e9@aol.com>

The Newsletters are quite interesting

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041011/a58e7eab/attachment.html

From LINVENT at aol.com Mon Oct 11 15:16:31 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:16:31 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Thank you for your E mails and phone calls. Yes I
will give you a demo
Message-ID: <199.30cf6c9c.2e9c441f@aol.com>

Dear Mr. Wheeler,
Interesting comments indeed. There is a gasification council. It is
comprised of mostly large gasification members and large engineering companies.
They do some lobbying, have produced recommendations from DOE and EPA on using
gasification for hazardous and other waste to energy production, and an
exemption from RCRA for gasification projects, but limited to high pressure oxygen
fired systems which are the mainstay of the large companies. Not much for the
little guys.
The prospect of taking the C&D debris from Florida and making power is an
interesting idea, but has limitations. Although there are probably 20mm tons
of it sitting around now, who is going to leave it around until a plant large
enough is going to be built to handle it? By the time a plant is built, the
residual continuous level is minimal. Most ppa's do not have much in it for the
plant operator.
Your comments and position are indeed valid, admirable and probably
misplaced. The lack of an adequate number of companies with resources to apply to
lobbying and the like is minimal outside of the big guys. It does not do any
good to flog an animal without enough energy to pay attention, let alone eat. If
you feel so strongly about the benefits of gasification, then don't beat up
on us, but do something constructive.
There are a number of municipalities who have gone out and sought
gasification technologies for their municipal waste streams and have spent
significant sums doing technology searches. Your methodology is a cheaper form of the
same process. It has yielded from what you have apparently with enunciation
stated, not much. If you can do better than these well qualified companies, then
more power to you.
I have all kinds of groups who are seeking the same thing, but are not
willing do more than make demands. It hasn't gotten them anywhere either.

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 Larry.Felix at gastechnology.org Mon Oct 11 16:01:43 2004
From: Larry.Felix at gastechnology.org (Larry.Felix at gastechnology.org)
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:01:43 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Larry Felix/GTI is out of the office.
Message-ID: <OF12EC1701.BA91256B-ON86256F2A.00738385-86256F2A.00738386@gastechnology.org>

 

 

I will be out of the office starting Mon 10/11/2004 and will not return
until Mon 10/18/2004.

I will be out of the office during the week of October 11 and will return
on October 18. However, I will respond to your email as soon as I can.

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Mon Oct 11 16:02:51 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:02:51 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Ans to your statements Leland
Message-ID: <f5.4319003d.2e9c4efb@aol.com>

.

Leland T. Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.

ANS:
1. But I have!
2. I haven't beaten up anybody in front of qualified witnesses in about 14
years. But I still know how and I am quite accomplished at it. The Miami Herald
has a few examples in archives.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041011/58b1b6ee/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Mon Oct 11 18:59:16 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:59:16 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] www.E85Fuel.com. National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition
FYI You have lots in common
Message-ID: <e8.3b04c88.2e9c7854@aol.com>

For a complete listing of E85 compatible vehicles or E85 fueling facilities,
visit the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition website.

You have shared interest with this industry and pending legislation




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041011/329bb4a5/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Mon Oct 11 19:00:39 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:00:39 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] visit these folks too Trust me you will get some
great ideas
Message-ID: <90.4e947ecd.2e9c78a7@aol.com>

?We would like to thank organizations such as the National Corn Growers
Association and the Renewable Fuels Association for their assistance in addressing
VEETC,?




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041011/0dae7a2e/attachment.html

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Mon Oct 11 19:31:38 2004
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:31:38 +1300
Subject: [Gasification] Wales UK. Gasification system.
Message-ID: <008f01c4aff2$d851c340$d68f58db@GraemeWilliams>

Hi Leland,
It might be the Pacific Class gasifier I installed at the Long Ashton
Agricultural Research Station just outside Bristol, just near the Wales
border. This was in 1993-4 and was privately funded to investigate coppice
Willow gasification. It was all shut down the last I heard, but it did
provide very useful information on the limitations of coppice as a gasifier
fuel. It wasn't a total waste of time as it turned my attention to fine
fuels and their need within the gasification process.
What is your lead on this one, any other detail?
Regards,
Doug Williams,
Fluidyne Gasification.

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Mon Oct 11 21:27:57 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 22:27:57 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Couple of suggestions for submissions to me in Fla.
Message-ID: <99.4f47c541.2e9c9b2d@aol.com>

Love the material you have sent me.
Need a few adjustments.

Make it so a non engineer can understand it. OR Those reporters and
accountants will not love you or me.
Spell out what you mean by MSW and all the terms of the trade.
Have today's prices. Some of this material is stuck in 1999 numbers.
Indicate whether you have a suitable JPEG photo or video clip suitable for
broadcast.
Tell me the nearest operational installation is near Fla that is using woody
debris. Iowa is the closest one I have been invited to.
Thanks
Leonard

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041011/01132386/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Mon Oct 11 23:35:03 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:35:03 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Anyone have a DVD CD or Videotape suitable for TV
broadcast
Message-ID: <1f6.ab2e5d.2e9cb8f7@aol.com>

Your gassifier system processing woody debris, sewer sludge, manure, sugar
cane bagasse.

Need about three min for TV air time and permission to use it.

Leonard Wheeler
521 West Seminole Ave
Eustis, Fla 32726
352 483 9555
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041012/dfcd27ba/attachment.html

From jean-henry.ferrasse at univ.u-3mrs.fr Tue Oct 12 01:54:39 2004
From: jean-henry.ferrasse at univ.u-3mrs.fr (Jean Henry FERRASSE)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:54:39 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Wales UK gasification system
References: <12e.4e0e53a0.2e9c37f1@aol.com>
Message-ID: <00e201c4b028$58163f90$ad01a8c0@u3iutgcgpjhf>

Is it the one on sewage sludge at "brand sand"?
If so, it has been stopped.
Jean-Henry.

----- Original Message -----
From: <LINVENT at aol.com>
To: <tombreed at comcast.net>; <sylva at iname.com>;
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 9:24 PM
Subject: [Gasification] Wales UK gasification system

> I have been told that there is a gasification system in or South of Wales,
> UK. Is there any awareness of this project?
>
> Leland T. Taylor
> President
> Thermogenics Inc.
> 7100-F 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107 Phone: 505-761-5633,
fax:
> 341-0424, website: thermogenics.com.
> In order to read the compressed files forwarded under AOL, it is necessary
to
> download Aladdin's freeware Unstuffit at
> http://www.stuffit.com/expander/index.html
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

From MMBTUPR at aol.com Tue Oct 12 04:31:58 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 05:31:58 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Methanol at MIT and End of Oil
Message-ID: <f5.4326bbf5.2e9cfe8e@aol.com>

to Gasification List from Lewis L.
Smith

Tom B. Reed has asked us to comment on two links.

The story about methanol doesn't surprise me, as I worked for five years
for an independent refiner with a total capacity for processing crude oil of
160,000 BCD and or 30,000 BCD, for turning naphtha into benzene and xylenes.
The "big boys" can really play rough when they want to.

As for "Life after the oil crash", Google Advanced Search turns up
nothing on the author !

By way of a preface, allow me to state that I regard large
organizations, whether they be Enron or the Federal government, with a jaundiced eye. I
do believe that they are more than necessary evils. Indeed large oil companies
and large governments have their uses. In particular, government can be an
effective instrument of national economic policy, on occasion ! For example, the
"seven sisters" helped the world to mitigate the worst effects of the OPEC
embargo in 1973. And as Stalin said, Roosevelt "saved capitalism" !

However, one must watch them "like a hawk", especially when a CEO claims
to have a direct pipeline to God ! Indeed I am very concerned about the
damage which is being done to our constitutional rights in the name of fighting
terror. Some people forget that if we become like the Taliban, we lose this
war, even if there are no Taliban left anywhere.

My comments on the text follow [a long article or a short book ?] ?

This is really two documents tied together. One is about the coming peak
in crude-oil production and its consequences. The other is about a mishmash
of related and unrelated subjects.

Although I don't agree with the author on the timing and consequences of
the crude-oil peak, it is coming. Moreover, he marshals and presents his
evidence on this subject very effectively. Indeed what he says needs to be said,
in order to provoke a wider public discussion than has occurred to date.

His point about the possibility of a sudden decline in the production of
old fields is, for example, well taken. However, neither he nor anyone he
cites has the information to predict this with certainty for a particular field.
Moreover, he doesn't help his case by citing Hubbert. Hubbert "lucked out".
Hubbert's method ignores technological progress and the interplay of prices, E&D
costs and demand.

And when the author pontificates with equal and absolute certainty on a
whole lot of noncrude matters, he undermines his credibility. Nobody can
possibly know so much. In particular, his assertion that "the physics and math of
renewable energy don't add up" is absurd.

Finally, in presenting the noncrude part in terms of whole slew of
conspiracy theories, he takes himself "out of the arena" of current political
discourse in the USA. In so doing, he not only risks losing any support which he
may have generated with the reader previously [for his position on peak crude]
but actually he threatens to damage all who hold that position. To repeat, I
don't agree with his position on peak crude, but the case needs to be made
more publicly and by people who will not alienate others by their positions on
what are "side issues", as far as the peak-crude issue is concerned.

In my judgment, world crude production will peak in this century, but
whether it does in five years or fifty years is not at all clear. [If I had to
"pick a number", I would pick 12.5, but don't hold me to it !]

In the oil industry, unlike many other industries, current data is not
very accurate, and accurate date is not very current. In fact, even a lot of
"ancient history" is not very accurate, due to industry secrecy and the failure
to publish "corrected" numbers. For example ?

? There are discrepancies of hundreds of thousands of barrels
per day in the historical series for the annual production of Saudi crude oil,
as between supposedly "official" or "reliable" sources.

? On various occasions, the OPEC Secretariat has complained
that members "lie" [sic] to the Secretariat in reporting statistics. [But it
doesn't say how often, who or what about !]

? Many of the time series for the smaller or more secretive
producers are obviously based on only occasional sampling. One month, someone
got what they thought was a pretty good number in BCD's [or total barrels] for
"Lower Slobovia", and that number is repeated, month after month, until
another "good" number is obtained.

? The most cited sources [BP, "Oil & Gas Journal", OPEC and the
UN] are not primary sources, but don't they tell you where they got their
data for specific countries. For example, BP draws heavily on OGJ, the latter
uses information from OPEC and OPEC from OGJ ! One suspects that some
circularity is introduced thereby. At the very least, mistakes are widely propagated
and, by shear repetition, become accepted among policy makers.

? In many countries, the most interesting information, that
about inventories, ships at sea, well capacities and well histories, are "secrets
of state". The person who is caught trying to find out [and some consulting
firms hire people to do this] may be killed on the spot.

Most important, the current and historical information required make
good judgments about the future production of particular oil fields or wells is
jealously guarded. Most of the people who are currently talking about peak oil
don't have this information, and very few of those who have it are talking.
Moreover, those few who have it and are talking, wont reveal what they have !
So, for example, it is impossible for the author of the link to be able to
forecast certain well-related numbers with the accuracy which he claims.

The best we have to go on is people who [a] talk and [b] who know [or
have known] the people who have the required info. Examples are a recently retir
ed official of Saudi Aramco or the Iranian official cited by the author of the
link. On this basis, we can say with a probability of greater that 50% that
there is definitely a problem, with two aggravating factors. We may not have
enough time to fix it. And we cant put any odds on the latter statement ! In
brief, the question of "How much time is left" a matter of uncertainty, not
risk.

So the critical question is not "When will crude production peak" but
"Will coal gasification become environmentally acceptable ?", so that coal can
be our major 'transition fuel' to a world without fossil fuels. If it wont, we
are in deep you know what.

If we have enough time, there are options in the transition-fuel
category, in addition to the gasification of mined coal. For example ?

? Gasification of coal in the mine.

? The Shell Middle Distillates process for obtaining diesel,
kerosene and naphtha from natural gas, especially applicable to currently
"stranded" gas fields. [This has been proven for years in Malaysia and will now be
used in Qatar's prolific fields.]

? Subsea methane hydrates. [There is an enormous supply, but we
have no idea how to get it out !]

If we don't have enough time, we get into a big "food versus fuel"
argument ! [Among other inconveniences !]

Cordially.

End.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041012/f351386c/attachment.html

From tombreed at comcast.net Tue Oct 12 06:47:07 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (tombreed at comcast.net)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:47:07 +0000
Subject: [Gasification] Methanol at MIT and End of Oil
Message-ID: <101220041147.10906.416BC436000A702E00002A9A22007340760B0A0A9D0D03019B@comcast.net>

Dear Lewis Smith and All:

While general politics should be off list for Stoves and Gasification, the future production and cooking of foods and energy are things we are doing something about. Gasification can make other liquid fuels to replace oil and ammonia to grow food; Stoves is focused on improved cooking with biomass. We may need both sooner than most people think.

"Life after Oil" may (like Moore in 9-11) overstate the case to alert people to very real but exagerated dangers - or could be on the money. "The future is never revealed", so we do our best with predictions and experts and keep our ears open.

I had dinner with King Hubbert about 1985 and asked for his predictions on when world oil would peak. He begged off the question, saying that

Other nations don't keep as good records as we do

OPEC nations have every incentive to exagerate their reserves

I think he would be the first to agree that his prediction of peak US oil in 1973 was partly good luck, just as my publication of METHANOL: A CLEAN FUEL FOR THE FUTURE in SCIENCE happened to coincide with the first oil shortage caused by OPEC.

Time to get busy finding the replacements for oil.... I'm in Boston on business working on Trash to Gas. Better to light one little candle than to curse the darkness.

Bye, TOM REED

-------------- Original message --------------
to Gasification List from Lewis L. Smith

Tom B. Reed has asked us to comment on two links.

The story about methanol doesn't surprise me, as I worked for five years for an independent refiner with a total capacity for processing crude oil of 160,000 BCD and or 30,000 BCD, for turning naphtha into benzene and xylenes. The "big boys" can really play rough when they want to.

As for "Life after the oil crash", Google Advanced Search turns up nothing on the author !

By way of a preface, allow me to state that I regard large organizations, whether they be Enron or the Federal government, with a jaundiced eye. I do believe that they are more than necessary evils. Indeed large oil companies and large governments have their uses. In particular, government can be an effective instrument of national economic policy, on occasion ! For example, the "seven sisters" helped the world to mitigate the worst effects of the OPEC embargo in 1973. And as Stalin said, Roosevelt "saved capitalism" !

However, one must watch them "like a hawk", especially when a CEO claims to have a direct pipeline to God ! Indeed I am very concerned about the damage which is being done to our constitutional rights in the name of fighting terror. Some people forget that if we become like the Taliban, we lose this war, even if there are no Taliban left anywhere.

My comments on the text follow [a long article or a short book ?] ???

This is really two documents tied together. One is about the coming peak in crude-oil production and its consequences. The other is about a mishmash of related and unrelated subjects.

Although I don't agree with the author on the timing and consequences of the crude-oil peak, it is coming. Moreover, he marshals and presents his evidence on this subject very effectively. Indeed what he says needs to be said, in order to provoke a wider public discussion than has occurred to date.

His point about the possibility of a sudden decline in the production of old fields is, for example, well taken. However, neither he nor anyone he cites has the information to predict this with certainty for a particular field. Moreover, he doesn't help his case by citing Hubbert. Hubbert "lucked out". Hubbert's method ignores technological progress and the interplay of prices, E&D costs and demand.

And when the author pontificates with equal and absolute certainty on a whole lot of noncrude matters, he undermines his credibility. Nobody can possibly know so much. In particular, his assertion that "the physics and math of renewable energy don't add up" is absurd.

Finally, in presenting the noncrude part in terms of whole slew of conspiracy theories, he takes himself "out of the arena" of current political discourse in the USA. In so doing, he not only risks losing any support which he may have generated with the reader previously [for his position on peak crude] but actually he threatens to damage all who hold that position. To repeat, I don't agree with his position on peak crude, but the case needs to be made more publicly and by people who will not alienate others by their positions on what are "side issues", as far as the peak-crude issue is concerned.

In my judgment, world crude production will peak in this century, but whether it does in five years or fifty years is not at all clear. [If I had to "pick a number", I would pick 12.5, but don't hold me to it !]

In the oil industry, unlike many other industries, current data is not very accurate, and accurate date is not very current. In fact, even a lot of "ancient history" is not very accurate, due to industry secrecy and the failure to publish "corrected" numbers. For example ???

??? There are discrepancies of hundreds of thousands of barrels per day in the historical series for the annual production of Saudi crude oil, as between supposedly "official" or "reliable" sources.

??? On various occasions, the OPEC Secretariat has complained that members "lie" [sic] to the Secretariat in reporting statistics. [But it doesn't say how often, who or what about !]

??? Many of the time series for the smaller or more secretive producers are obviously based on only occasional sampling. One month, someone got what they thought was a pretty good number in BCD's [or total barrels] for "Lower Slobovia", and that number is repeated, month after month, until another "good" number is obtained.

??? The most cited sources [BP, "Oil & Gas Journal", OPEC and the UN] are not primary sources, but don't they tell you where they got their data for specific countries. For example, BP draws heavily on OGJ, the latter uses information from OPEC and OPEC from OGJ ! One suspects that some circularity is introduced thereby. At the very least, mistakes are widely propagated and, by shear repetition, become accepted among policy makers.

??? In many countries, the most interesting information, that about inventories, ships at sea, well capacities and well histories, are "secrets of state". The person who is caught trying to find out [and some consulting firms hire people to do this] may be killed on the spot.

Most important, the current and historical information required make good judgments about the future production of particular oil fields or wells is jealously guarded. Most of the people who are currently talking about peak oil don't have this information, and very few of those who have it are talking. Moreover, those few who have it and are talking, wont reveal what they have ! So, for example, it is impossible for the author of the link to be able to forecast certain well-related numbers with the accuracy which he claims.

The best we have to go on is people who [a] talk and [b] who know [or have known] the people who have the required info. Examples are a recently retired official of Saudi Aramco or the Iranian official cited by the author of the link. On this basis, we can say with a probability of greater that 50% that there is definitely a problem, with two aggravating factors. We may not have enough time to fix it. And we cant put any odds on the latter statement ! In brief, the question of "How much time is left" a matter of uncertainty, not risk.

So the critical question is not "When will crude production peak" but "Will coal gasification become environmentally acceptable ?", so that coal can be our major 'transition fuel' to a world without fossil fuels. If it wont, we are in deep you know what.

If we have enough time, there are options in the transition-fuel category, in addition to the gasification of mined coal. For example ???

??? Gasification of coal in the mine.

??? The Shell Middle Distillates process for obtaining diesel, kerosene and naphtha from natural gas, especially applicable to currently "stranded" gas fields. [This has been proven for years in Malaysia and will now be used in Qatar's prolific fields.]

??? Subsea methane hydrates. [There is an enormous supply, but we have no idea how to get it out !]

If we don't have enough time, we get into a big "food versus fuel" argument ! [Among other inconveniences !]

Cordially.

End.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041012/9649161b/attachment.html

From MMBTUPR at aol.com Tue Oct 12 07:58:33 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:58:33 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Methanol at MIT and End of Oil
Message-ID: <d4.184f070a.2e9d2ef9@aol.com>

to Gasification list from Lewis L. Smith

Hubbert's methodology has been roundly denounced in the economic
community, so one is better off not citing him as an authority, if one wants to build
alliances, as I think we should.

May Thomas B Reed's "candle" turn into a mighty "torch" !

Cordially.

End.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041012/ac2a24f8/attachment.html

From francese at novara.alpcom.it Tue Oct 12 08:40:32 2004
From: francese at novara.alpcom.it (francese)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:40:32 +0200
Subject: R: [Gasification] Methanol at MIT and End of Oil
In-Reply-To: <d4.184f070a.2e9d2ef9@aol.com>
Message-ID: <FHEALMNNDGFBNBBJJPACIEHFCEAA.francese@novara.alpcom.it>

What means that Hubbert would have been roundly denounced in the economic
community?
Please quote some denounce.
Did you never look at the web page titled www. peakoil.net? please try .
Thanks
Alessandro Francese
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]Per conto di MMBTUPR at aol.com
Inviato: martedi 12 ottobre 2004 14.59
A: tombreed at comcast.net; MMBTUPR at aol.com; tbollman at twlakes.net;
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
Oggetto: Re: [Gasification] Methanol at MIT and End of Oil

to Gasification list from Lewis L. Smith

Hubbert's methodology has been roundly denounced in the economic
community, so one is better off not citing him as an authority, if one wants
to build alliances, as I think we should.

May Thomas B Reed's "candle" turn into a mighty "torch" !

Cordially.

End.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041012/fa6dd8f6/attachment.html

From arnt at c2i.net Tue Oct 12 10:34:37 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:34:37 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Anyone have a DVD CD or Videotape suitable for
TV broadcast
In-Reply-To: <1f6.ab2e5d.2e9cb8f7@aol.com>
References: <1f6.ab2e5d.2e9cb8f7@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20041012173437.6c881154.arnt@c2i.net>

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:35:03 EDT, LWheeler45 at aol.com wrote in message
<1f6.ab2e5d.2e9cb8f7 at aol.com>:

> Your gassifier system processing woody debris, sewer sludge, manure,
> sugar cane bagasse.

..I've never tried sugar cane bagasse. And it looks waaay hillybilly,
but can serve as the "cheap junk demo".

> Need about three min for TV air time and permission to use it.

..can you use video off PAL broadcast gear or 640x480 video?
Preliminary deadline? How far can I push your deadline?

--
..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 Oct 12 10:22:11 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:22:11 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Wales UK gasification system
In-Reply-To: <00e201c4b028$58163f90$ad01a8c0@u3iutgcgpjhf>
References: <12e.4e0e53a0.2e9c37f1@aol.com>
<00e201c4b028$58163f90$ad01a8c0@u3iutgcgpjhf>
Message-ID: <20041012172211.58d39434.arnt@c2i.net>

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:54:39 +0200, Jean wrote in message
<00e201c4b028$58163f90$ad01a8c0 at u3iutgcgpjhf>:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <LINVENT at aol.com>
> To: <tombreed at comcast.net>; <sylva at iname.com>;
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 9:24 PM
> Subject: [Gasification] Wales UK gasification system
>
> > I have been told that there is a gasification system in or South of
> > Wales, UK. Is there any awareness of this project?
>
> Is it the one on sewage sludge at "brand sand"?
> If so, it has been stopped.
> Jean-Henry.

..??? Swansea??? Tell us more.

..no connections to the University of Newcastle or Murat Dogru?
He ran a sewer sluldge project and and was likely first to feed
power off it to the grid, even if I beat him to running an IC fan
engine 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 tmiles at trmiles.com Tue Oct 12 11:11:52 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:11:52 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal Production
References: <101220041128.4645.416BBFCC0004F3FF0000122522007507840B0A0A9D0D03019B@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <006401c4b076$3f23b230$6501a8c0@OFFICE3>

Tom,

I agree that water treatment would be an excellent local use of char from
gasification or gasifying stoves. There is a suspicion, however, that char
from gasification contains toxic compounds, especially benzene, and require
special water treatment. The common measure in the US is the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). TCLP limit for benzene is 0.5
mg/L. Procedures are described in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix II or in EPA's
publication, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW-486.

Where is there toxicity data for biomass chars from gasification or
combustion?

I asked the gasification list earlier if anyone had any TCLP data for char
from gasification and got no response.

The only information I find online is from Brightstar: "The TCLP testing
completed on the char to date indicates that the char is suitable for
disposal to non-hazardous
landfill."http://www.brightstarenvironmental.com/html/env%20frame%20set/envtext.htm

Data I have found for semivolatile and volatile organics have been mostly
from high temperature oxidizing processes in which organic toxics including
benzene have been below detection limits. I have found no information for
small scale gasifiers or combustors that may produce significant tars.

Is the char safe for filtering drinking water or do we simply have no data?

Thanks

Tom

 

----- Original Message -----
From: <tombreed at comcast.net>
To: "Peter Verhaart" <pverhaart at iprimus.com.au>; <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>;
<gasification at ns2.misteam.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 4:28 AM
Subject: RE: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal Production

> Dear Piet, Mike, Stoves and Gasification;
>
> Sometimes the best is the enemy of the good. If 100-400 IN charcoal is
> easily available at low cost, use it.
>
> When wood is gasified the yield of charcoal is only 3-10% and the process
> of converting the rest to gas is much like that that is used for making
> activated charcoal. Depending on the process I believe the IN can be as
> high as 400 without further effort and Agua Das and I think that a small
> change in the gasifier output could produce activated charcoal with an IN
> of 800-1000.
>
> I hope someone can send Mike Antal some gasifier charcoal to test while he
> is in Budapest...
>
> Onward, TOM REED
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
>> I think Mike Antal makes a lot of sense when he suggests using normal
>> charcoal instead of activated carbon for water purification in developing
>> countries.
>> To get a comparable active surface ares you need 2.5 to 10 times the mass
>> of active carbon. And much less fuss producing it.
>>
>> Peter Verhaart
>>
>>
>> At 18:19 12/10/2004, you wrote:
>> >Dear Rusty: this message comes to you from Budapest where for one month
>> >I am
>> >studying the properties of biocarbons (charcoal)with colleagues in the
>> >Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
>> >
>> >Most charcoals possess a surface area (comparable to iodine number) of
>> >100
>> >to 400 m2/g. The required IN of commercial activated charcoal used to
>> >treat
>> >water in the cities of the USA is 1000. Cities usually use IN instead of
>> >surface area as the criteria for purchase of activated carbons. Because
>> >of
>> >their requirement, untreated (i.e. unactivated) charcoal is usually not
>> >used
>> >to treat water.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
>

 

From dschmidt at undeerc.org Tue Oct 12 11:59:32 2004
From: dschmidt at undeerc.org (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:59:32 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal Production
Message-ID: <3F678EC15E6D8F4EA7CDC3F389D9CC7E0117DD25@undeerc.eerc.und.NoDak.edu>

Waste from coal gasification is specifically excluded as a hazardous waste
by law.

The federal register did not specifically exclude wood gasification.
I wonder how this gets interpreted relative to wood?

Code of Federal Regulation CFR40

PART 261-IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
Sec.
261.1 Purpose and scope.
261.2 Definition of solid waste.
261.3 Definition of hazardous waste.
261.4 Exclusions.

? 261.4 Exclusions.

(b) Solid wastes which are not hazardous
wastes. The following solid
wastes are not hazardous wastes:
(7) Solid waste from the extraction,
beneficiation, and processing of ores
and minerals (including coal, phosphate
rock, and overburden from the
mining of uranium ore), except as provided
by ? 266.112 of this chapter for facilities
that burn or process hazardous
waste.

(ii) For the purposes of ? 261.4(b)(7),
solid waste from the processing of ores
and minerals includes only the following
wastes as generated:

***************************************

(F) Gasifier ash from coal gasification;
(G) Process wastewater from coal
gasification;

****************************************

Darren D. Schmidt, P.E., Research Manager
Energy & Environmental Research Center
University of North Dakota
15 N. 23rd St.
Grand Forks, ND 58203
(701) 777-5120, fax 5181
dschmidt at undeerc.org
www.undeerc.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Miles [mailto:tmiles at trmiles.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 11:12 AM
To: tombreed at comcast.net; Peter Verhaart; STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG;
gasification at ns2.misteam.net
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal Production

Tom,

I agree that water treatment would be an excellent local use of char from
gasification or gasifying stoves. There is a suspicion, however, that char
from gasification contains toxic compounds, especially benzene, and require
special water treatment. The common measure in the US is the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). TCLP limit for benzene is 0.5
mg/L. Procedures are described in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix II or in EPA's
publication, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW-486.

Where is there toxicity data for biomass chars from gasification or
combustion?

I asked the gasification list earlier if anyone had any TCLP data for char
from gasification and got no response.

The only information I find online is from Brightstar: "The TCLP testing
completed on the char to date indicates that the char is suitable for
disposal to non-hazardous
landfill."http://www.brightstarenvironmental.com/html/env%20frame%20set/envt
ext.htm

Data I have found for semivolatile and volatile organics have been mostly
from high temperature oxidizing processes in which organic toxics including
benzene have been below detection limits. I have found no information for
small scale gasifiers or combustors that may produce significant tars.

Is the char safe for filtering drinking water or do we simply have no data?

Thanks

Tom

 

----- Original Message -----
From: <tombreed at comcast.net>
To: "Peter Verhaart" <pverhaart at iprimus.com.au>; <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>;

<gasification at ns2.misteam.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 4:28 AM
Subject: RE: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal Production

> Dear Piet, Mike, Stoves and Gasification;
>
> Sometimes the best is the enemy of the good. If 100-400 IN charcoal is
> easily available at low cost, use it.
>
> When wood is gasified the yield of charcoal is only 3-10% and the process
> of converting the rest to gas is much like that that is used for making
> activated charcoal. Depending on the process I believe the IN can be as
> high as 400 without further effort and Agua Das and I think that a small
> change in the gasifier output could produce activated charcoal with an IN
> of 800-1000.
>
> I hope someone can send Mike Antal some gasifier charcoal to test while he

> is in Budapest...
>
> Onward, TOM REED
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
>> I think Mike Antal makes a lot of sense when he suggests using normal
>> charcoal instead of activated carbon for water purification in developing
>> countries.
>> To get a comparable active surface ares you need 2.5 to 10 times the mass
>> of active carbon. And much less fuss producing it.
>>
>> Peter Verhaart
>>
>>
>> At 18:19 12/10/2004, you wrote:
>> >Dear Rusty: this message comes to you from Budapest where for one month
>> >I am
>> >studying the properties of biocarbons (charcoal)with colleagues in the
>> >Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
>> >
>> >Most charcoals possess a surface area (comparable to iodine number) of
>> >100
>> >to 400 m2/g. The required IN of commercial activated charcoal used to
>> >treat
>> >water in the cities of the USA is 1000. Cities usually use IN instead of
>> >surface area as the criteria for purchase of activated carbons. Because
>> >of
>> >their requirement, untreated (i.e. unactivated) charcoal is usually not
>> >used
>> >to treat water.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
>

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

From dschmidt at undeerc.org Tue Oct 12 12:07:51 2004
From: dschmidt at undeerc.org (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:07:51 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal Production
Message-ID: <3F678EC15E6D8F4EA7CDC3F389D9CC7E0117DD26@undeerc.eerc.und.NoDak.edu>

? 261.5 Special requirements for hazardous
waste generated by conditionally
exempt small quantity generators.
(a) A generator is a conditionally exempt
small quantity generator in a calendar
month if he generates no more
than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste
in that month.

Darren D. Schmidt, P.E., Research Manager
Energy & Environmental Research Center
University of North Dakota
15 N. 23rd St.
Grand Forks, ND 58203
(701) 777-5120, fax 5181
dschmidt at undeerc.org
www.undeerc.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Miles [mailto:tmiles at trmiles.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 11:12 AM
To: tombreed at comcast.net; Peter Verhaart; STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG;
gasification at ns2.misteam.net
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal Production

Tom,

I agree that water treatment would be an excellent local use of char from
gasification or gasifying stoves. There is a suspicion, however, that char
from gasification contains toxic compounds, especially benzene, and require
special water treatment. The common measure in the US is the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). TCLP limit for benzene is 0.5
mg/L. Procedures are described in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix II or in EPA's
publication, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW-486.

Where is there toxicity data for biomass chars from gasification or
combustion?

I asked the gasification list earlier if anyone had any TCLP data for char
from gasification and got no response.

The only information I find online is from Brightstar: "The TCLP testing
completed on the char to date indicates that the char is suitable for
disposal to non-hazardous
landfill."http://www.brightstarenvironmental.com/html/env%20frame%20set/envt
ext.htm

Data I have found for semivolatile and volatile organics have been mostly
from high temperature oxidizing processes in which organic toxics including
benzene have been below detection limits. I have found no information for
small scale gasifiers or combustors that may produce significant tars.

Is the char safe for filtering drinking water or do we simply have no data?

Thanks

Tom

 

----- Original Message -----
From: <tombreed at comcast.net>
To: "Peter Verhaart" <pverhaart at iprimus.com.au>; <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>;

<gasification at ns2.misteam.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 4:28 AM
Subject: RE: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal Production

> Dear Piet, Mike, Stoves and Gasification;
>
> Sometimes the best is the enemy of the good. If 100-400 IN charcoal is
> easily available at low cost, use it.
>
> When wood is gasified the yield of charcoal is only 3-10% and the process
> of converting the rest to gas is much like that that is used for making
> activated charcoal. Depending on the process I believe the IN can be as
> high as 400 without further effort and Agua Das and I think that a small
> change in the gasifier output could produce activated charcoal with an IN
> of 800-1000.
>
> I hope someone can send Mike Antal some gasifier charcoal to test while he

> is in Budapest...
>
> Onward, TOM REED
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
>> I think Mike Antal makes a lot of sense when he suggests using normal
>> charcoal instead of activated carbon for water purification in developing
>> countries.
>> To get a comparable active surface ares you need 2.5 to 10 times the mass
>> of active carbon. And much less fuss producing it.
>>
>> Peter Verhaart
>>
>>
>> At 18:19 12/10/2004, you wrote:
>> >Dear Rusty: this message comes to you from Budapest where for one month
>> >I am
>> >studying the properties of biocarbons (charcoal)with colleagues in the
>> >Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
>> >
>> >Most charcoals possess a surface area (comparable to iodine number) of
>> >100
>> >to 400 m2/g. The required IN of commercial activated charcoal used to
>> >treat
>> >water in the cities of the USA is 1000. Cities usually use IN instead of
>> >surface area as the criteria for purchase of activated carbons. Because
>> >of
>> >their requirement, untreated (i.e. unactivated) charcoal is usually not
>> >used
>> >to treat water.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
>
>

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

From jonpratt76 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 12 12:42:25 2004
From: jonpratt76 at hotmail.com (Jonathan Pratt)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:42:25 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Peak Oil or Peak Economy?
Message-ID: <BAY17-F374eBa1kg3Am00096e44@hotmail.com>

With all the attention to peak oil I'd just like to point out the
un-sustainability of the US economy as it is presently structured. Probably
before world oil production peaks we will be in serious trouble for economic
reasons not related to fossil fuel extraction.

As the United States imports 60% of the oil it consumes if something were to
occur economically that would disrupt imports in general it makes no
difference wether worldwide oil production declines or not because we will
simply be unable to obtain supplies from outside the country anymore.

It would be one thing if we offset our imports with equal or greater exports
HOWEVER we have not had even had equal trade in decades and the problem is
only getting worse. Once the credit runs out (as it soon will) when China,
Japan and others stop selling us their goods on credit the whole ediface
will come crashing down. Some kind of terrorist related incident will only
accelerate this process or give the government a pretext to implement a
command economy which it will have to just to maintain order and keep people
from starving.

Never minding the fact that the rising cost of oil and our present continued
dependence on it, it is a certainty that if OIL prices continue to rise
steadily or rise suddenly we it will plunge our economy into a recession or
worse because of the acute sensitivity of our economy to this one commodity.
Such an occurace will naturally make interest rates skyrocket, the dollar
plummet, the credit and trade and deficit spending stop (or become totally
ineffective for economic recovery) and the economy just grind to a halt.

It is my estimation that an emergency program promoting energy independence
is needed yesterday and even a preparation to some kind of command economy
simply for the fact than in such conditions the "capitalist" system will
just fail. Globalization and massive deficit and deficit trade spending
will be starkly revealed for the fraud that they are.

Jonathan Pratt

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee?
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Tue Oct 12 13:27:41 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:27:41 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Couple of ideas for group discussion
Message-ID: <1f2.b766c2.2e9d7c1d@aol.com>

AS I review the materials some have sent me I am reminded of the Andrew
Carnagie J. P. Morgan efforts that resulted in U. S. Steel.

Gasification is old technology a mature technology goes back to WWII at
least. Your production of equipment with some exception is one off. No standard
system of Gasification of known Feedstocks. No standards of system performance
known prior to build two exceptions noted.

None of the materials I have been sent and what I have gathered is super high
tech. No clean rooms no ultra pure environments no unknown physics or math
problems no new machines, valves, metals, manufacturing techniques. The vast
majority of the makers are doing custom design and build and therefore relatively
expensive work.

What your industry seems to have missing is the US Steel model. Carnagie's
emphasis on production efficiency. and JP Morgan's understanding of integration
of specialty markets Ford's assy line. Some made barb wire some made sheet
some made castings. US steel made it all. Ford made it faster.

Most of all there is ZERO integration with kindred industry. You have a
process heat. gas and stream from renewable energy that has a natural marriage
with ethanol and concrete making, citrus processing, crop processing, brick
making and farm operations in addition to water desal and processing and electrical
power.

To my amazement I don't find your established companies in the trade
publications of those related industries. Correct me if I am wrong. You are not even
hot linked! Where are your PAC's? Your industry web page? Your US technical
trade meetings? Your PR? YOUR TECHNICAL DATA BASE????

Albest
Leonard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041012/ded86b83/attachment.html

From snkm at btl.net Tue Oct 12 13:46:16 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:46:16 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Some hard math -- less dreams -- biomass energy
realites.
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041012124501.00997e40@pop.btl.net>

Sorry to pop your balloon folks -- but maybe you should all read through
this carefully??

An excellent example of theoretical maximum utilization of huge areas of
land for maximum biomass energy. And as you will study -- it makes almost
no difference to your energy problems at all!!

*************************************************


OPT

Sugarcane and Energy

Andrew R. B. Ferguson

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Reliable information about sugarcane was very kindly supplied to us by:

Mr Jean Alain Lalouette,
Director-General of the Food and Agricultural Research Council of Mauritius,
Dr Jean Claude Autrey, Director of the Mauritius Sugar Industry Research
Institute and
Mr Serge Kong Win Chang, Scientific Officer in the Sugar Technology
Department.

We are also grateful to Professor Sir Colin Spedding and Professor Eric
Roberts, for having put us in touch with these sources, and for providing
useful background information.

The Optimum Population Trust (U.K.):
Manchester
July 1999

The data, kindly supplied by those on the title page, are as follows.

(1) The ideal fermentation process, according to the Gay-Lussac equation,
based on the sugar content of the sugarcane, yields 51.1% by weight of
ethanol. In practice 90 percent of the theoretical yield is readily
achievable.

(2) Hugot (1960) gives the calorific value of fibre and sugar as being
respectively:

4600 kcal/kg (Fiber)
3955 kcal/kg (Sugar)

(3) Hugot (1960) gives the carbon content of fibre as 47%

While that of sugar can be readily calculated from the molecular formula of
sucrose and is 42%.

(4) The sucrose (sugar) fraction of fresh cane is 0.1271, by weight.

(5) The dry fibre fraction of fresh cane is 0.1542, by weight.

Note these last two fractions add up to 0.2813, and in so far as they are
the only calorific source, it indicates that this fresh cane has a moisture
content of:

1 - 0.2813 = 72%.

However moisture is somewhat variable: see (7). It follows that, due to
uncertainty about the exact moisture content of the yields given in
statistics, all estimates are liable to some error. As it has been
mentioned here, it will not be stressed unduly.*

(6) The calorific value of bagasse is given as:

7,600 kJ/kg (1,816 kcal/kg)

on page 43 of the 3rd edition of the book on by-products of the cane sugar
industry by J.M. Paturau.

(7) Moisture content in fresh cane is also very dependent on weather
conditions, and generally decreases during the harvest period from June to
November, starting about 80%.

(8) In Brazil, on average, about 12 kg of sugarcane is required to produce
1 litre of ethanol. (For moisture implications, see note h.)

(9) The bagasse fraction of fresh cane, by weight, varies from country to
country, and from year to year in the same country; inter alia, it has a
tendency to increase when harvesting is mechanized. In Mauritius it has
increased from 28% in the mid 80s to 32% in the mid 90s.

In fact the 72% moisture content calculation is not strictly accurate,
because the absolute juice from which the sugar is refined was only 86.6%
pure (according to the Mauritius 1996 crop). Hence the impurities in the
total sugarcane amount to the fraction:

(0.1271 / 0.866 - 0.1271) = 0.0197.

Thus the moisture should be reduced by a further 2.0% and a small addition
made to calorific value. However, as mentioned in (7), moisture content is
variable, and it seems best to avoid the additional complications of
adjusting for the 2% impure fraction.

Why sugarcane?

As oil, gas and coal become scarce, a process which is confidently
predicted to commence within decades, humans will have to return to using
renewable resources. For supplying energy from solar sources at any time
of day or night, wood - or plant material - is a strong contender.

Note that in 1850, more than 91% of the energy used in the United States
came from wood burning (Pimentel and Pimentel, 1996:15).

Sugarcane is outstanding for its biomass yield, averaging 74 metric tons
per ha per year in the USA (USDA, 1996)*, compared to around 1.5 dry
t/ha/yr for average added biomass in US forests (Wernick et al:140), (1.5t
dry would be about 3t fresh).

Thus the study of sugarcane, including conversion to ethanol, provides a
microcosm - albeit an optimistic one - of energy-capture from plants.

Food, Energy, and Society by David and Marcia Pimentel, 1996

The comments in this section refer to pages 236-239 of the above mentioned
book, which, despite the errors related to sugarcane itself, provides most
of the vital data needed for the following analysis. To set these comments
in context, it should be said that although we have mined extensively the
rich veins of data in this supremely valuable and well written book, we
have found, for the immense amount of data on diverse matters which it
contains, relatively few errors.

Moreover the significant number of data errors relating to sugar and
sugarcane do not at all affect the valuable ethanol assessment which is the
purpose of pages 236-239; and as the errors are contained in a chapter
co-authored by 7 students, any blame can be spread fairly thinly! Correct
data was difficult to get hold of, and we are very grateful to all those
mentioned on the title page who have resolved the uncertainties, which were
regretted not only by us but also by Dr. David Pimentel.

The letters near the left margin below, followed by a colon and a page
number, are references. Corresponding letters, contained in boxes, appear
on the (corrected) copies of the relevant pages of Food, Energy, and
Society, at the end of this paper.

a:236 The upper limit of 57 g possibly refers to a different form of sugar,
not cane sugar, but in the context of sugarcane it appears that the 57 g is
a misleading figure.

b:236 The 14 kg of sugarcane per liter is not far off the 13.5 kg we
calculate; however the 2.5 kg of sugar should be 1.7 kg, or 1.718 kg to be
precise.

Calculation
1 kg of sugar would ideally yield 511 g of alcohol (1).
At 90% yield this would give 460 g of alcohol.
At specific gravity of 0.79, 460 g = 582 ml.
If 582 ml require 1 kg sugar, then 1000 ml require 1000/582 = 1.718 kg of
sugar.

By way of confirmation, Slesser and Lewis (1979:106) state that 2.2 kg of
sugar is needed to produce 1 kg of ethanol. This agrees with our figure of
1.7 kg of sugar/liter, since 2.2 x 0.79 = 1.7 kg per liter. However it
cannot pass without comment that, in the same table, the authors make an
impressive error, which they repeat in Table 5.1, page 94, stating that
ethanol yield from sugarcane is 17 t/ha/yr! The correct average figure
would be about (74,000 / 13.5) x 0.79 = 4.3 tonnes of ethanol /ha/yr.

The 14 kg is a sound figure, because, as the fraction of sugar in sugarcane
is 0.1271, the 1.718 kg of sugar would be contained in 1.718 / 0.1271 =
13.5 kg of cane with this moisture content.
c:236 Pimentel tells me that the weight of bagasse was derived from the
required input of 7.6 million kcal, and that a wrong calorific value was
clearly used to derive the weight. Using datum (6), 7.6 million kcal would
require 7.6 x 106 / 1816 = 4185 kg of bagasse.

Note, incidentally, that the 14,000 kg of sugarcane needed to produce 1000
liters of ethanol would, according to (9), contain about 14,000 x 0.30 =
4,200 kg of bagasse, i.e. sufficient for the input - as one would expect.

d:237 The statement, "A hectare of U.S. sugarcane yields an average of
88,000 kg," is not strictly correct (see footnote on page 3). The intended
meaning is probably "the sugarcane in the Louisiana case under consideration."

e:237 88,000 kg of sugarcane would have a calorific value of about 107
million kcal not 24.618 million kcal, the calorific value of sugarcane
being 1212 kcal/kg.

Calculation
1 kg of fresh cane contains 0.1271 kg sucrose (4).
0.1271 kg sucrose at 3955 kcal/kg (2) would contain 502.7 kcal.
1 kg of fresh cane contains 0.1542 kg of dry fibre (5).
0.1542 kg of dry fibre at 4600 kcal/kg (2) would contain 709.3 kcal.
Therefore 1 kg of fresh cane contains 502.7 + 709.3 = 1212 kcal/kg.
Therefore 88,000 kg of fresh cane contains 106,656,000 kcal.

f:237 The sugar yield from 88,000 kg of fresh cane should be about 11,185
kg, not 6,600 kg.

Calculation
1 kg of fresh cane contains 0.1271 kg of sugar (4).
Therefore 88,000 kg of fresh cane contains 11,185 kg of sugar.

g:237 Although the usefulness of the ratio "kcal input/kcal sugar" is not
obvious, the correct ratio should be 0.28 not 2.01.

Calculation
11,185 kg of sugar would have a heat content of 11,185 x 3955 (2) =
44,237,000 kcal.
Therefore kcal input / kcal sugar = 12,226,000 / 44,237,000 = 0.28.

h:238 In view of (8), it would appear better to base this 1000 liter output
calculation, for Brazil, on an input of 12,000 kg sugarcane. Note that we
previously calculated that 13.5 kg of sugarcane would be needed to produce
1 liter and, using (4) and (5), this would contain 13.5 x (0.1271 + 0.1542)
= 3.7976 kg of dry matter.

If this were contained in 12 kg, it would represent the fraction 3.7976 /
12 = 0.32, indicating a moisture content of 68%, which is a small drop from
72%, making the Brazil data mentioned in (8) thoroughly plausible.

i:238 4,185 kg of bagasse, not 1,900; see note c.

j:239 54,000 kg of sugarcane would contain about 65 million kcal not 15.120
million.

Calculation
As calculated previously, fresh cane has a calorific value of 1212 kcal/kg.
Therefore 54,000 kg of fresh cane contains 65,448,000 kcal.

k:239 The sugar yield from 54,000 kg of fresh cane should be 6863 kg not
3672 kg.

Calculation
1 kg of fresh cane contains 0.1271 kg sugar (4).
Therefore 54,000 kg of fresh cane contains 6863 kg of sugar.

l:239 As in g, the correct ratio should be 0.28 not 2.02.

Calculation
6863 kg of sugar would have a heat content of:

6863 x 3955 (2) = 27,143,000 kcal.

Therefore kcal input / kcal sugar

= 7,499,000 / 27,143,000 = 0.28 (same as note g)

The calorific value of crop dry matter and estimating moisture content.

The data kindly provided by those cited on the title page allow us to make
an interesting diversion to check a point made by Harris (1992),
referencing Monteith (1977), that crop dry matter has a calorific value of
about:

17,500 kJ/kg = 4,180 kcal/kg.

A comment on this observation was made in a letter to Professor Sir Colin
Spedding from Professor Eric Roberts. He said that, while the figure
quoted by Paul Harris is "generally accepted as applying pretty well to
most whole crop material, of course one cannot necessarily apply it to
partitioned bits of crop, e.g. something containing a high proportion of
oil (e.g. the seeds of peanuts) will have a different value from the whole
crop or a grain."

Energy values of Sugar cane:

Regarding whole sugarcane, note that 1 kg of fresh cane contains:

0.1271 kg of sugar (4), and
0.1542 kg of dry fibre (5),
totalling 0.2813 kg of crop dry matter;

and recall the calorific value contained in 1 kg of fresh cane as being:

1212 kcal.

Therefore, the calorific value of sugarcane's crop dry matter is:

1212 / 0.2813 = 4309 kcal/kg.

This is an approximate confirmation of Monteith's "4180 rule"

The "4180 rule" is useful in checking, from the calorific value, the
moisture content of the crop being assayed. In the case of sugarcane, we
have just seen that the dry material amounts to:

0.2813;

hence moisture content of the assayed material is:

1 - 0.2813 = 72%.

In so far as Monteith's "4180 rule" is accurate, moisture content of the
assayed material is always:

1 - (calorific content of assayed material, per kg / 4180 kcal).

Thus for sugarcane, given only the calorific content of the assayed
material as:

1212 kcal/kg,

We could estimate that the moisture content is about:

1 - (1212 / 4180) = 71%,

Which is close to 72%, but not exactly right, as sugarcane crop dry matter
has 4309 kcal/kg, not Monteith's 4180. We should not strive for too much
accuracy: it is the cane stalk which is processed for sugar and is
registered as cane yield. Also there are cane tops and leaves, which may
constitute about 20-25% of the whole cane (moisture content of about 80%).

Energy-capture

It is estimated that, in average agricultural ecosystems, only about 0.1
percent of the total solar energy reaching each ha during the year is
captured as harvested plant material (Pimentel and Pimentel, 1996:14). It
may be wondered to what extent sugarcane, which in the United States has an
average yield of:

74 t/ha/yr (see footnote on page 3),

can breach this average figure for solar energy-capture.

As calculated under item e above, the calorific value of sugarcane is about:

1212 kcal/kg,

therefore gross energy-capture averages:

74,000 x 1212 = 89.69 million kcal/ha/yr.

But this high output is partly a result of high fertilizer inputs; to
establish the net energy capture we need to subtract inputs.

Inputs for 74 tonnes output (pro-rating data from Pimentel and Pimentel,
1996:237) amount to:

10.28 million kcal/ha/yr.

Therefore net energy-capture of sugarcane:

= 89.69 - 10.28 = 79.41 million kcal/ha/yr, or 10.5 kWyr/ha/yr (= 10.5
kW/ha as a steady flow).

In true perspective, that figure is unrealistically high since it takes no
account of the form of the inputs - some will be needed in liquid form -
but it will suffice for present purposes.

Insolation in the southern United States is about:

1.6 x 1010 kcal/ha/yr (Reifsnyder, and Lull, 1965).

Therefore net energy-capture of sugarcane is about:

79.41 x 106 / 1.6 x 1010 = 0.5%.

Thus net energy-capture for sugarcane is about 5 times the average
energy-capture for agricultural land. However it must be remembered that
there are soil erosion problems with sugarcane, and the amount of land
available for sustained growing of sugarcane is limited. We now turn our
attention to that.


The scope for energy-capture and carbon-capture

A project for producing methane by anaerobic digestion has been proposed by
energy consultant Harold Hartung. Investigating his proposal should give
us a feel for the scope of energy-capture using sugarcane, even if the
project itself should prove not to be viable. Hartung says that the
digestive process increases the energy by 20%; thus the simplified
energy-capture of 10.5 kWyr/ha/yr net, which we calculated above, would
become 12.6 kWyr/ha/yr net.

It would be stretching hope to the limit, to suppose that the southern
United States could increase the area devoted to sugarcane by 1 million ha
(10,000 km2 - all to be found in high rainfall, fertile sub-tropical
regions), for this would more than double the present area.

Continued production, in the long-term, would be difficult, because of the
high soil erosion associated with growing sugarcane. Nevertheless, let us
adopt that "hopeful hypothesis."

We see, from the above, that, after anaerobic digestion, 1 million ha would
capture a net:

12.6 million kWyr/yr.

For a population of 260 million people, this would provide 0.0485
kWyr/capita/yr.

United States citizens currently use about 9 kWyr/cap/yr of net energy from
the burning of fossil fuels (see calculation at end); so 1 million ha of
sugarcane would provide about 0.0485 / 9 = 0.5% of the energy presently
supplied to U.S. citizens from fossil fuels. Half of one percent does not
look very promising, but Hal Hartung also believes that this anaerobic
digestion process would be beneficial for removing carbon from the
atmosphere. Let us study that.

A major problem would appear to be that when the methane is burnt it will
release carbon dioxide. But, oddly, Hartung somewhat glosses over that
problem; so let's start by simply looking at the net carbon-capture from 1
million ha of sugarcane.

The net carbon capture of U.S. sugarcane, yielding 74 t/ha, would be about
8.45 tC/ha (calculation below).

So the proposed additional million ha of cane would capture 8.45 million tC.

In 1990, the USA was emitting about 1,347 million tC from the burning of
fossil fuels (R. Engelman, 1995:45).

Thus the effect would be to make a dent in U.S. fossil fuel emissions to
the tune of 8.45 / 1,347 = 0.6%.

However that assessment must be dubious, for it is likely that the release
of carbon, during combustion, would approximate to the carbon/energy
release of natural gas, namely:

0.441 tC/kWyr (Read, 1994).

Thus the 12.6 million kWyr of energy available from the methane would release:

12.6 x 0.441 = 5.56 million tC.

Thus net carbon-capture would be:

8.45 - 5.56 = 2.9 million tons,

which is 0.2% of U.S. fossil fuel emissions. Sugarcane can therefore
neither make a significant contribution to capturing carbon dioxide
emissions from fossil fuels, nor make significant inroads into the
satisfaction of energy demand (supplying only 0.5% of fossil fuel energy
according to the "hopeful hypothesis").

Even though Hartung's proposal does not look promising, it appears enticing
in comparison with another method of generating energy from sugarcane,
namely producing ethanol. The biodigestive process, so Hartung tells us,
increases the energy content of the sugarcane by 20%, whereas no such bonus
is available through ethanol production:

13 kg of sugarcane, - to take an intermediate figure -
with a calorific value of 13 x 1,212 = 15,756 kcal,
produces 1 liter of ethanol, with a calorific value of 5,130 kcal.

Energy is therefore attenuated to 5,130 / 15,756 = 0.326.

We have that fraction, of the initial energy, contained in the gross
amount of ethanol produced by conversion.

To establish the net energy from this is relatively easy, because bagasse
provides all the heat needed to run the conversion process. It is thus
reasonable to deduce that the remaining energy requirements - to produce
fertilizers, herbicides and the machinery for applying them, etc. - will
require a form of higher-grade energy: in other words an energy source
something like ethanol, so we can do the analysis by assuming that the
remaining requirement for input must be satisfied from the output.

That remaining portion of the input, according to the analysis in Pimentel
and Pimentel, 1996:236-239, amounts, in the Louisiana study, to 49% of the
output, and, in the Brazil study, to 45%.

Taking an intermediate figure of 47%, it is clear that if 47% of the output
needs to be taken to feed the input, it leaves 53% as the final dividend of
useful ethanol. So the overall energy is attenuated in the conversion
process to:

0.326 x 0.53 = 0.173.

Taking the average U.S. sugarcane yield of 74 t/ha (USDA, 1996), the raw
energy-capture is:

74,000 x 1,212 = 89.69 million kcal/ha/yr, or 11.91 kWyr/ha/yr.

After attenuation, net energy-capture, as useful ethanol, amounts to:

11.91 x 0.173 = 2.1 kWyr/ha/yr.

Incidentally, on the basis of the southern States insolation of 2125 kW/ha,
mentioned earlier, 2.1 kW/ha is a capture of solar energy of just under
0.1%, one part in 1,000.

The significance of a net energy-capture of 2.1 kWyr/ha/yr may not be easy
to grasp, but it could help to recall that the net 12.6 kWyr/ha/yr, which
we granted as being conceivable under Hartung's scheme, barely made a dent
on U.S. energy demand.

An alternative, albeit slightly bizarre (it would be a strange use of
sugarcane), analysis is to determine the energy-capture which could be
achieved by merely harvesting the sugarcane for its thermal value, using no
more ethanol than is required to grow and harvest the crops.

Without going into the calculation, the answer is that a combined
energy-capture would be achieved of about:

7.2 kWyr/ha/yr.

That figure is far more realistic than those we have been bandying about
while looking at Hartung's "hopeful hypothesis, " for which purpose we
ignored the need for liquid inputs, e.g. for harvesting.

Whereas making ethanol from sugarcane may make some sense, using corn as
the feedstock is a complete disaster (Pimentel, 1998).

Why is it still done on a substantial scale?

A book which is conducive to understanding the phenomena is Charles
Mackay's Extraordinary Popular Delusions (1841). A passage in it describes
how a man made ?2,000, before setting sail for the Continent:

But the most absurd and preposterous of all [these fortune-making schemes],
and which shewed, more completely than any other, the utter madness of the
people, was one started by an unknown adventurer, entitled, "A company for
carrying on an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it
is." Were not the fact stated by scores of credible witnesses, it would be
impossible to believe that any person could have been duped by such a project.

Thus we see the tendency toward delusion is unchanged; hope overcomes
prudence; only the motivation changes: there it was hope of becoming rich,
today it is the hope of avoiding the unpalatable conclusion that without
the energy we currently enjoy from non-renewable resources the Earth can
support only a much smaller population, in a tolerable lifestyle.

Recalling that the energy-capture of sugarcane is about five times that of
average agricultural crops, the figure of 2.1 kWyr/ha/yr (0.1% of solar
radiation), for net energy-capture as ethanol, is clearly a danger signal
for those willing to see it - imagine everyone in your city needing about 1
hectare, or 2.47 acres of land, in order to keep a 2 kW fire alive.
However it can be little more than a warning, for this study of sugarcane
is only a detail from a larger canvas which is still being painted: a
canvas that shows the net energy-capture for all renewable resources. The
need to measure net energy was skilfully brought to the notice of the
public in a book:

Beyond Oil: The Threat to Food and Fuel in the Coming Decades

by John Gever, Robert Kaufman, David Skole and Charles V?r?smarty (1986);

But detail on input/output was scanty.

In a recent paper (1998), David Pimentel, Mario Giampietro and Sandra
Bukkens estimate that a maximum sustainable population for the whole of
North America is 200 million people. We would tend to agree with them; but
the accuracy of all such assessments is limited by the accuracy with which
one can ascertain the net energy-capture of a realistic blend of renewable
resources.

One thing is sure: if plant energy-capture needs to form a sizable
proportion of renewable energy sources, then the figure of 200 million is
realistic.

Calculation

1 kg of sugarcane contains: 0.1271 kg sugar (4).

At carbon content of 42% (3), = 0.05338 kgC.

1 kg of sugarcane contains 0.1542 kg of dry fibre (5).

At carbon content of 47% (3), = 0.07247 kgC.

Total carbon content of 1 kg sugarcane = 0.12585 kgC.

Therefore 74,000 kg/ha would capture 9.31 tC/ha.

The inputs for 74,000 kg output, as calculated above, amount to:

10.28 million kcal/ha, or 43.0 GJ

It is probably most appropriate to use the oil energy/carbon ratio of 50
GJ/tC (Read, 1994); it lies somewhere between coal and gas.

At 50 GJ/tC, 43 GJ would release 0.86 tC.

Therefore net carbon absorption would be:

9.31 - 0.86 = 8.45 tC/ha

U.S. fossil fuel energy use: According to the Department of Energy, in
1991 fossil fuel use in the U.S. amounted to:

78.5 quads (78.5 x 1015 Btu) = 2.3 x 1013 kWhr

For a population of about 255 million, that is:

90,196 kWhr/cap/yr = 90,196 / (24 x 365) = 10.3 kWyr/cap/yr of gross energy.

The average input/output ratio of the fossil fuels currently being used,
taking account of what they are being used for (i.e. a substantial part for
generating electricity) is hard to know, but a ratio of 1:9 would be in the
right ball park (and unlikely to be too low).

Thus net energy use amounts to at least:

8/9 x 10.3 = 9 kWyr/yr of net energy per capita.

References and notes

Engelman, R. 1994. Stabilizing the Atmosphere: Population, Consumption
and Greenhouse Gases. Population Action International 1120 19th Street,
NW, Suite 550, Washington, DC 20036, USA.
Gever. J., R. Kaufman, D. Skole, and C. V?r?smarty. 1986. Beyond Oil:The
Threat to Food and Fuel in the Coming Decades. Niwot, CO: University Press
of Colorado.
Note: Although Gever et al demonstrate clearly the vital importance of
dealing with net energy, both for fossil fuels as they become more
difficult to extract, and in relation to renewable resources, reliable data
on the latter is lacking. In fact the situation is about as bad as it was
with sugarcane before the Mauritius Sugar Industry Research Institute came
to our rescue!
Harris, P. 1992. The Principles of Crop Production. In C. R. W. Spedding
(ed.), Fream's Principles of Food and Agriculture, pp. 94-145. Oxford:
Blackwell Scientific Publications.
Hugot E. (1960). Handbook of cane sugar engineering. Elsevier. P 676,678.
Mackay, C. 1841. Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of
Crowds. Reprinted in 1995 by Wordsworth Editions Ltd. ISBN 1-85326-349-4
(pbk). ?3.
Monteith, J.L. 1977. Climate and the efficiency of crop production in
Britain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. London.
B.281,, 277-94.
Pimentel, D. and M. Pimentel. 1996. Food, Energy, and Society. Revised
edition. Niwot Co., University Press of Colorado. pp. 363. (?30).
Note: For brevity, we referred to the Pimentels' book as "supremely
valuable," but we actually believe that the word "supreme" should go to
Clive Ponting's A Green History of the World, with Food, Energy, and
Society running a close second.
Pimentel, D. 1998. Energy and dollar costs of ethanol production with
corn. Hubbert Center Newsletter # 98/2. 7 pp.
Pimentel, D., M. Giampietro, and S. G. F. Bukkens. 1998. An Optimum
Population for North and Latin America, Population and Environment: a
Journal of Interdiciplinary Studies, Vol. 20, No. 2.
Ponting, C. 1992. A Green History of the World. Penguin.
Read, P. 1994. Responding to Global Warming. London Zed Books Ltd.
Reifsnyder, W. E., and H. W. Lull. 1965. Radiant energy in relation to
forests. Technical Bulletin No. 1344, Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service.
I am indebted to David Pimentel for supplying me with the invaluable
insolation data from this source.
Slesser, M., and C. Lewis. 1979. Biological Energy Resources. New York:
Halsted Press.
USDA: United States Department of Agriculture.
Wernick, I.K., P. E. Waggoner, and J.H. Ausubel, 1998, Journal of
Industrial Ecology, volume 1, pp. 125-145.

This is an Optimum Population Trust "Research Paper." As such it has been
subject to substantial peer review before publication. Permission is
hereby granted to reproduce it, in whole or part. Alternatively,
additional copies can be obtained from the Optimum Population Trust, 12
Meadowgate, Urmston, Manchester M41 9LB, U.K. [Pages 10 and 11 of the
published paper were reproductions of pp.236-239 of Food, Energy, and
Society, with amendments drawn in by hand, and are to be found only in the
hardcopy of this paper.]

 

From snkm at btl.net Tue Oct 12 13:46:15 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:46:15 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Peak Oil or Peak Economy?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041012123443.00994dd0@pop.btl.net>

I believe you are all missing the main point. Should the US actually go
into a precipitous economic melt down -- equal to or more profound than the
last great depression of the late 20's -- the rest of humanity would be
"saved".

There would no longer be a shortage of energy!!

The US economy collapsing at this time would take down every other modern
industrialized nation with it -- bar none!!

It would also take down China!!

The mid-east would be lucky to "dump" crude at even $10 per barrel -- and
on a highly devaluated US dollar.

Expensive energy production schemes -- especially expensive complicated
ones -- would be shut down immediately!!

Global energy consumption would be probably 1/5 or less than these present
times.

So there you have it -- survival of our species depends on the US having a
major economic meltdown ASAP!!

We -- the rest of the world -- can only pray that GWB wins this next
election and goes on to screw you all over more -- thus saving this planet
from a global Mad Max scenario!!

Go GWB!!!

For all the rest of you people living in modern societies of man at this
time -- keep on living beyond your means -- accelerate that habit -- the
quicker you go deeper in debt -- the more chance of total economic failure
-- and you will be saving this world!!

Peter -- sitting it out from the distant side lines here in Belize!!

 

At 01:42 PM 10/12/2004 -0400, Jonathan Pratt wrote:
>With all the attention to peak oil I'd just like to point out the
>un-sustainability of the US economy as it is presently structured. Probably
>before world oil production peaks we will be in serious trouble for economic
>reasons not related to fossil fuel extraction.
>
>As the United States imports 60% of the oil it consumes if something were to
>occur economically that would disrupt imports in general it makes no
>difference wether worldwide oil production declines or not because we will
>simply be unable to obtain supplies from outside the country anymore.
>
>It would be one thing if we offset our imports with equal or greater exports
>HOWEVER we have not had even had equal trade in decades and the problem is
>only getting worse. Once the credit runs out (as it soon will) when China,
>Japan and others stop selling us their goods on credit the whole ediface
>will come crashing down. Some kind of terrorist related incident will only
>accelerate this process or give the government a pretext to implement a
>command economy which it will have to just to maintain order and keep people
>from starving.
>
>Never minding the fact that the rising cost of oil and our present continued
>dependence on it, it is a certainty that if OIL prices continue to rise
>steadily or rise suddenly we it will plunge our economy into a recession or
>worse because of the acute sensitivity of our economy to this one commodity.
> Such an occurace will naturally make interest rates skyrocket, the dollar
>plummet, the credit and trade and deficit spending stop (or become totally
>ineffective for economic recovery) and the economy just grind to a halt.
>
>It is my estimation that an emergency program promoting energy independence
>is needed yesterday and even a preparation to some kind of command economy
>simply for the fact than in such conditions the "capitalist" system will
>just fail. Globalization and massive deficit and deficit trade spending
>will be starkly revealed for the fraud that they are.
>
>Jonathan Pratt
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee?
>Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

From psanders at ilstu.edu Tue Oct 12 14:18:06 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:18:06 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Couple of ideas for group discussion
In-Reply-To: <1f2.b766c2.2e9d7c1d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041012140422.022cc8a0@mail.ilstu.edu>

Dear Leonard,

I am "enjoying" your analyses. Please continue.

Unfortunately, I am not seeing how we will find (or create among ourselves)
the Morgan, Carnagie, or Ford equivalents. (Nor is it necessarily true
that those men are the true "role models" that would be appropriate for
today's world.)

Personally, I am interested and highly involved with MICRO-scale
gasifiers/pyrolyzers that are virtually individual cookstoves, especially
for the Developing societies. Your comments are equally relevant for that
situation.

ASSUME for a moment that gasification technology is ripe for development
that you have studied. Do you have any insights or recommendations?

Paul

At 02:27 PM 10/12/04 -0400, LWheeler45 at aol.com wrote:
>AS I review the materials some have sent me I am reminded of the Andrew
>Carnagie J. P. Morgan efforts that resulted in U. S. Steel.
>
>Gasification is old technology a mature technology goes back to WWII at
>least. Your production of equipment with some exception is one off. No
>standard system of Gasification of known Feedstocks. No standards of
>system performance known prior to build two exceptions noted.
>
>None of the materials I have been sent and what I have gathered is super
>high tech. No clean rooms no ultra pure environments no unknown physics or
>math problems no new machines, valves, metals, manufacturing techniques.
>The vast majority of the makers are doing custom design and build and
>therefore relatively expensive work.
>
>What your industry seems to have missing is the US Steel model. Carnagie's
>emphasis on production efficiency. and JP Morgan's understanding of
>integration of specialty markets Ford's assy line. Some made barb wire
>some made sheet some made castings. US steel made it all. Ford made it faster.
>
>Most of all there is ZERO integration with kindred industry. You have a
>process heat. gas and stream from renewable energy that has a natural
>marriage with ethanol and concrete making, citrus processing, crop
>processing, brick making and farm operations in addition to water desal
>and processing and electrical power.
>
>To my amazement I don't find your established companies in the trade
>publications of those related industries. Correct me if I am wrong. You
>are not even hot linked! Where are your PAC's? Your industry web page?
>Your US technical trade meetings? Your PR? YOUR TECHNICAL DATA BASE????
>
>Albest
>Leonard
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

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 at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041012/5361f91b/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Tue Oct 12 14:34:41 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:34:41 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] CEOS that have a direct pipeline to God !
Message-ID: <68.46b0a06c.2e9d8bd1@aol.com>

However, one must watch them "like a hawk," especially when a CEO claims
to have a direct pipeline to God! I have met these guys....

There are some references that I found indirectly. Do a search for the
speeches of Dr/Lord Brown CEO of BP. There was some conferences in Texas on Oil or
the "oil crisis " he attended as keynote speaker that was broadcast on Cspan or
some other public service that was most informative.

The main issue is not running out of oil abruptly. It is running into
dramatically much higher drilling and recovery cost abruptly. Then the lack of
refinery capacity.

BP is spending money on natural gas like there is no tomorrow. Not a lot on
drilling. Bullets flying over the oil drilling rig is a mighty disincentive.
Lord Brown has a really impressive resume too. I doubt that his pipelines go
to God, however. They call Oil the Devils gold. Why is that?

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041012/b3800b26/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Tue Oct 12 15:04:51 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:04:51 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Yes I do. Look first at the history of steel cars
airplanes and the PC
Message-ID: <193.30921bb5.2e9d92e3@aol.com>

This group which probably has millions of hours in this area with more
letters after their names than are in the English alphabet is situated very much
like the industrial giants of our past. Ames with the metal shovel, Colt,
Stanley, etc. Just not moving very fast forward if at all.

Your gassified folks are fighting for a dead tree when there is a whole
Forrest of them dead and alive lets power the sawmill and electrify the town and
make some moonshine too.

The major components missing from this industry are what all of these
historical industrialist figured out. The mass targeted marketing after first
identifying the needs.

Right NOW fertilizer cost which are energy dependent should be launching to
the moon. Water is becoming in short supply for drinking and industrial
processes everywhere. Process heat which has traditionally been natural gas has
soared and mercury that results of fossil fuel consumption has completely taken
over fish for human consumption. Charlie Tuna is dangerous to consume in large
doses.

I am sitting in Central Fla fingering my torn off roof shingles and looking
at woody debris piles and KNOW as a former member of the Lake Co. landfill
oversight committee that this material is going to be wasted. It will be
landfilled or air curtain burned. Tons of clean 7000 to 9500 BTU per ton woody
renewable energy up in smoke and my taxes paying 20 a YARD to collect it and 170,000
per landfill cell to bury it.

Over 25% of the cost of a disaster is debris removal and disposal. I was a
Disaster Engineer in Andrew and I watched it go. The energy potential of HUGO,
Andrew and these last 4 storms has been LOST forever and US taxpayers paid
really stiff prices to dispose of it in such a wasteful way.

Today. In Canada they are debating legislation to deal with their shipping of
MSW to Michigan and NY has decided to barge their waste to other locations.
This is absurd given the energy values of this material and the cost of equal
amounts of OPEC equalivant energy imports consumed by NY daily.

To misquote Ex Dade Co. Emergency Management Director Kate Hale, Where are
the Gassifiers?

It is simply nearly impossible to gather sufficient material together to make
a competent engineering qualified cost verified presentation of this
technology in a larger than 3 MW commercial clean and ISO certified guaranteed proven
and currently working operation. Some exceptions noted!.

I made a deal in March with the Business Equal of Dick Cheney's evil twin
brother that I would supply a means to make Fla an energy producer. I ate my
teeth one at a time. Ethanol, Bio Ethanol, MSW Plasma Redux, failed to deliver as
promised. Never again!

The waste streams are there so are the FEMA funds paying for it and I cannot
even get a video tape to send to the TV stations or press.

Suggestions: Look at Renewable Energy Ethanol groups efforts and copy them.
Get some production standards, economies of standardization and establish
targeted markets and make them an offer.
Rant over.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041012/73c8e5f0/attachment.html

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Tue Oct 12 14:42:10 2004
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:42:10 +1300
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal Production
References: <101220041128.4645.416BBFCC0004F3FF0000122522007507840B0A0A9D0D03019B@comcast.net>
<006401c4b076$3f23b230$6501a8c0@OFFICE3>
Message-ID: <007f01c4b097$7ce8d340$c78f58db@GraemeWilliams>

Tom,
I doubt if data exists for many gasifiers on the toxicity of surplus char to
the gas making process. What I can tell you though is that gasifiers that
make surplus char are more likely to have toxic char than gasifiers which
subject this char to the endothermic heat of the reduction zone. The char
becomes activated and highly porous, but the efficiency of the gas making
process leaves little left that might be sold for water purification. We
had an analysis done of our cleanout charcoal in Germany, and it was
approved for use to pass our water condensate through before going down the
drain. Unfortunately most of the communication of that time was on thermal
fax paper and I have a lot of blank pages in the files from this time, but I
will find time to see if that file survived.

Regards

Doug Williams
Fluidyne.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
To: <tombreed at comcast.net>; "Peter Verhaart" <pverhaart at iprimus.com.au>;
<STOVES at listserv.repp.org>; <gasification at ns2.misteam.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 5:11 AM
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal Production

> Tom,
>
> I agree that water treatment would be an excellent local use of char from
> gasification or gasifying stoves. There is a suspicion, however, that char
> from gasification contains toxic compounds, especially benzene, and
require
> special water treatment. The common measure in the US is the Toxicity
> Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). TCLP limit for benzene is 0.5
> mg/L. Procedures are described in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix II or in EPA's
> publication, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW-486.
>
> Where is there toxicity data for biomass chars from gasification or
> combustion?
>
> I asked the gasification list earlier if anyone had any TCLP data for char
> from gasification and got no response.
>
> The only information I find online is from Brightstar: "The TCLP testing
> completed on the char to date indicates that the char is suitable for
> disposal to non-hazardous
>
landfill."http://www.brightstarenvironmental.com/html/env%20frame%20set/envt
ext.htm
>
> Data I have found for semivolatile and volatile organics have been mostly
> from high temperature oxidizing processes in which organic toxics
including
> benzene have been below detection limits. I have found no information for
> small scale gasifiers or combustors that may produce significant tars.
>
> Is the char safe for filtering drinking water or do we simply have no
data?
>
> Thanks
>
> Tom
>

 

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Tue Oct 12 14:42:10 2004
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:42:10 +1300
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal Production
References: <101220041128.4645.416BBFCC0004F3FF0000122522007507840B0A0A9D0D03019B@comcast.net>
<006401c4b076$3f23b230$6501a8c0@OFFICE3>
Message-ID: <007f01c4b097$7ce8d340$c78f58db@GraemeWilliams>

Tom,
I doubt if data exists for many gasifiers on the toxicity of surplus char to
the gas making process. What I can tell you though is that gasifiers that
make surplus char are more likely to have toxic char than gasifiers which
subject this char to the endothermic heat of the reduction zone. The char
becomes activated and highly porous, but the efficiency of the gas making
process leaves little left that might be sold for water purification. We
had an analysis done of our cleanout charcoal in Germany, and it was
approved for use to pass our water condensate through before going down the
drain. Unfortunately most of the communication of that time was on thermal
fax paper and I have a lot of blank pages in the files from this time, but I
will find time to see if that file survived.

Regards

Doug Williams
Fluidyne.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
To: <tombreed at comcast.net>; "Peter Verhaart" <pverhaart at iprimus.com.au>;
<STOVES at listserv.repp.org>; <gasification at ns2.misteam.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 5:11 AM
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal Production

> Tom,
>
> I agree that water treatment would be an excellent local use of char from
> gasification or gasifying stoves. There is a suspicion, however, that char
> from gasification contains toxic compounds, especially benzene, and
require
> special water treatment. The common measure in the US is the Toxicity
> Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). TCLP limit for benzene is 0.5
> mg/L. Procedures are described in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix II or in EPA's
> publication, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW-486.
>
> Where is there toxicity data for biomass chars from gasification or
> combustion?
>
> I asked the gasification list earlier if anyone had any TCLP data for char
> from gasification and got no response.
>
> The only information I find online is from Brightstar: "The TCLP testing
> completed on the char to date indicates that the char is suitable for
> disposal to non-hazardous
>
landfill."http://www.brightstarenvironmental.com/html/env%20frame%20set/envt
ext.htm
>
> Data I have found for semivolatile and volatile organics have been mostly
> from high temperature oxidizing processes in which organic toxics
including
> benzene have been below detection limits. I have found no information for
> small scale gasifiers or combustors that may produce significant tars.
>
> Is the char safe for filtering drinking water or do we simply have no
data?
>
> Thanks
>
> Tom
>

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Tue Oct 12 15:20:20 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:20:20 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Very good points. what about dioxins in the char?
Message-ID: <13e.35e6ee0.2e9d9684@aol.com>


From snkm at btl.net Tue Oct 12 17:13:38 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:13:38 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Yes I do. Look first at the history of
steel carsairplanes and the PC
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041012161336.00995100@pop.btl.net>

At 04:04 PM 10/12/2004 EDT, you wrote:
>>>>

(Selectively snipped)

I am sitting in Central Fla fingering my torn off roof shingles and looking
at woody debris piles and KNOW as a former member of the Lake Co. landfill
oversight committee that this material is going to be wasted. It will be
landfilled or air curtain burned. Tons of clean 7000 to 9500 BTU per ton
woody renewable energy up in smoke and my taxes paying 20 a YARD to collect
it and 170,000 per landfill cell to bury it.

Over 25% of the cost of a disaster is debris removal and disposal. I was a
Disaster Engineer in Andrew and I watched it go. The energy potential of
HUGO, Andrew and these last 4 storms has been LOST forever and US taxpayers
paid really stiff prices to dispose of it in such a wasteful way.

To misquote Ex Dade Co. Emergency Management Director Kate Hale, Where are
the Gassifiers?

It is simply nearly impossible to gather sufficient material together to
make a competent engineering qualified cost verified presentation of this
technology in a larger than 3 MW commercial clean and ISO certified
guaranteed proven and currently working operation. Some exceptions noted!.

I made a deal in March with the Business Equal of Dick Cheney's evil twin
brother that I would supply a means to make Fla an energy producer. I ate
my teeth one at a time. Ethanol, Bio Ethanol, MSW Plasma Redux, failed to
deliver as promised. Never again!

The waste streams are there so are the FEMA funds paying for it and I
cannot even get a video tape to send to the TV stations or press.

Suggestions: Look at Renewable Energy Ethanol groups efforts and copy them.
Get some production standards, economies of standardization and establish
targeted markets and make them an offer.
Rant over.
>>>

Mr Wheeler;

How about this large biomass plant that would have no problems converting
exceptionally large amounts of downed biomas -- post hurricane -- into
excellent electrical power and at efficiencies rates just as good if not
better -- situated in Florida -- see contact details inclosed below.

The plant is mothballed -- but ready to roll -- and state of the art.

64 megs -- a very good start for you -- eh.

Time you stop ranting and do something "constructive" -- right??

"The facility includes a complete fuel handling system for wood and FCC
sugar mill supplied bagasse that unloads, receives, classifies, hogs,
automatically conveys and recycles biomass fuels to the boilers. Auxiliary
support systems such as fire protection, cooling towers, water treatment,
scales, ash handling, fuel oil system, various storage tanks, electrical
load centers and main transformers, control room, maintenance and shop
equipment."

Sounds perfect for post hurricane clean up to me.

How could you have possibly missed this -- eh??

Peter Singfield in Belize --

64 MW Biomass-Fired Power Plant
This Plant was built in 1996 at a cost of approximately $100,000,000.00
USD. The 64 megawatt (MW) bagasse and wood cogeneration facility operated
approximately 1 year and has been mothballed since September 1997. The
plant was mothballed because the purchasing utility canceled the long term
PPA power purchase agreement and it is not economically viable to operate
the unit on a merchant basis.

The plant is an open air design, typical for Florida, USA facilities.

The plant consist of two ABB-CE VU 40 bagasse and wood stoker fired
boilers. Each boiler train system is rated at 440,000 pounds per hour of
steam, 1525 psig, at 955?F, complete with economizer, air preheater,
electrostatic precipitator, selective non catalytic reduction, stack and
combustion fans for each boiler system. Superheated steam is supplied to
one (1) Mitsubishi 64 (MW) extraction-condensing turbine generator set. The
facility includes a complete fuel handling system for wood and FCC sugar
mill supplied bagasse that unloads, receives, classifies, hogs,
automatically conveys and recycles biomass fuels to the boilers. Auxiliary
support systems such as fire protection, cooling towers, water treatment,
scales, ash handling, fuel oil system, various storage tanks, electrical
load centers and main transformers, control room, maintenance and shop
equipment.

Mechanical
1. Two (2) Boilers; stoker fired; non-reheat

Manufacturer: Combustion Engineering, Model VU-40
Rated: 440,000 pph, each
Pressure; 1525 psig
Temperature: 955?F
Heat Input @ MCR 660 MMBtu/hr
Each boiler is equipped with a water cooled Detroit hydrograte stoker,
water cooled furnace, super heaters, economizer, air pre-heater, induced
and forced draft fans and all necessary auxiliary fans.
No. 2 fuel oil firing system sized for a maximum heat input of 150 MMBtu/hr.
Nox control system using overfire air and a selective noncatalytic
reduction system.
Electrostatic precipitator.
One (1) 2- speed ID fan per boiler
One (1) 2- speed FD fan per boiler
Each boiler is designed to fire 100% biomass fuels (wood waste and bagasse)
and co-fire biomass fuels with up to 20% fuel oil or coal. The plant does
not include any coal handling equipment.
Each boiler is capable of firing natural gas.
Note: Two (2) boilers (total of 880,000 pph) is high for a 65 MW turbine.
The boilers are also sized to supply the sugar mill as well as to generate
power. As a straight power plant there is enough steam supply to generate
95-100 mW
2. One (1) Steam turbine Generator

One (1) 3,600 rpm, extraction condensing, down exhaust steam turbine.
Turbine
Manufacturer: Mitsubishi
Pressure: 1450 psig
Temperature: 950?F
Extractions: 4 uncontrolled and 1 controlled
Extractions pressures for the uncontrolled extractions will be a function
of throttle flow. At high throttle flows, the following are typical
pressures.
425 psia (uncontrolled), connected to HP heater. Typical Flow is 55 kpph.
360 psia (uncontrolled), connected to mill. Typical Flow is 300 kpph.
225 psia (uncontrolled), connected to HP heater. Typical Flow is 75 kpph.
65 psia (controlled), connected to DA and mill. Typical Flow is 330 kpph.
8 psia (uncontrolled), connected to LP heater. Typical Flow is 0 kpph.
Generator
One (1) Generator two pole synchronous machine rated at 3600 rpm, 13.8 kv
and 60 Hz.
Manufacturer: GEC Alstom
Rating: 80 MVA @ 0.8 power factor
Excitation: Brushless
Cooling: TEWAC cooling system
3. Condensate System

One (1) Condenser, single shell, two-pass design (316 SS Tubes and Tube
Sheets)
Two (2) 1600 gpm condensate pumps
4. Feedwater System

Three (3) 50% motor driven single speed, feedwater pumps
One (1) Deaerator
Two (2) low pressure heaters and two (2) high pressure heaters.
5. Water Treatment Plant

Two (2) 50% RO Systems
Two (2) 100% Demineralizer system including regeneration equipment.
One (1) 100% Demin Storage tank- 250,000 gal
Two (2) 50% Return condensate polishers
One (1) 100% Return condensate storage tank-20,000 gal
One (1) 100% Neutralization tank - 100,000 gal with accessories
6. One (1 ) Cooling Tower, Mechanically induced draft, 2 cell wood cooling
tower with concrete basin.

Rating: 30MMBtu/ hr with a 10?F approach
Three (3) 50% circulating water pumps
7. Fuel Delivery

Two (2) truck unloading systems, rated for 100 tph each of wood chips.
One (1) 42" Belt conveyor- 300 ft in length, rated for 200 tph of wood
chips to transfer fuel from unloader to screen/hog/stacker station.
Two(2) drag chain biomass reclaimer, each rated for 125 tph of wood chips.
One (1) 48" Belt conveyor-400 ft in length, rated for 125 tph of wood chip
to transfer fuel from reclaimer to distribution conveyors.
Ten (10) wood feeders.
Ten (10) bagasse feeders
Two (2) drag chain, scraper type distribution conveyors each rated for 125
tph of wood chips.
8. Ash Handling

Bottom ash is removed from boilers by submerged drag chain conveyor and
delivered to a bottom ash bunker,
Fly ash is removed from the boiler and ESP and delivered by drag chain
conveyor to large steel ash silo.
9. Piping and Valves

Standard number and size of valves and piping systems found in comparably
sized power plants.
C. Electrical

1. One (1) Main Step- Up Transformer

13.8 to 138 Kv; 550 Kv BIL; OA/FA/FOA cooled transformer
2. Medium Voltage System

4.16Kv switchgear and motor control centers
3. Motors

Standard number and size of motors found in comparably sized power plants.
See equipment list for details.
D. Control System

Foxboro, distributed digital control system (DCS) which monitors and
controls all key plant functions.
Central Control Room
Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS)
E. Auxiliaries

Service and instrument air, service water, HVAC, fire water, fuel oil
storage tanks, condensate storage tanks, water treatment chemical storage
tanks.
etc. see http://www.capitalassets.us/

Please send me a quick reply with interest.

My Best,

Christopher D. Hayes
with Capital Assets Management, LLC
& MARCOR Remediation Inc.
3260 Haviland CT. #103
Palm Harbor, FL 34684
Tel: 727-786-4406
chayes3 at tampabay.rr.com
www.marcor.com
www.capitalassets.us

Also contact:
Gregory J. Hayes
Manager, Asset Recovery
MARCOR DD&R
& Capital Assets Management, LLC
Trestle Bridge Business Center
540 Trestle Place
Downingtown, PA 19335-3459
Tel: 800-248-0571-ext 413, or 610.269.3250
Fax: 610.269.3393
Cel: 610-636-8077
hayesg at marcor.com
www.marcor.com
www.capitalassets.us

 

From gjahnke at birch.net Tue Oct 12 19:33:48 2004
From: gjahnke at birch.net (Greg Jahnke)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:33:48 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Peak Oil or Peak Economy?
References: <3.0.32.20041012123443.00994dd0@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <00ac01c4b0bc$4ee09da0$e328d4d8@shop>

I believe you are all missing the main point. Should the US actually go
into a precipitous economic melt down -- equal to or more profound than the
last great depression of the late 20's -- the rest of humanity would be
"saved".

=====True enough

There would no longer be a shortage of energy!!

=====Also true

The US economy collapsing at this time would take down every other modern
industrialized nation with it -- bar none!!

=====I think this is incorrect. If you watch some of the moves being made
by the EU, russia and China, you will note that they are taking pains to
distance themselves from the US in economic matters (with the exception of
GB, whcih has tied itself so tight to the US that there is no practical way
to disentangle).

Currently the only real value of the US is as the worlds largest consumer
economy. China is expected to surpass us in this arena within 10 years.
While taking the US out of the equation would certainly cause some
headaches, and certainly a surplus of exportable goods in many countries, it
is unlikely that the collapse of the US economy would lead to the downfall
of many other industialised nations.

It would also take down China!!

=====Why? China benifits every time the US dollar drops. China has already
made provisions for their energy needs far into the future, they carry no
debt worth mentioning, and they have a large labor force shich is largely
literate. China would certinaly be fine in the event of a collapse, most
likely emerging as the worlds next superpower.

The mid-east would be lucky to "dump" crude at even $10 per barrel -- and
on a highly devaluated US dollar.

=====There have already been rumors of the Arabs switching to Euros for
payment. Scary if you happen to be an American (at least an American living
in America)

Expensive energy production schemes -- especially expensive complicated
ones -- would be shut down immediately!!

=====Almost certainly

We -- the rest of the world -- can only pray that GWB wins this next
election and goes on to screw you all over more -- thus saving this planet
from a global Mad Max scenario!!

=====This is kind of twisted logic. If kerry wins is he going to bring back
Americas industiral infrastucture, which has been rotting away for the last
20 years? Whoever manages to take the election, the economy they inherit is
shot. the best that can be hoped for is another four years of GDP numbers,
highly polished for public consuption. Another 4 years of debt driven
spending at both the public and private level. The simple fact of the
matter is, American manufaturing is pretty much gone, and is not coming
back. We have become a "service based" economy. We shuffle money around
without creating tangible value and call it an economy. What a joke.

Go GWB!!!

=====Again, I don't think it matters which of those wankers wins.

For all the rest of you people living in modern societies of man at this
time -- keep on living beyond your means -- accelerate that habit -- the
quicker you go deeper in debt -- the more chance of total economic failure
-- and you will be saving this world!!

=====Yes, certainly we all heard the president when he told us that saving
money is unamerican. SPEND SPEND SPEND. Low interest rates (and please
ignore the fact that there has not been a rush by corporate America for
expansion capitol, even when interest rates were obcenely low) easy finance
terms (please ignore the empty factories being taken over by pigeons and
rats). Buy that half million dollar home. Loans are available that require
no money down! Interest only payments (Are these people on crack?? Why
would you want to essentially rent your home from the bank??)

 

From Brian.Currie at gems3.gov.bc.ca Tue Oct 12 20:04:16 2004
From: Brian.Currie at gems3.gov.bc.ca (Currie, Brian J SRM:EX)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:04:16 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Peak Oil or Peak Economy?
Message-ID: <E31361D72CA53E4AA21F5BBA8809376E07FF62B2@frame.gov.bc.ca>

To paraphrase a respected American, I think the predictions of the US
economic meltdown are somewhat exaggerated....too bad the anti-US bias has
to manifest itself in this forum - I still believe that many of the Chinese,
Russians and Europeans would give their right arms (sic) to live and prosper
in the US and although I have some disdain for the US way I still admire
them and the average American is a really decent sort - too bad more of them
don't get out to vote.....

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Greg Jahnke
Sent: October 12, 2004 5:34 PM
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Peak Oil or Peak Economy?

I believe you are all missing the main point. Should the US actually go into
a precipitous economic melt down -- equal to or more profound than the last
great depression of the late 20's -- the rest of humanity would be "saved".

=====True enough

There would no longer be a shortage of energy!!

=====Also true

The US economy collapsing at this time would take down every other modern
industrialized nation with it -- bar none!!

=====I think this is incorrect. If you watch some of the moves being made
by the EU, russia and China, you will note that they are taking pains to
distance themselves from the US in economic matters (with the exception of
GB, whcih has tied itself so tight to the US that there is no practical way
to disentangle).

Currently the only real value of the US is as the worlds largest consumer
economy. China is expected to surpass us in this arena within 10 years.
While taking the US out of the equation would certainly cause some
headaches, and certainly a surplus of exportable goods in many countries, it
is unlikely that the collapse of the US economy would lead to the downfall
of many other industialised nations.

It would also take down China!!

=====Why? China benifits every time the US dollar drops. China has already
made provisions for their energy needs far into the future, they carry no
debt worth mentioning, and they have a large labor force shich is largely
literate. China would certinaly be fine in the event of a collapse, most
likely emerging as the worlds next superpower.

The mid-east would be lucky to "dump" crude at even $10 per barrel -- and on
a highly devaluated US dollar.

=====There have already been rumors of the Arabs switching to Euros for
payment. Scary if you happen to be an American (at least an American living
in America)

Expensive energy production schemes -- especially expensive complicated ones
-- would be shut down immediately!!

=====Almost certainly

We -- the rest of the world -- can only pray that GWB wins this next
election and goes on to screw you all over more -- thus saving this planet
from a global Mad Max scenario!!

=====This is kind of twisted logic. If kerry wins is he going to bring back
Americas industiral infrastucture, which has been rotting away for the last
20 years? Whoever manages to take the election, the economy they inherit is
shot. the best that can be hoped for is another four years of GDP numbers,
highly polished for public consuption. Another 4 years of debt driven
spending at both the public and private level. The simple fact of the
matter is, American manufaturing is pretty much gone, and is not coming
back. We have become a "service based" economy. We shuffle money around
without creating tangible value and call it an economy. What a joke.

Go GWB!!!

=====Again, I don't think it matters which of those wankers wins.

For all the rest of you people living in modern societies of man at this
time -- keep on living beyond your means -- accelerate that habit -- the
quicker you go deeper in debt -- the more chance of total economic failure
-- and you will be saving this world!!

=====Yes, certainly we all heard the president when he told us that saving
money is unamerican. SPEND SPEND SPEND. Low interest rates (and please
ignore the fact that there has not been a rush by corporate America for
expansion capitol, even when interest rates were obcenely low) easy finance
terms (please ignore the empty factories being taken over by pigeons and
rats). Buy that half million dollar home. Loans are available that require
no money down! Interest only payments (Are these people on crack?? Why
would you want to essentially rent your home from the bank??)

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

From MMBTUPR at aol.com Tue Oct 12 20:27:55 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:27:55 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Anyone have a DVD CD or Videotape suitable for TV
broadcast
Message-ID: <13e.367a930.2e9dde9b@aol.com>

to Gasification list from Lewis L. Smith

As a former listener to WWVA [Wheeling WVA] allow me to suggest that
some people still find the term "hillbilly" offensive.

Thank you.

Cordially.

End.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041012/0195048b/attachment.html

From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Tue Oct 12 20:29:38 2004
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:29:38 -0300
Subject: [Gasification] Peak Oil or Peak Economy?
References: <3.0.32.20041012123443.00994dd0@pop.btl.net>
<00ac01c4b0bc$4ee09da0$e328d4d8@shop>
Message-ID: <011e01c4b0c4$1ef46bf0$869a0a40@kevin>

Dear Greg

Thanks for your interesting comments on Peter's analysis.
...del...>
> The mid-east would be lucky to "dump" crude at even $10 per barrel -- and
> on a highly devaluated US dollar.
>
> =====There have already been rumors of the Arabs switching to Euros for
> payment. Scary if you happen to be an American (at least an American
living
> in America)
>
I don't understand why the mere posting of the price of oil in $US or in
EURO would make any difference. The present price of oil, at say $US53 is
equal to a posted price of EURO 43.04. As long as the $US did not devalue,
if the price of oil was quoted at $43.04 per bbl, how would this be harmful
to the US?

> Expensive energy production schemes -- especially expensive complicated
> ones -- would be shut down immediately!!
>
> =====Almost certainly
>
This is of great interest and importance to energy systems that are being
proposed as an alternative to oil. What it means basically is that:

1: if the World Economy stays basically "as is", then projects that are
presently uneconomic will remain uneconomic.

2: If the World Economy improves, and there is no significant economic
collapse, then alternative projects will tend to become economic.

3: If the World Economy goes down, because of a failure in teh US Economy,
then such projects will become increasingly uneconomic, in that oil prices
will fall; the surplus of oil will result in depressed pricing, and
consequently, a worsening of the economics for alternative energy projects.

> We -- the rest of the world -- can only pray that GWB wins this next
> election and goes on to screw you all over more -- thus saving this planet
> from a global Mad Max scenario!!
>
> =====This is kind of twisted logic. If kerry wins is he going to bring
back
> Americas industiral infrastucture, which has been rotting away for the
last
> 20 years? Whoever manages to take the election, the economy they inherit
is
> shot. the best that can be hoped for is another four years of GDP
numbers,
> highly polished for public consuption. Another 4 years of debt driven
> spending at both the public and private level. The simple fact of the
> matter is, American manufaturing is pretty much gone, and is not coming
> back. We have become a "service based" economy. We shuffle money around
> without creating tangible value and call it an economy. What a joke.
>
Does anyone know of ANY fundamental economic statistics for the US that
would suggest a possibity of a "good news situation" being possible?

> Go GWB!!!
>
> =====Again, I don't think it matters which of those wankers wins.
>
Either way, it seems to look fundamentally bad for the US. Is there any
reasonable basis to justify a belief that the US Economy can improve?

Kevin Chisholm

 

From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Tue Oct 12 20:37:41 2004
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:37:41 -0300
Subject: [Gasification] Peak Oil or Peak Economy?
References: <E31361D72CA53E4AA21F5BBA8809376E07FF62B2@frame.gov.bc.ca>
Message-ID: <012501c4b0c5$3dad9b10$869a0a40@kevin>

Dear Brian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Currie, Brian J SRM:EX" <Brian.Currie at gems3.gov.bc.ca>
To: "'Greg Jahnke'" <gjahnke at birch.net>; <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 10:04 PM
Subject: RE: [Gasification] Peak Oil or Peak Economy?

> To paraphrase a respected American, I think the predictions of the US
> economic meltdown are somewhat exaggerated....too bad the anti-US bias has
> to manifest itself in this forum -

I don't think the pessimism is "Anti-US, but rather fear that becuse their
economy is in such bad condition, we are selfishly fearful of the damage
that their collapse will cause.

I still believe that many of the Chinese,
> Russians and Europeans would give their right arms (sic) to live and
prosper
> in the US

They would, in the past. Would they want to now?

and although I have some disdain for the US way I still admire
> them and the average American is a really decent sort - too bad more of
them
> don't get out to vote.....

There is a BIG difference between the American People, and the dreadful
condition that their Government has brought them. And who can they
rationally vote for? Regardless of who gets in, it looks like more of the
bad same, only worse."

Kevin Chisholm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Greg Jahnke
> Sent: October 12, 2004 5:34 PM
> To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Peak Oil or Peak Economy?
>
>
> I believe you are all missing the main point. Should the US actually go
into
> a precipitous economic melt down -- equal to or more profound than the
last
> great depression of the late 20's -- the rest of humanity would be
"saved".
>
> =====True enough
>
> There would no longer be a shortage of energy!!
>
> =====Also true
>
> The US economy collapsing at this time would take down every other modern
> industrialized nation with it -- bar none!!
>
> =====I think this is incorrect. If you watch some of the moves being made
> by the EU, russia and China, you will note that they are taking pains to
> distance themselves from the US in economic matters (with the exception of
> GB, whcih has tied itself so tight to the US that there is no practical
way
> to disentangle).
>
> Currently the only real value of the US is as the worlds largest consumer
> economy. China is expected to surpass us in this arena within 10 years.
> While taking the US out of the equation would certainly cause some
> headaches, and certainly a surplus of exportable goods in many countries,
it
> is unlikely that the collapse of the US economy would lead to the downfall
> of many other industialised nations.
>
> It would also take down China!!
>
> =====Why? China benifits every time the US dollar drops. China has
already
> made provisions for their energy needs far into the future, they carry no
> debt worth mentioning, and they have a large labor force shich is largely
> literate. China would certinaly be fine in the event of a collapse, most
> likely emerging as the worlds next superpower.
>
> The mid-east would be lucky to "dump" crude at even $10 per barrel -- and
on
> a highly devaluated US dollar.
>
> =====There have already been rumors of the Arabs switching to Euros for
> payment. Scary if you happen to be an American (at least an American
living
> in America)
>
> Expensive energy production schemes -- especially expensive complicated
ones
> -- would be shut down immediately!!
>
> =====Almost certainly
>
> We -- the rest of the world -- can only pray that GWB wins this next
> election and goes on to screw you all over more -- thus saving this planet
> from a global Mad Max scenario!!
>
> =====This is kind of twisted logic. If kerry wins is he going to bring
back
> Americas industiral infrastucture, which has been rotting away for the
last
> 20 years? Whoever manages to take the election, the economy they inherit
is
> shot. the best that can be hoped for is another four years of GDP
numbers,
> highly polished for public consuption. Another 4 years of debt driven
> spending at both the public and private level. The simple fact of the
> matter is, American manufaturing is pretty much gone, and is not coming
> back. We have become a "service based" economy. We shuffle money around
> without creating tangible value and call it an economy. What a joke.
>
> Go GWB!!!
>
> =====Again, I don't think it matters which of those wankers wins.
>
> For all the rest of you people living in modern societies of man at this
> time -- keep on living beyond your means -- accelerate that habit -- the
> quicker you go deeper in debt -- the more chance of total economic failure
> -- and you will be saving this world!!
>
> =====Yes, certainly we all heard the president when he told us that saving
> money is unamerican. SPEND SPEND SPEND. Low interest rates (and please
> ignore the fact that there has not been a rush by corporate America for
> expansion capitol, even when interest rates were obcenely low) easy
finance
> terms (please ignore the empty factories being taken over by pigeons and
> rats). Buy that half million dollar home. Loans are available that
require
> no money down! Interest only payments (Are these people on crack?? Why
> would you want to essentially rent your home from the bank??)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

From jerry5335 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 12 20:52:43 2004
From: jerry5335 at yahoo.com (jerry dycus)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gasification] Has it Happened? Peak Oil or Peak Economy?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20041012123443.00994dd0@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <20041013015243.57620.qmail@web41014.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi Peter and All,
--- Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net> wrote:

>
> I believe you are all missing the main point. Should
> the US actually go
> into a precipitous economic melt down -- equal to or
> more profound than the
> last great depression of the late 20's -- the rest
> of humanity would be
> "saved".

If Bush gets in again you may see if that happens
but don't bet on it.
If the US goes down as it could with our present
inept management it will more likely take the whole
world with it rather than saving it.

>
> There would no longer be a shortage of energy!!

But no one will have any money to buy it, that's
why the price will drop.
And there is no shortage of energy, just the will
to harvest it and the equipment to do the job!!!! But
that will take 10 yrs to ramp up.
I can easily make my own if nessasary in several
ways as I did during our recent hurricanes here in Fla
with no power, gas for days.
The longer we don't become energy independent of
OPEC, the rest of the world, the harder the oil era
ending crash will be. If we pump the oil out quickly,
it just means the drop after the peak then will be
more severe. And the more wars we will fight.
But several thing go against this, assuming Kerry
gets in and CAFE mileage standards rise quickly, EV's,
ethanol, biodiesel, Gas-diesel from coal, NG and the
Green River tar sands are ramped up quickly we will
just have to pay $3.5-4 gal and have a mild energy
crash.
Also you don't know how much the US can conserve
if gas prices get to $3-4+ a gal! In 73 we cut our
gasoline use 50% in less than a yr!!!!!! It's not that
hard because we waste so much. A good thing about
being energy hogs!
And there are people like me who drive electric
and can go into production of them and ramp up
quickly.
But if Bush wins, look out as the crash will be
much worse.
On Hubbert's Peak, maybe Hubbert was lucky, but
Kenneth Deffeyes who wrote the book, Hubbert's Peak in
2000 put it out in black and white. He got all the
best info available including what the other poster
said about funky numbers but what can't be denied is
the upward rate of oil use can't be sustained for
long. Even if the oil recoverable was twice what is
thought, it would only make the peak back 7 or so yrs.
But more likely there is less oil than claimed as
Opec hasn't lowered it's reserves despite pumping
massively for 30 yrs since setting them high so to get
bigger OPEC quota's.
Right now with oil at $54bbl overnight spot, it
could easily be said we are at the oil production peak
as we speak. Anyone want to bet???
And my EV cost $.01/mile for fuel to drive!!! Even
when run on my gas generator for long distance it gets
100mpg! Lets have a cheer for the Eff of EV's!!
So amid the crisis there is hope, opportunity for
those who want it. Pain to those who don't, won't
learn, plan for it.
HTH's,
jerry dycus

>
> The US economy collapsing at this time would take
> down every other modern
> industrialized nation with it -- bar none!!
>
> It would also take down China!!
>
> The mid-east would be lucky to "dump" crude at even
> $10 per barrel -- and
> on a highly devaluated US dollar.
>
> Expensive energy production schemes -- especially
> expensive complicated
> ones -- would be shut down immediately!!
>
> Global energy consumption would be probably 1/5 or
> less than these present
> times.
>
> So there you have it -- survival of our species
> depends on the US having a
> major economic meltdown ASAP!!
>
> We -- the rest of the world -- can only pray that
> GWB wins this next
> election and goes on to screw you all over more --
> thus saving this planet
> from a global Mad Max scenario!!
>
> Go GWB!!!
>
> For all the rest of you people living in modern
> societies of man at this
> time -- keep on living beyond your means --
> accelerate that habit -- the
> quicker you go deeper in debt -- the more chance of
> total economic failure
> -- and you will be saving this world!!
>
> Peter -- sitting it out from the distant side lines
> here in Belize!!
>
>
>
> At 01:42 PM 10/12/2004 -0400, Jonathan Pratt wrote:
> >With all the attention to peak oil I'd just like to
> point out the
> >un-sustainability of the US economy as it is
> presently structured. Probably
> >before world oil production peaks we will be in
> serious trouble for economic
> >reasons not related to fossil fuel extraction.
> >
> >As the United States imports 60% of the oil it
> consumes if something were to
> >occur economically that would disrupt imports in
> general it makes no
> >difference wether worldwide oil production declines
> or not because we will
> >simply be unable to obtain supplies from outside
> the country anymore.
> >
> >It would be one thing if we offset our imports with
> equal or greater exports
> >HOWEVER we have not had even had equal trade in
> decades and the problem is
> >only getting worse. Once the credit runs out (as
> it soon will) when China,
> >Japan and others stop selling us their goods on
> credit the whole ediface
> >will come crashing down. Some kind of terrorist
> related incident will only
> >accelerate this process or give the government a
> pretext to implement a
> >command economy which it will have to just to
> maintain order and keep people
> >from starving.
> >
> >Never minding the fact that the rising cost of oil
> and our present continued
> >dependence on it, it is a certainty that if OIL
> prices continue to rise
> >steadily or rise suddenly we it will plunge our
> economy into a recession or
> >worse because of the acute sensitivity of our
> economy to this one commodity.
> > Such an occurace will naturally make interest
> rates skyrocket, the dollar
> >plummet, the credit and trade and deficit spending
> stop (or become totally
> >ineffective for economic recovery) and the economy
> just grind to a halt.
> >
> >It is my estimation that an emergency program
> promoting energy independence
> >is needed yesterday and even a preparation to some
> kind of command economy
> >simply for the fact than in such conditions the
> "capitalist" system will
> >just fail. Globalization and massive deficit and
> deficit trade spending
> >will be starkly revealed for the fraud that they
> are.
> >
> >Jonathan Pratt

 


_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com

From gjahnke at birch.net Tue Oct 12 21:33:35 2004
From: gjahnke at birch.net (Greg Jahnke)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:33:35 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Peak Oil or Peak Economy?
References: <3.0.32.20041012123443.00994dd0@pop.btl.net>
<00ac01c4b0bc$4ee09da0$e328d4d8@shop>
<011e01c4b0c4$1ef46bf0$869a0a40@kevin>
Message-ID: <00cf01c4b0cd$47329ca0$e328d4d8@shop>

> Dear Greg
>
> Thanks for your interesting comments on Peter's analysis.
> ...del...>

=====No problem. I generally lurk here, as I only really know enough about
gasification to spin an engine and crank out a few amps. Politics and
economic matters.....Those I generally know.

> I don't understand why the mere posting of the price of oil in $US or in
> EURO would make any difference. The present price of oil, at say $US53 is
> equal to a posted price of EURO 43.04. As long as the $US did not devalue,
> if the price of oil was quoted at $43.04 per bbl, how would this be
harmful
> to the US?

=====It is more a symbolic thing than literal damage. Back int he "good old
days" exchange rates were such that American tourists could travel through
less developed nations buying up entire villages as travel momentos, and
small children to carry them. I recently heard from an associate who was
out of the country on business. He reports that the dollar was shunned at
the hotel he was staying at, they wanted either euros. The arabs dumping
the dollar as their currency of choice would certainly mean that the dollar
is in deep trouble.

On the literal side, the dollar being the currency of oil purchases does
help stabilise it to a degree (anytime you tie a currency to a marketable
tangible commodity it helps stabilise it). Of course, this can be a double
edged sword.

>
> > Expensive energy production schemes -- especially expensive complicated
> > ones -- would be shut down immediately!!
> >
> > =====Almost certainly
> >
> This is of great interest and importance to energy systems that are being
> proposed as an alternative to oil. What it means basically is that:
>
> 1: if the World Economy stays basically "as is", then projects that are
> presently uneconomic will remain uneconomic.
>
> 2: If the World Economy improves, and there is no significant economic
> collapse, then alternative projects will tend to become economic.
>
> 3: If the World Economy goes down, because of a failure in teh US Economy,
> then such projects will become increasingly uneconomic, in that oil prices
> will fall; the surplus of oil will result in depressed pricing, and
> consequently, a worsening of the economics for alternative energy
projects.

Exactly. Of course, in order to assume that oil prices would drop we would
have to assume that Israel does not nuke the rest of the middle east. Given
a collapse of the US economy, that is a huge assumption to make. From a
practical standpoint, Israels existance is based soley on US aid and
support. Witht he US unable to show up with a big bag of gold everytime
Israel runs out of money (which is fairly oftens since we are talking a
country with a poor industrial infrastucture and social policies so
offensive that no business man in their right mind would wish to do business
in such a volatile environment), A major ME conflict with israel at the
center is almost gauranteed. Israel has shown absolutly no compunction to
killing large number of civilians when it suits them, and we have no
realistic idea of how large their nuclear arsenal is. If you take most of
the large nations in the ME out of the equations, your oil is suddenly not
so cheap, even if you remove americas consumption.

> > We -- the rest of the world -- can only pray that GWB wins this next
> > election and goes on to screw you all over more -- thus saving this
planet
> > from a global Mad Max scenario!!
> >
> > =====This is kind of twisted logic. If kerry wins is he going to bring
> back
> > Americas industiral infrastucture, which has been rotting away for the
> last
> > 20 years? Whoever manages to take the election, the economy they
inherit
> is
> > shot. the best that can be hoped for is another four years of GDP
> numbers,
> > highly polished for public consuption. Another 4 years of debt driven
> > spending at both the public and private level. The simple fact of the
> > matter is, American manufaturing is pretty much gone, and is not coming
> > back. We have become a "service based" economy. We shuffle money
around
> > without creating tangible value and call it an economy. What a joke.
> >
> Does anyone know of ANY fundamental economic statistics for the US that
> would suggest a possibity of a "good news situation" being possible?

Please, not statistics tied to highly polished GDP numbers or inflationary
numbers which do not include food or energy.

> > Go GWB!!!
> >
> > =====Again, I don't think it matters which of those wankers wins.
> >
> Either way, it seems to look fundamentally bad for the US. Is there any
> reasonable basis to justify a belief that the US Economy can improve?

>From a practical standpoint, it doesn't look good. We have a 700+ billion
trade deficit, a federal deficit which is expected to increase every year
for the foreseeable future regardless of who wins the next election, and we
are raising interest rates not because of demand for expansion capitol
(which is traditionally why we raise interest rates) but in order to keep
foreign investors buying our treasury issues. In order to pacify these
investors, we are effectively going to destroy our domestic housing
industry, with each quarter point bump effectively pricing 5% of potential
buyers out of the market. We have equity markets largely being driven by
institutional traders churning commissions, and a public who is socking away
their "nest egg" in 401 kaput. We have politicians spending more and more
every year in some of the most shameless vote buying I can ever remember
seeing (such as the Medicare prescription plan, which is expected to be so
expensive that the closest we can come to a price tag is "at least a
trillion dollars") and they are buying these votes with our own money!

Our industrial infrastructure is as good as gone (for gods sake, we don't
even make tool steel any more) and it is questionable if there is enough
money left in the entire country at this point to rebuild it to the needed
level. Personal and public debt is at record levels, and we are looking at
a record high, both in dollars and percentage, of unfunded federal
obligations.

On top of all this, we have baby boomers preparing to retire, and expecting
social security checks.

Personally, I have not seen anything that even suggests real improvement in
the economy is eminent, or even possible. A deep hole indeed.

 

From jonpratt76 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 12 21:37:02 2004
From: jonpratt76 at hotmail.com (Jonathan Pratt)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:37:02 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Economy and Gasification
References: <20041013013308.64969E0F6@ns2.misteam.net>
Message-ID: <BAY17-DAV8yoVTvKRNZ0002a9b3@hotmail.com>

I am an American and my post had nothing to do with American bashing. I
simply report on what I observe going on around me. The totally backwards
structuring of our economy and energy infrastructure, the fraud of
globalization, out of control money system and debt spending which is
hyperinflationary. Trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities to American
Retiree's, an exploding health care system which only exacerbates the
retirement problem. Falling real wages and disappearance of jobs that pay
living wages. The already worthless dollar that is being propped up for as
long as possible on as many crutches as possible by the Bank of Japan and
others that know what will happen to the world economy and their holdings of
trillions of dollars of worthess US T-bills once the mightly dollar caves
and eventually reflects it's real value. It's not a free market when money
is manipulated like this. Free markets are a sham promulgated by those who
profit from hollowing out a developed economy in the process of shifting
production and wealth creation to "developing" nations in a head long race
to the bottom. Think may on the surface still look ok, because the
appearances of things continue to be manipulated and things are kept afloat
by the continued hallowing out of the US economy via deficit spending and
trade imbalances and continued manipulation and artificial support of the
value of the dollar. But under the surface a slow decline is continuing and
will only accelerate.

The economy is a perfectly relevent discussion for this forum for the fact
that all indicators are SCREAMING for us to adopt biomass gasification
systems on a large scale as a matter of national security. Plus yes if the
US economy sinks others will too, maybe not a total global meltdown because
the remedies are known. Adopt renewable energy sources, break up the world
money system and place it on a fixed value multiple currency system (versus
floating exhange rate), give up the sham of globalization for local
production and consumption for as many good as possible. Break up the
centralization of economic control and free each nation to actually produce
wealth for the benefit of their own people.

Jonathan

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:04:16 -0700
From: "Currie, Brian J SRM:EX" <Brian.Currie at gems3.gov.bc.ca>
Subject: RE: [Gasification] Peak Oil or Peak Economy?
To: "'Greg Jahnke'" <gjahnke at birch.net>,
gasification at listserv.repp.org
Message-ID: <E31361D72CA53E4AA21F5BBA8809376E07FF62B2 at frame.gov.bc.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain

To paraphrase a respected American, I think the predictions of the US
economic meltdown are somewhat exaggerated....too bad the anti-US bias has
to manifest itself in this forum - I still believe that many of the Chinese,
Russians and Europeans would give their right arms (sic) to live and prosper
in the US and although I have some disdain for the US way I still admire
them and the average American is a really decent sort - too bad more of them
don't get out to vote.....

 

From tmiles at trmiles.com Wed Oct 13 01:25:02 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:25:02 -0700
Subject: Fw: [Gasification] Energy Recovery
Message-ID: <017901c4b0ed$64ae2a90$6401a8c0@tomslaptop>

-----Original Message-----
From: Malcolm Lefcort [mailto:mlefcort at shaw.ca]
Sent: October 11, 2004 3:19 PM
To: 'gasification at listserv.repp.org'
Subject: RE: [Gasification] Energy Recovery

Another approach is to burn the bagasse in a two-stage Heuristic EnvirOcycler and then indirectly fire a gas turbine (via a hot gas to air heat exchanger) coupled to a 1.5 to 3 MWe generator with the bagasse?s 1,850F products of combustion (turbine inlet temperature = 1,550F), collect the hot air exhaust from the turbine (900F) and the exhaust from the heat exchanger 900F(?) and run both gas streams into a waste heat boiler with a stack temperature of 350F. The steam can be used to drive a 0.5 to 1.5 MWe condensing steam turbine generator set or for process heat. Such a power generation cycle dumps 2/3 less heat to condenser cooling water compared to a traditional condensing steam turbine (generating a full 2 to 5 MWe of power). See ASME paper on this subject at www.heuristicengineering.com

 

Malcolm Lefcort

Vancouver, BC

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Luiz Felipe Pellegrini
Sent: October 4, 2004 6:52 AM
To: kermit schlansker; gasification at listserv.repp.org
Subject: RES: [Gasification] Energy Recovery
Importance: High

 

Dear Kermit and all,

 

Last year, I have developed a simple model for bagasse gasification in order to evaluate some aspects concerning the use of such technology as an option for electricity generation in sugarcane mills. I have studied a combined cycle in which bagasse is gasified and the gas is used in a gas turbine to produce electricity. The heat from exhaust gases was used for the generation of steam for a Rankine cogeneration system. The production of electricity was 10 times higher than the one from the current technology, althoug the heat generation suffered a 40% reduction. This result leads to the well-known conclusion that the use of such technology in sugarcane mills is dependable on a steam consumption in the processes. In respect to efficencies, it should be clear that efficiencies based only on energy balances show little information regarding improvements related to gasification (for cogeneration systems!!!!), so the efficiency should be related to energy end entropy balances. In my study there was an increase from 17% to 21-25%.

One last word, the use of heat from cooling of the produced gas does no seem a good idea, in my opinion! I am not an expert in gasification process, so my opinion is based on technical papers that explore the problem of cleaning/conditioning of the gas, please correct me if I am wrong.

Well, I hope this information is useful.

 

Regards,

 

Luiz F. Pellegrini

Polytechnic School - University of S?o Paulo

-----Mensagem original-----
De: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]Em nome de kermit schlansker
Enviada em: S?bado, 4 de Outubro de 2003 12:09
Para: Gasification
Assunto: [Gasification] Energy Recovery

Energy from Steam

 

During the gasification process there are two sources of heat energy that might be turned into steam and into mechanical power. One of these is cooling of the hot gas as it comes from the generator. Some of this heat could be used to heat the air going into the gasifier but I think that need is small compared to the heat available. Another source of heat is that from the exhaust fumes of the engine. It seems to me that there should be considerable Rankine energy from these two sources. Obviously there should be an effort to use this energy. Can anyone more experienced than me do an analysis of the overall efficiency involved in the process of converting wood to power. It seems to me that the efficiency could be improved considerably.
In my opinion the ideal system would be one suited for combined heat and power in a large building. This could be of a size of 200k btu to one megabtu input.

 

Kermit Schlansker
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041013/9f05c9a9/attachment.html

From LINVENT at aol.com Wed Oct 13 05:43:14 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 06:43:14 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Peak Oil or Peak Economy?
Message-ID: <3908C7BB.645A7689.00168ACC@aol.com>

As one famous American said "the reports of my death are greatly exaggerated". If history is to repeat itself, if the US goes into an economic meltdown, the world will catch pneumonia if we catch cold. This happened in 1929 when the interactions of the various economies was less than it is now. The Chinese will suffer because of the lack of our huge market, the UN would shut down because of the lack of financial support which the US is a major contributor, the exporting of tourists from the US all over the world would affect large numbers of countries.
In my opinion, we spend much too much money on the wrong things. There is no one in Washington which has the guts to say no to everyone having an upper middle class life. offending someone who wants a handout and that this is the way to stay in office. In reality, the respect of not caving in to every demand is called leadership and only one of our presidential candidates has any.
I had lunch the other day with my banker and said that R. Perot was right and we can here his correctness today, "That giant sucking sound". Unless we stop our mindless spending, there will be a day of reckoning. Some of this might be good. If the gov't only does the absoutely necessary things, then some of the excess regulations may not be in place like OSHA,minimum wage, other labor laws, unemployment insurance, excessively high payroll and other taxes and those overseas jobs will come back here.
--
Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
7100-F 2nd St. NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107
Phone: 505-761-5633, fax: 505-341-0424 Web:thermogenics.com

 

From dglickd at pipeline.com Wed Oct 13 08:41:54 2004
From: dglickd at pipeline.com (Dick Glick)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:41:54 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Peak Oil or Peak Economy?
References: <E31361D72CA53E4AA21F5BBA8809376E07FF62B2@frame.gov.bc.ca>
Message-ID: <003901c4b12a$67d101b0$0200a8c0@cframcomp>

Hello All --

Apropos of the "topic-of-the-day" -- you might like to examine an article in
today's New York Times,

"China Crushes Peasant Protest, Turning 3 Friends Into Enemies

By JOSEPH KAHN, New York Times, October 13, 2004"

There is much suffering in the US, but the extracts, below, from the above
mentioned reference -- characterizes much in current India (the peasants
voted in the current government -- not a chance that will happen in China)
and Russia.

 

"China has not yet figured out how to make its capitalist-style
economic growth egalitarian. It has become one of the developing world's
most unequal societies."

 

"The government uses China's 800 million farmers to provide grain,
labor and capital for urban development. State banks take deposits in rural
areas but make loans almost exclusively to richer ones. The authorities pour
resources into prestigious urban projects, like the $1.24 billion Shanghai
spent to build a state-of-the-art Formula One racetrack and play host to the
European event through 2010."

 

"Villages rarely get such help. All farm families, regardless of income,
pay land and agriculture taxes as well as fees for social services, often
exceeding what wealthier urban residents pay."

 

I can not justify energy consumption in the US -- why can't we consume at
the level of the 'old EU'? Considering a calamitous collapse of the US
economy, what other fraction of the world's population will purchase all
those Chinese and Asian goods when the US stops its consumption?

 

Best, Dick

www.CorpFutRes.com

 

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

From: "Currie, Brian J SRM:EX" <Brian.Currie at gems3.gov.bc.ca>
To: "'Greg Jahnke'" <gjahnke at birch.net>; <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 9:04 PM
Subject: RE: [Gasification] Peak Oil or Peak Economy?

> To paraphrase a respected American, I think the predictions of the US
> economic meltdown are somewhat exaggerated....too bad the anti-US bias has
> to manifest itself in this forum - I still believe that many of the
> Chinese,
> Russians and Europeans would give their right arms (sic) to live and
> prosper
> in the US and although I have some disdain for the US way I still admire
> them and the average American is a really decent sort - too bad more of
> them
> don't get out to vote.....
>

From snkm at btl.net Wed Oct 13 09:58:14 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:58:14 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Some hard math -- less dreams -- biomass
energy realities.
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041013085642.0094ea00@pop.btl.net>

Hi Jerry and all;

I have been experimenting with cane processing for two years now on a very
small scale. Certainly -- extraction of ethanol is costly on the micro
level. Especially labor intensive.

My next experiment will probably be in the direction of plant oils for fuel
-- specifically African Oil Palm. The new "clones" available from Costa
Rica work out to 6000 liters per acre.

But really -- these projects are to intensive for any individual to
accomplish in 3rd world. They need be village level to work. That is an
entire village need become involved.

Sugarcane is one of the most energy intensive crops of all -- but must be
broadly exploited.

One needs convert bagasse to thermal energy then to electrical energy.

I am presently reading studies of animal feeding using cane syrup and yeast
by-product of fermentation. With some bagasse as fiber for the diet.

The press cake from oil extraction also makes good animal feed.

I'm looking at small closed systems for sustainable existence --

Certainly -- in a rich -- to fat -- civilization of man (Be that the US
(champion consumer of all) or any of the other well industrialize modern
nations) there is no hope of such projects meeting anywhere near the
present requirements of it's citizens.

And that is the point David Pimental makes so well.

Quoting:

Note that in 1850, more than 91% of the energy used in the United States
came from wood burning (Pimentel and Pimentel,1996:15).

and

United States citizens currently use about 9 kWyr/cap/yr of net energy from
the burning of fossil fuels (see calculation at end); so 1 million ha of
sugarcane would provide about 0.0485 / 9 = 0.5% of the energy presently
supplied to U.S. citizens from fossil fuels.

"Consumerism" is the deadly poison spewing out and killing our planet dead!!

Even here -- people are now far to spoiled to consider living a life where
one must work 12 hours per day just to sustain life!!

Yet they did exactly that -- very successfully -- from the beginning of
recorded history to just 30 years ago -- here -- in Belize.

Instead of materialism as a motivator -- they derived personal satisfaction
from Family -- village -- religion and other social interactions.

They lived long healthy lives -- no heart diseases -- no nervous breakdowns
-- no divorcing of family -- no crime (yes -- read the history -- no crime!!)

They lived contented without materialism.

I believe such villages might well still exist in parts of India today --
though modern ways are swiftly conquering all such -- even as I type this
note.

One can only come to this conclusion. The system as a whole is to far gone
to be repaired. Best burn the house down -- build anew from the ashes --
and hope that we do not end with a repeat of our present situation.

Fixing problems of the nature we witness here has occurred in history --
not so far back either.

One single man raised a large country from complete anarchy and deprivation
to become a true super power and leader in this world in 30 years -- but at
the cost of viciously killing off 1/3 of it's population.

I'll let you guess who -- and which country.

I hardly consider that a viable option -- because -- in the end -- today --
has it solved this same problem we are discussing?? No!!

We can't seem to live susatainably as a species on this planet any longer.
We have become totally dependent on fossil fuels for survial -- and can't
break that habit because to many live a life style to grossly energy
consuming.

Certainly -- one should light a candle -- but maybe one should be cautious
exactly where on earth they plan to shine that candle??

EG:

Lighting that very large candle of Ethanol in the US is in fact
insignifcant -- but lighting a very tiny candle of aguahol here in Belize
would be highly significant.

Jerry -- all IC engines work extremely well fueling with aguahol -- strong
rum -- 80% alcohol.

Yet I note your committed to pure ethanol?? Which is orders more intensive
to produce than aguahol.

Same in sugar manufacturing. India sells small micro-sized village sugar
factories.

These produce one tone of pure sugar per day by crystallization process --
and 2 tons per day of semi crystallized sugar called Gari -- we call that
panela here.

As such -- manufacturing costs are orders less than in modern factories
where they extract white sugar at over 98%!!

The Gari is a very good food -- for humans or animals.

This entire factory sells for $31,000 US and requires 100 acres of cane.

I contacted a coop of such farms in India a few years back -- 540 farms.
They were selling white sugar for $130 US per ton -- then.

It costs us over $245 to make on ton of sugar in our sugar factory here in
Belize.

This Indian sugar factory is very basic -- all manually operated. No
automation at all.

One can only wonder where our modern ideals of engineering are taking us to
-- and be they the problem rather than the solution??

The dominant part of our present human species is to fat -- to out of it --
to survive without the humungous energy subsidy in their lives of cheap
fossil fuels.

We have become parasite rather than symbiotic -- this addiction to cheap
energy -- and so much of it -- will be the end of this world as we know it.

Always remember -- human nature itself tends to grow extremely violent at
even the suggestion of deprivation.

The fatter the subject -- the much easier deprivation is sensed.

your a fine example of one on an energy diet - -as far as personal
transportaion is concerned -- if all the rest would follow this same course
-- we probably could eek out some more time.

But mechanized agriculture alone -- with it great cost in fossil fuels just
to feed you -- is enough to crumble existence.

You could put 60% of your population back to food production in the old --
not fossil fuel dependent -- manner.

But seriously -- what chance of this happening before Mad Mad takes over --
eh??

Short of repeating that social experiment mentioned above ---

Your all situated poorly to be lighting candles -- eventually -- I believe
-- you will get to know this.

Your largest problem is not the increasing price of gasoline -- but your
eventual food security crisis!

And that is one crisis I can avoid -- right here -- right in my yard.

Peter -- in Belize

At 05:54 PM 10/12/2004 -0700, jerry dycus wrote:
> Hi Peter and All,
> I wouldn't believe much of what David
>Pimental says as a lot has been proven wrong like his
>papers on corn ethanol.
> He forgets things like the corn has better
>value as a livestock feed as it is predigested and has
>increase protein from the yeast.
> He also didn't take into account the heat
>savings from recycling the heat from the outgoing
>alcohol back to the incoming feedstock stream. ect.
> Or the fact that they could energized the
>plant with a gasifier running off gasifying the corn
>stover or solar.
> Thus getting your feedstock for free by making
>more income streams so the cost of the ethanol is only
>the cost of transporting the corn and processing it.
> Also money could be made gasifying more of the
>corn stover for electric sales. The ash returned to
>the fields for the next crop.
> In fact he used the highest possible costs and
>ignored other revenue streams, savings common to
>industry.
> I think he gets his money from the oil
>industry judging from his bias. They are worried
>about ethanol a lot so follow the money!
> This is the last person you should hang your
>hat to Peter!
> HTH's,
> jerry dycus
>

 

From snkm at btl.net Wed Oct 13 10:21:36 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:21:36 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Peak Oil or Peak Economy?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041013092029.0097f330@pop.btl.net>

At 09:41 AM 10/13/2004 -0400, Dick Glick wrote:
>Hello All --
>
>Apropos of the "topic-of-the-day" -- you might like to examine an article in
>today's New York Times,
>
>I can not justify energy consumption in the US -- why can't we consume at
>the level of the 'old EU'? Considering a calamitous collapse of the US
>economy, what other fraction of the world's population will purchase all
>those Chinese and Asian goods when the US stops its consumption?
>

China has embraced materialism big time. And as such -- is doomed if the US
goes down. And even doomed -- eventually -- if the US does not fail!!

And I just posted in regards to materialism corrupting the villages.

As for more democracy -- consider this for example:

Remember the book "Animal Farm" -- well -- make that "Park Place"

Park Place is a large reserve that is in the midst of a highly developed
country and has been established to allow one tiny part go along naturally
-- with out "interference" thus -- staying in the true "nature of things"
mode.

Rule number one is:

Don't feed the animals!

The park goes democracy -- and one political aspirant makes for his
platform this promise.

Vote for me and I will abolish that law!!

Now -- just who do you figure will win that election -- and what do you
think becomes of that "natural reserve"??

Democracy was well described by Cicero 2000 years ago as: "Rule by the mobs"

The US was founded as a republic -- not a democracy!! And with all kinds of
legal writings in it's constitution to guarantee it stay a republic!

But yes -- now it is a democracy!!

Animal Farm -- Park Place -- modern USA -- all one and the same now.

The most deadly invention to the order of human civilization was probably
TV and the mass media that resulted.

You all have but one option -- and that not a promised one either -- escape
before it is to late!

Anyone willing to do some "time-line" figuring??

We really do not need that much of an energy crisis for full blown global
war to start.

What is the purpose of having the perfect gasifier if your situated in a
nuclear target zone??

Peter -- Belize

>
>
>Best, Dick
>
>www.CorpFutRes.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>From: "Currie, Brian J SRM:EX" <Brian.Currie at gems3.gov.bc.ca>
>To: "'Greg Jahnke'" <gjahnke at birch.net>; <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 9:04 PM
>Subject: RE: [Gasification] Peak Oil or Peak Economy?
>
>
>> To paraphrase a respected American, I think the predictions of the US
>> economic meltdown are somewhat exaggerated....too bad the anti-US bias has
>> to manifest itself in this forum - I still believe that many of the
>> Chinese,
>> Russians and Europeans would give their right arms (sic) to live and
>> prosper
>> in the US and although I have some disdain for the US way I still admire
>> them and the average American is a really decent sort - too bad more of
>> them
>> don't get out to vote.....
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

From dschmidt at undeerc.org Wed Oct 13 10:36:06 2004
From: dschmidt at undeerc.org (Schmidt, Darren)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:36:06 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Piston Engines
Message-ID: <3F678EC15E6D8F4EA7CDC3F389D9CC7E0117DD33@undeerc.eerc.und.NoDak.edu>

For entertainment value:

If I said I can buy a power plant and produce electricity at 45% - 50%
efficiency would you believe me?

If I said I was going to do it with a diesel engine would you believe me?

FYI -
http://www.wartsila.com/english/pdf/Marine/MN_articles/14cyl_for_RTA96C.pdf
<http://www.wartsila.com/english/pdf/Marine/MN_articles/14cyl_for_RTA96C.pdf
>

http://www.manbw.com/ <http://www.manbw.com/>

It is interesting to think about operation of these engines with producer
gas. Low speed is helpful for improving the efficiency of producer gas
combustion, the limiting factor could be compression ratio.

Darren D. Schmidt, P.E., Research Manager

Energy & Environmental Research Center

University of North Dakota

15 N. 23rd St.

Grand Forks, ND 58203

(701) 777-5120, fax 5181

dschmidt at undeerc.org <mailto:dschmidt at undeerc.org>

www.undeerc.org <http://www.undeerc.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041013/5aaa2787/attachment.html

From Liftcontrol at aol.com Wed Oct 13 10:36:10 2004
From: Liftcontrol at aol.com (Liftcontrol at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:36:10 EDT
Subject: Fwd: [Gasification] Peak Oil or Peak Economy?
Message-ID: <e1.326d09d.2e9ea56a@aol.com>

...they are already looking for you!!

Tom
Germany

 

n einer eMail vom 12.10.2004 20:51:02 Westeurop?ische Sommerzeit schreibt
snkm at btl.net:

>
>
> I believe you are all missing the main point. Should the US actually go
> into a precipitous economic melt down -- equal to or more profound than the
> last great depression of the late 20's -- the rest of humanity would be
> "saved".
>
> There would no longer be a shortage of energy!!
>
> The US economy collapsing at this time would take down every other modern
> industrialized nation with it -- bar none!!
>
> It would also take down China!!
>
> The mid-east would be lucky to "dump" crude at even $10 per barrel -- and
> on a highly devaluated US dollar.
>
> Expensive energy production schemes -- especially expensive complicated
> ones -- would be shut down immediately!!
>
> Global energy consumption would be probably 1/5 or less than these present
> times.
>
> So there you have it -- survival of our species depends on the US having a
> major economic meltdown ASAP!!
>
> We -- the rest of the world -- can only pray that GWB wins this next
> election and goes on to screw you all over more -- thus saving this planet
> from a global Mad Max scenario!!
>
> Go GWB!!!
>
> For all the rest of you people living in modern societies of man at this
> time -- keep on living beyond your means -- accelerate that habit -- the
> quicker you go deeper in debt -- the more chance of total economic failure
> -- and you will be saving this world!!
>
> Peter -- sitting it out from the distant side lines here in Belize!!
>
>
>
> At 01:42 PM 10/12/2004 -0400, Jonathan Pratt wrote:
> >With all the attention to peak oil I'd just like to point out the
> >un-sustainability of the US economy as it is presently structured.
> Probably
> >before world oil production peaks we will be in serious trouble for
> economic
> >reasons not related to fossil fuel extraction.
> >
> >As the United States imports 60% of the oil it consumes if something were
> to
> >occur economically that would disrupt imports in general it makes no
> >difference wether worldwide oil production declines or not because we will
> >simply be unable to obtain supplies from outside the country anymore.
> >
> >It would be one thing if we offset our imports with equal or greater
> exports
> >HOWEVER we have not had even had equal trade in decades and the problem is
> >only getting worse. Once the credit runs out (as it soon will) when China,
>
> >Japan and others stop selling us their goods on credit the whole ediface
> >will come crashing down. Some kind of terrorist related incident will only
>
> >accelerate this process or give the government a pretext to implement a
> >command economy which it will have to just to maintain order and keep
> people
> >from starving.
> >
> >Never minding the fact that the rising cost of oil and our present
> continued
> >dependence on it, it is a certainty that if OIL prices continue to rise
> >steadily or rise suddenly we it will plunge our economy into a recession or
>
> >worse because of the acute sensitivity of our economy to this one
> commodity.
> > Such an occurace will naturally make interest rates skyrocket, the dollar
> >plummet, the credit and trade and deficit spending stop (or become totally
> >ineffective for economic recovery) and the economy just grind to a halt.
> >
> >It is my estimation that an emergency program promoting energy independence
>
> >is needed yesterday and even a preparation to some kind of command economy
> >simply for the fact than in such conditions the "capitalist" system will
> >just fail. Globalization and massive deficit and deficit trade spending
> >will be starkly revealed for the fraud that they are.
> >
> >Jonathan Pratt
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee?
> >Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Gasification mailing list
> >Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> >http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041013/469c35c1/attachment.html
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net>
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Peak Oil or Peak Economy?
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:46:15 -0600
Size: 6378
Url: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041013/469c35c1/attachment.mht

From gjahnke at birch.net Wed Oct 13 11:07:07 2004
From: gjahnke at birch.net (Greg Jahnke)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:07:07 -0500
Subject: Fw: [Gasification] Peak Oil or Peak Economy?
Message-ID: <006d01c4b13e$b1068620$6728d4d8@shop>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Jahnke" <gjahnke at birch.net>
To: <LINVENT at aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Peak Oil or Peak Economy?

> > As one famous American said "the reports of my death are greatly
> exaggerated". If history is to repeat itself, if the US goes into an
> economic meltdown, the world will catch pneumonia if we catch cold. This
> happened in 1929 when the interactions of the various economies was less
> than it is now. The Chinese will suffer because of the lack of our huge
> market, the UN would shut down because of the lack of financial support
> which the US is a major contributor, the exporting of tourists from the US
> all over the world would affect large numbers of countries.
>
> =====How many Americans do you really know who spend a lot of time
> globetrotting? Not a lot I would guess. Americans don't travel abroad,
and
> when they do, it is best to avoid them like the plague, since they tend to
> be rude and obnoxious. While the number of countries that rely heavily on
> tourism for their livelyhood is fairly large, the number of countries that
> rely primarily on American tourism can be counted on one hand. I really
> don't think that the failure of Jamaica due to the loss of American
tourist
> dollars is likely to make a big difference as far as global concerns go.
>
> The chinese are already forging trade contracts with other nations,
> effectively distancing themselves from America. While the loss of the
> American market would certainly cause some headaches in Bejing, the
> opportunities it would present would far outweigh any potential adverse
> effects. China would be in an excellent position to corner the global
> economy.
>
>
> > In my opinion, we spend much too much money on the wrong things. There
is
> no one in Washington which has the guts to say no to everyone having an
> upper middle class life. offending someone who wants a handout and that
this
> is the way to stay in office. In reality, the respect of not caving in to
> every demand is called leadership and only one of our presidential
> candidates has any.
>
> ======Which one is it (the canidate who is not a special interest whore)?
I
> have looked pretty hard at both, and neither one seems to be what you
> describe.
>
> > I had lunch the other day with my banker and said that R. Perot was
right
> and we can here his correctness today, "That giant sucking sound". Unless
we
> stop our mindless spending, there will be a day of reckoning. Some of this
> might be good. If the gov't only does the absoutely necessary things, then
> some of the excess regulations may not be in place like OSHA,minimum wage,
> other labor laws, unemployment insurance, excessively high payroll and
other
> taxes and those overseas jobs will come back here.
>
>
> =====On this we can agree 100%. For 150 years, our government managed to
> survive on roughly 5% of our GDP. Now they are sucking down more than 50%
> of GDP. It has to end somewhere. The trick seems to be getting people to
> think for themselves and sit up and take notice. Unfortunatly, our mass
> media makes it so easy to divert peoples attention from "unpleasant"
things.
>

 

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Wed Oct 13 11:48:44 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:48:44 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Piston Engines
Message-ID: <014f01c4b144$81467f70$1900a8c0@a31server>

 

Hello Darren & all.

I am in total agreement with you, low RPM engines are a great key to
producer gas utilization, in a better efficiency structure than small piston
"rev it to death" little stuff, this is why I opted for the North American
classic "Chevy 350cid V-8" decent size, built to last a lifetime (and then
some) and really really plentiful in the scrap yards.

So far all my tests indicate 1800-2100 rpm is the working area of my
configuration, I have ordered a "Torque Camshaft" that in theory, should
spread that rpm area to roughly 1600- 2500 rpm (I wish to keep the 2100 mark
for my config) getting the extra 400 rpm above is the key I'm looking for)
as the generator I'm using is a 4 pole 1800rpm unit. (under driven via
reduction from the motor, 2100 to 1800 reducer).

Winter is coming (projected snowfall for this weekend)

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Schmidt, Darren
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 10:36 AM
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Subject: [Gasification] Piston Engines

For entertainment value:

 

If I said I can buy a power plant and produce electricity at 45% - 50%
efficiency would you believe me?

If I said I was going to do it with a diesel engine would you believe me?

 

FYI -
http://www.wartsila.com/english/pdf/Marine/MN_articles/14cyl_for_RTA96C.pdf

 

http://www.manbw.com/

 

It is interesting to think about operation of these engines with producer
gas. Low speed is helpful for improving the efficiency of producer gas
combustion, the limiting factor could be compression ratio.

 

Darren D. Schmidt, P.E., Research Manager

Energy & Environmental Research Center

University of North Dakota

15 N. 23rd St.

Grand Forks, ND 58203

(701) 777-5120, fax 5181

dschmidt at undeerc.org

www.undeerc.org

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041013/a542ec8e/attachment.html

From LINVENT at aol.com Wed Oct 13 11:58:13 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:58:13 EDT
Subject: Fw: [Gasification] Peak Oil or Peak Economy?
Message-ID: <1a6.29de759c.2e9eb8a5@aol.com>

The Chinese are massive holders of our debt. They buy it to preserve our
economy so they can make more money on it.
As an example of our spending affecting international economies, when we
announced our troop withdrawal out of Europe, the cries were loud. We subsdize
our "allies" with huge infusions of capital from our troops being there. In
my travels in Italy, the Asians are a large number of tourists, but there are
also substantial US ones there. Most of the ones I have met are not the "UGLY
AMERICANS" as historically been the past, but the natives leave something to be
desired. Asians are a pain in the behind. Once you show an interest in the
natives, they are quite warm and friendly. The business deal I am involved in
there has an ugly American involved, but he originates from Napoli.
When the US defaults on its massive debt, the resulting chaos will result
in order. Our massive political influence will vaporize. We have no right to
tell other countries how to run their lives. This is the resentment felt
around the world. Our expectations will not have to be met. If we do not have the
funds to support Israel, will the Arabs continue to bomb us?
Just think of how much synthetic fuels we could produce if the amount of
money we put into our global dominance were spent on building coal or other
fueled synthetic fuels plants? South Africa was smart enough to do this decades
ago and has not been ravaged over oil politics.
Pete Peterson, a major architect of the 1985 legislation which prevents
congressional overspending which has since been ignored, stated that besides
the financial irresponsibility, it is morally corrupt to hand our children such
a massive debt upon their birth. It is a reflection of the general moral decay
of the US. It cannot be cured by an election. Historically, only after the
decay of luxury does stoicism return and the culture recover. A civilization is
born in stoicism and dies in epicureanism.

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 oscar at geprop.cu Wed Oct 13 12:38:16 2004
From: oscar at geprop.cu (Oscar Jimenez)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:38:16 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Economy and Gasification
Message-ID: <A6C7CDF4EB4F92459A97B5514EC9F1D9092038@geprop-server.172.16.1.254>

>>Adopt renewable energy sources, break up the world
>money system and place it on a fixed value multiple currency system (versus
>floating exhange rate), give up the sham of globalization for local
>production and consumption for as many good as possible. Break up the
>centralization of economic control and free each nation to actually produce
>wealth for the benefit of their own people.

...good...!!!...but making it comes true, taking into account the way of thinking of some powerful political leaders, is almost science fiction...!!!!

Oscar.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Jonathan Pratt [mailto:jonpratt76 at hotmail.com]
Enviado el: martes, 12 de octubre de 2004 21:37
Para: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Asunto: [Gasification] Economy and Gasification

I am an American and my post had nothing to do with American bashing. I
simply report on what I observe going on around me. The totally backwards
structuring of our economy and energy infrastructure, the fraud of
globalization, out of control money system and debt spending which is
hyperinflationary. Trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities to American
Retiree's, an exploding health care system which only exacerbates the
retirement problem. Falling real wages and disappearance of jobs that pay
living wages. The already worthless dollar that is being propped up for as
long as possible on as many crutches as possible by the Bank of Japan and
others that know what will happen to the world economy and their holdings of
trillions of dollars of worthess US T-bills once the mightly dollar caves
and eventually reflects it's real value. It's not a free market when money
is manipulated like this. Free markets are a sham promulgated by those who
profit from hollowing out a developed economy in the process of shifting
production and wealth creation to "developing" nations in a head long race
to the bottom. Think may on the surface still look ok, because the
appearances of things continue to be manipulated and things are kept afloat
by the continued hallowing out of the US economy via deficit spending and
trade imbalances and continued manipulation and artificial support of the
value of the dollar. But under the surface a slow decline is continuing and
will only accelerate.

The economy is a perfectly relevent discussion for this forum for the fact
that all indicators are SCREAMING for us to adopt biomass gasification
systems on a large scale as a matter of national security. Plus yes if the
US economy sinks others will too, maybe not a total global meltdown because
the remedies are known. Adopt renewable energy sources, break up the world
money system and place it on a fixed value multiple currency system (versus
floating exhange rate), give up the sham of globalization for local
production and consumption for as many good as possible. Break up the
centralization of economic control and free each nation to actually produce
wealth for the benefit of their own people.

Jonathan

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:04:16 -0700
From: "Currie, Brian J SRM:EX" <Brian.Currie at gems3.gov.bc.ca>
Subject: RE: [Gasification] Peak Oil or Peak Economy?
To: "'Greg Jahnke'" <gjahnke at birch.net>,
gasification at listserv.repp.org
Message-ID: <E31361D72CA53E4AA21F5BBA8809376E07FF62B2 at frame.gov.bc.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain

To paraphrase a respected American, I think the predictions of the US
economic meltdown are somewhat exaggerated....too bad the anti-US bias has
to manifest itself in this forum - I still believe that many of the Chinese,
Russians and Europeans would give their right arms (sic) to live and prosper
in the US and although I have some disdain for the US way I still admire
them and the average American is a really decent sort - too bad more of them
don't get out to vote.....

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

From snkm at btl.net Wed Oct 13 12:47:28 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:47:28 -0600
Subject: Fw: [Gasification] Peak Oil -- Big Warts -- orimulsion fuel
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041013114609.0096d3f0@pop.btl.net>

Very well spoken Tom!!

Actually -- even if America stops importing foreign goods (an impossibility
with it's oil habit maybe??) the global economy would crash!

The next trick in bag is to seriously devaluate US dollar -- catching Japan
and China -- etc -- right where it hurts the most. As well as all oil
producers.

This should gain a year or two for american super suctioning of global
resources..

I am on record for this prediction -- made a few years back:

Prediction made in 2001:

Peters prediction for the demise
of Belize economy is MARCH 2005.
Melt down for the US is 2008

Let me tell you -- the Belize prediction is right on schedule!

"The Ugly American"

In the book of that title he was somewhat of a hero -- an engineer in a 3rd
world environment.

There is really nothing new under the sun -- we simply are living in a
period where the worst of history is about to repeat itself -- again -- and
again and again.

Regarding the big Warts -- they were testing a version to burn orimulsion
-- a very economic substance produced in Venezuela -- a bitumen emulsion if
you will.

Price for btu value being quite a bit less than coal.

http://orimulsionfuel.com/origin/Benefits/factecon.pdf

There are astronomical amounts of this fuel available --

Does anyone know how the Wartsila trials ended -- Arnt??

Believe there is at least one thermal power plant in Florida fueling with
this as well.

Shades of what could be done with Canadian Tar Sand's deposits -- eh??

I'm also surpised that Warts are not burning as fuel coal dust/water slurry
as of yet!

One has to always watch those big diesels -- and where they are going at.

If price of power sold is high enough -- it pays to install and Ormat waste
heat power plant to the Big Wart and your riding the 65% over all
efficiency lines then!

That would make quite a reduction in global fuel requirements for
electrical power generation right there.

Normal fuel for a Big Wart is pure crude oil.

We do not lack for solution -- but we do lack for people to apply them!

What would sace this planet from peak oil scenario is a couragous american
President that four increase the price of energy by a factor of four --
right down the line!! Basically -- what they are already paying -- if not
higher -- in Europe now!!

But that would mean some americans would suffer (retirees in Florida would
no longer be able to afford air-condtioning -- as example) -- and one can't
have that -- better destroy this entire civilization of man kind first!!

And last -- of course it makes no difference who wins this coming election!!

Except that with GWB the worse comes quicker -- probably.

I'm an impatient sort of fellow -- so would vote GWB -- as in "Bring It On"!!

And leave all the Neocoms and the Lukids controlling them in power to!!

Then we don't have to wait long at all!!

Peter

At 12:58 PM 10/13/2004 EDT, LINVENT at aol.com wrote:
> The Chinese are massive holders of our debt. They buy it to preserve our
>economy so they can make more money on it.
> As an example of our spending affecting international economies, when we
>announced our troop withdrawal out of Europe, the cries were loud. We
subsdize
>our "allies" with huge infusions of capital from our troops being there. In
>my travels in Italy, the Asians are a large number of tourists, but there
are
>also substantial US ones there. Most of the ones I have met are not the
"UGLY
>AMERICANS" as historically been the past, but the natives leave something
to be
>desired. Asians are a pain in the behind. Once you show an interest in the
>natives, they are quite warm and friendly. The business deal I am involved
in
>there has an ugly American involved, but he originates from Napoli.
> When the US defaults on its massive debt, the resulting chaos will
result
>in order. Our massive political influence will vaporize. We have no right to
>tell other countries how to run their lives. This is the resentment felt
>around the world. Our expectations will not have to be met. If we do not
have the
>funds to support Israel, will the Arabs continue to bomb us?
> Just think of how much synthetic fuels we could produce if the amount of
>money we put into our global dominance were spent on building coal or other
>fueled synthetic fuels plants? South Africa was smart enough to do this
decades
>ago and has not been ravaged over oil politics.
> Pete Peterson, a major architect of the 1985 legislation which prevents
>congressional overspending which has since been ignored, stated that besides
>the financial irresponsibility, it is morally corrupt to hand our children
such
>a massive debt upon their birth. It is a reflection of the general moral
decay
>of the US. It cannot be cured by an election. Historically, only after the
>decay of luxury does stoicism return and the culture recover. A
civilization is
>born in stoicism and dies in epicureanism.
>
>Leland T. Taylor
>President
>Thermogenics Inc.
>7100-F 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107 Phone: 505-761-5633,
fax:
>341-0424, website: thermogenics.com.
>In order to read the compressed files forwarded under AOL, it is necessary
to
>download Aladdin's freeware Unstuffit at
>http://www.stuffit.com/expander/index.html
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Wed Oct 13 13:09:15 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:09:15 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Piston Engines, clarification
Message-ID: <015901c4b14f$c07cbeb0$1900a8c0@a31server>

Hello to all,

I would like to clarify, my last post, regarding my choice of engine.

Rather than a inline 4 or 6, or a V-6 configuration, I opted for the V-8
(wish I could get an old flathead version (for simple cleanup)) however, all
being all, to "purchase" (re: new stuff) a large displacement 4 or 6 would
be currently out of my price range (over $25,000.00 US invested in complete
CHP system so far).

My "Wish List" would be a 280-350 CID SI inline flathead 4 Cyl. with a
maximum rpm of 2000-2200

Kevin C.??? where did you go ?? wana donate one ? Just Kidding....

One could go with what we term here as "Big Block" (long stroke, lower rpm)
but the scrap yards want lots for these, that is my reasoning for the much
more abundant "small block" shorter rod, & crank throw, but very dependable,
however even these would be construed as "Long throw" in comparison to the
newer engines of today's cars.

"Get them from the scrap yards before they are gone :)"

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

 

From Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk Wed Oct 13 13:21:20 2004
From: Gavin at aa3genergi.force9.co.uk (Gavin Gulliver-Goodall)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:21:20 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Wales UK gasification system
In-Reply-To: <12e.4e0e53a0.2e9c37f1@aol.com>
Message-ID: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGKEMGDPAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>

Need to ask AJH on this one...

Gavin

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of LINVENT at aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 20:25
To: tombreed at comcast.net; sylva at iname.com; gasification at listserv.repp.org
Subject: [Gasification] Wales UK gasification system

I have been told that there is a gasification system in or South of Wales,
UK. Is there any awareness of this project?

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

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Wed Oct 13 15:21:32 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:21:32 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Gassification and the US Electrical Motor Industry
Message-ID: <f6.427fddd9.2e9ee84c@aol.com>

Thanks for your encouragement.... My wife says I need very little ... to
become insufferable. U have been warned.

What I have been trying to do is eliminate landfills in Fla, build a new non
tourism industry in Fla and clean up the environment in Fla while making the
state revenue and creating a stable job base in our rural counties. I am a
former state Disaster Engineer and Former Appointed Member of the Lake Co..
Landfill Oversight Committee.

Interestingly I now have some really interested parties to help me do this.

I put together a survey of how to do this which included technology of Plasma
Redux Gasification, Ethanol and Bio Ethanol and use of our known and abundant
waste streams the only resource growing in Fla that is guaranteed. E mail me
and I will send you a copy in PDF. Gassifiers in your traditional applications
were not found in my search. Only steam and plasma.

An observation of Gasification and U S Electrical Motor Industry

In 1981 I met this really impressive rich guy in fractional electrical motor
sales and he gave me the following story. I have shortened it but you will get
the connection to what you are trying to do.

GE and Westinghouse were the world leaders in electrical motors under 5 HP.
These motors were everywhere. in AC blowers, pumps, lift stations, etc. They
were all cast iron cased, designed specific for one application and weighed a
great deal. Each motor required tooling castings and design work and lots of
machine work to make and assemble. They were pricey to make in mass, ship and
store in bulk inventory.

Japan came along and said stamped steel case, interchangeable bearings roller
needle bushing and multi use adaptive mounting brackets literally one size
fits many if not all applications.

Took over the market nearly overnight.

Cheaper, faster, easier shipped and one design adaptable knew what you would
get overtime.

They also could sell in bulk as they made it cheaper in assembly line runs.

Gassifiers makers really need to follow this idea. At least two are doing it
or should I say making an really good effort at trying to do it.

Failure to claim market YOUR share. Where is it?
You gassifier folks are looking at the same news I am looking at. Rising
energy prices needed in production of food, fertilizer, electrical power, process
energy, water purification, irrigation, flood control, mining, smelting,
concrete and brick making.

Allegedly You make these systems now. Where are your PAST AND PRESENT
demonstration projects and joint deals in these needy industries. ( three exceptions
noted ).

There are a few folks out there you need to get friendly with. High
Efficiency Generator companies, Users of 1 to 25 MW of 24/7 on site power would be a
start. Heat exchanger makers would be high on my list too.

Then you need to also look at the available supply streams of what ever is
available as gassifier Feedstocks for your system. It has been done already for
most US waste.

When I once was an employment counselor assigned to get the really hard core
unemployed jobs I was amazingly effective at placements and job developments
not by using the classified ads and yellow pages as my colleagues did I used
the OBITS for fresh job leads. All you need is there you just need to look at
it differently.

In Miami the Dead also vote.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041013/f72d7600/attachment.html

From MMBTUPR at aol.com Wed Oct 13 16:01:02 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:01:02 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Worldwide Gasification Database
Message-ID: <8b.1723976a.2e9ef18e@aol.com>

to Gasification list from Lewis L. Smith

This summer I was traveling around and about, back and forth, for four
months ! So I didn't have time to keep good records or read things very
carefully, and just downloaded stuff that might turn out to be interesting and/or
useful.

Now I am back in Puerto Rico and have printed or discard over two
hundred documents already, out of more than three hundred ! Among them is a highly
detailed, five-paged table entitled "Worldwide Gasification Database",
covering plants with a wide variety of feeds. You can download it from ?

< netl.doe.gov/coal/gasification/models/dtbs(excell).PDF > .

Cordially.

End.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041013/d61bb8a1/attachment.html

From snkm at btl.net Wed Oct 13 16:26:22 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:26:22 -0600
Subject: Fw: [Gasification] Peak Oil -- China puts brake on
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041013152030.009c6e70@pop.btl.net>

Current to dicussion -- in todays -- just now -- news

The sell-off happened amid new reports that China would be taking measures
to slow its rapid economic growth, which would in turn hurt copper, steel
and aluminum prices.

"A slowing Chinese economy would put a damper on commodity prices,"
Schrader said. "People are concerned that would hurt the global economy."

These concerns sparked a sell-off in the commodities futures markets and in
many of the stocks.

********************************************

We forget -- China is not a Democracy -- they need not march off cliff to
satisfy mob!

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Oct 13 16:42:34 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:42:34 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Some hard math -- less dreams -- biomass energy
realities.
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20041013085642.0094ea00@pop.btl.net>
References: <3.0.32.20041013085642.0094ea00@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <20041013234234.11040dd0.arnt@c2i.net>

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:58:14 -0600, Peter wrote in message
<3.0.32.20041013085642.0094ea00 at pop.btl.net>:

> One single man raised a large country from complete anarchy and
> deprivation to become a true super power and leader in this world in
> 30 years -- but at the cost of viciously killing off 1/3 of it's
> population.
>
> I'll let you guess who -- and which country.

..Stalin or Mao?

> But seriously -- what chance of this happening before Mad Mad takes
> over -- eh??

..eh, he did, in 2000, remember those "ballot recounts" in Florida? ;-)
Etc.

--
..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 LINVENT at aol.com Wed Oct 13 17:31:01 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:31:01 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Gassification and the US Electrical Motor Industry
Message-ID: <81.1803eff6.2e9f06a5@aol.com>

Dear Mr. Wheeler,
Your preaching to the gasification industry is tiring and unnecessary. I
don't think that anyone in the industry does not understand what is needed to
get it off the ground, but hasn't the resources to apply to the long term
needs of the industry. Most of us are too poor to pay attention, let alone spend
time lobbying and the various other needs the industry has before it. None of
what you say is wrong, it just doesn't have to be beat into our heads.
In spite of the rising fuel costs, industry is not willing to take the
risk on unproven technology....periodddd. Not until there are natural gas
curtailments, brown outs, and whatever else where their livelihood is on the line
will they do anything so risky. I get this day in and out. At that point, the
demand for gasification would be so high that the response to the market would
be limited anyhow.
The ironic self-defeating aspect of this is the longer the high energy
costs drain profits from companies, the less they are going to have the
resources to buy gasification systems. Sort of how you boil a frog.

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 Wed Oct 13 17:38:50 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:38:50 +0200
Subject: Fw: [Gasification] Peak Oil -- Big Warts -- orimulsion fuel
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20041013114609.0096d3f0@pop.btl.net>
References: <3.0.32.20041013114609.0096d3f0@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <20041014003850.27c903dc.arnt@c2i.net>

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:47:28 -0600, Peter wrote in message
<3.0.32.20041013114609.0096d3f0 at pop.btl.net>:

> I am on record for this prediction -- made a few years back:
>
> Prediction made in 2001:

..which message, or when in 2001?

> Peters prediction for the demise
> of Belize economy is MARCH 2005.
> Melt down for the US is 2008

..
> Does anyone know how the Wartsila trials ended -- Arnt??

..sorry, haven't followed them that closely, all I need to know is they
are profitable with my gasifiers. ;-)

...
> I'm an impatient sort of fellow -- so would vote GWB -- as in "Bring
> It On"!!

..I'd rather have a combat proven chief in command over any sissy boy
war criminal, I'd like to have a post war market in Asia and Africa too,
that means somebody there will have survive the "asteroid" strikes.

..independently from that election race, I have a $30 bet going with my
neighbor on whether or not Sissy Boy George will be arrested for trial
for war crimes (genocide, oil pillage, failure of command and failure
to supress war crimes, and keeping al-Qaeda and Halliburton mercenaries
alive) and treason (exposing Gitmo, and overextending US troops) by
the end of his (first) term on January 20'th 2005. ;-)

.."Surely, after executing 152 Death Row inmates,
he is man enough for his own medicine?" ;-)

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

 

From snkm at btl.net Wed Oct 13 18:45:43 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:45:43 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Some hard math -- less dreams -- biomass
energyrealities.
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041013174401.009cf100@pop.btl.net>

At 11:42 PM 10/13/2004 +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:58:14 -0600, Peter wrote in message
><3.0.32.20041013085642.0094ea00 at pop.btl.net>:

>>
>> I'll let you guess who -- and which country.
>
>..Stalin or Mao?

Stalin -- Mao never did manage to kill off 1/3 of the Chinese -- but
otherwise -- another fine example -- more current to!

 

From jerry5335 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 19:22:13 2004
From: jerry5335 at yahoo.com (jerry dycus)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gasification] Some hard math -- less dreams -- biomass energy
realities.
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20041013085642.0094ea00@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <20041014002213.7825.qmail@web41012.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi Peter and All,
--- Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net> wrote:

>
> Hi Jerry and all;
>
> I have been experimenting with cane processing for
> two years now on a very
> small scale. Certainly -- extraction of ethanol is
> costly on the micro
> level. Especially labor intensive.

Yes but not that expensive if mechanical
harvesting is used. And those harvesters can run
easily on producer gas, ethanol,ect.

>
> My next experiment will probably be in the direction
> of plant oils for fuel
> -- specifically African Oil Palm. The new "clones"
> available from Costa
> Rica work out to 6000 liters per acre.
>
> But really -- these projects are to intensive for
> any individual to
> accomplish in 3rd world. They need be village level
> to work. That is an
> entire village need become involved.

That's why I'd tend to oil seed like peanuts, ect.
Also F-T process to turn biomass into fuel.

>
> Sugarcane is one of the most energy intensive crops
> of all -- but must be
> broadly exploited.

Really, here you just plant it and 2 yrs later you
harvest it. Current world price is about $.06-.08/lb!
For that you can buy it, turn it into ethanol and
still make a profit!!!
Didn't he say 2.2kg of sugar makes 1kg of ethanol?
So you need 6.6kg at $.07lb of sugar to make 1 US
gal of ethanol so that equals about $1.00/gal.
If using cane juice to make it costs go down to
about $.60/gal to make it for feedstock and $.15/gal
to proces into 90% ethanol. That sounds ok to me cost
wise even with the lower energy content of ethanol
included..
Not to mention the jobs it will make and the extra
economic boost of keeping the money here to make more
jobs rather than letting it go to some Saudi Prince!
This goes for all US alt fuels.
It's, cane, is only energy intensive if done by
hand!
But with corn, you get 3+ crops a yr from the same
land and all those byproducts like corn oil, animal
feed, gasifying stalks, ect..
So do you see why I think Pimental is full of it?
>
> One needs convert bagasse to thermal energy then to
> electrical energy.
>
> I am presently reading studies of animal feeding
> using cane syrup and yeast
> by-product of fermentation. With some bagasse as
> fiber for the diet.
>
> The press cake from oil extraction also makes good
> animal feed.
>
> I'm looking at small closed systems for sustainable
> existence --

>
> Certainly -- in a rich -- to fat -- civilization of
> man (Be that the US
> (champion consumer of all) or any of the other well
> industrialize modern
> nations) there is no hope of such projects meeting
> anywhere near the
> present requirements of it's citizens.

Bull!!

>
> And that is the point David Pimental makes so well.

No he doesn't, it's a very biased view as shown.

>
> Quoting:
>
> Note that in 1850, more than 91% of the energy used
> in the United States
> came from wood burning (Pimentel and
> Pimentel,1996:15).
>
> and
>
> United States citizens currently use about 9
> kWyr/cap/yr of net energy from
> the burning of fossil fuels (see calculation at
> end); so 1 million ha of
> sugarcane would provide about 0.0485 / 9 = 0.5% of
> the energy presently
> supplied to U.S. citizens from fossil fuels.

He seems to make the opposite point in his
calculations on yield.
The world price of sugar says it is profitable
compared to current oil prices. No?

> We can't seem to live susatainably as a species on
> this planet any longer.
> We have become totally dependent on fossil fuels for
> survial -- and can't
> break that habit because to many live a life style
> to grossly energy
> consuming.

I can, have and do!!! And because of the way I
live, I only have to work 8 hrs/week to sustain
myself.
And I use AC and don't lack for what I need, what
I want maybe, another story though ;-)). But as the
song says, you may not get what you want, but you
usually get what you need.
It can easily be done and will be done as the oil
era comes to a close.
I agree it won't be easy for a lot of people. They
will get over it!!!
>
> Certainly -- one should light a candle -- but maybe
> one should be cautious
> exactly where on earth they plan to shine that
> candle??
>
> EG:
>
> Lighting that very large candle of Ethanol in the US
> is in fact
> insignifcant -- but lighting a very tiny candle of
> aguahol here in Belize
> would be highly significant.

Disagree, I did the numbers a while back and
ethanol can provide about 15-20% of our transport
needs. Not a small amount.
And without increasing the costs of food. We have
food coming out our ears!!! And much land not planted
that use to be.

>
> Jerry -- all IC engines work extremely well fueling
> with aguahol -- strong
> rum -- 80% alcohol.
>
> Yet I note your committed to pure ethanol?? Which is
> orders more intensive
> to produce than aguahol.

No I'm not.
In fact like 90% ethanol/10% water as a fuel. Most
of the energy fron making ethanol comes from getting
the last 10% of the water out of it. Another thing
Pimental doesn't bother to mention!
The problem with it is you need an engine designed
for it where ethanol/gas can be used in present cars
up to 35% without problems.
A 90% ethanol engine can be high compression, 13/1
or more, very eff, high output from a 20% smaller
sized engine than compared to gasoline of the same hp.
And it will last longer from slower flame front
propagation which is why you can use the more eff,
higher compression ratios..
H2 has very fast flame propagation thus hammers
engines.
>
> Same in sugar manufacturing. India sells small
> micro-sized village sugar
> factories.
>
> These produce one tone of pure sugar per day by
> crystallization process --
> and 2 tons per day of semi crystallized sugar called
> Gari -- we call that
> panela here.
>
> As such -- manufacturing costs are orders less than
> in modern factories
> where they extract white sugar at over 98%!!
With the world price so low I doubt that. Their
energy cost are so high in India it makes sense for
them but not most places.
As for your other comments about the costs of
growing food, it's not anywhere near as bad as you say
and can easily be powered by energy made on the farm
such as producer gasifiers, ect for energy, bugs-ect,
healthy crops instead of pesticides and farm made
fertilizers instead of the energy hog versions.
On my level of energy use, if all in the US did
as I do we would be energy independent now!
We make almost all our electricity from US energy
sources and supply about 50% of our
oil needs, mostly for transport.
So if it really hits the fan we can just by
conserving, cut our import needs 50% quickly without
much pain other than better planning our trips,
driving slower, filling our tires to max pressure, use
their highest mileage car formost trips, ect.
So while it will be painful, it will be worse for
the rest of the world because our economy will take a
fall until we ramp up alt fuels, buy smaller cars, ect
which will take 10 yrs to work itself out.

jerry dycus
>
> The Gari is a very good food -- for humans or
> animals.


_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com

From snkm at btl.net Wed Oct 13 21:18:03 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:18:03 -0600
Subject: Fw: [Gasification] Peak Oil -- Big Warts -- orimulsion fuel
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041013191407.009c3950@pop.btl.net>

At 12:38 AM 10/14/2004 +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:

>
>..I'd rather have a combat proven chief in command over any sissy boy
>war criminal, I'd like to have a post war market in Asia and Africa too,
>that means somebody there will have survive the "asteroid" strikes.
>
>..independently from that election race, I have a $30 bet going with my
>neighbor on whether or not Sissy Boy George will be arrested for trial
>for war crimes (genocide, oil pillage, failure of command and failure
>to supress war crimes, and keeping al-Qaeda and Halliburton mercenaries
>alive) and treason (exposing Gitmo, and overextending US troops) by
>the end of his (first) term on January 20'th 2005. ;-)
>
>.."Surely, after executing 152 Death Row inmates,
>he is man enough for his own medicine?" ;-)

It might be of interest to note than in the last times of the 1st Roman
Empire -- when it had went from republic to democratic style governing --
they just kept getting worse and worse rulers.

After that collapsed "internally" with much Chaos and death -- the new
system that emerged was a very powerful totalitarian system that did go out
and really conquer the world.

Shades of Stalin and Mayo actually -- with maybe a splash or two of Hitler.

They went on for a clear five hundred years of total domination -- and 500
more of partial but effective domination.

Course -- many other countries in History reached this same stage of over
feeding -- getting to fat -- and did not go on to become major power houses
controling the rest of the planet after.

France -- post their troubles -- though Napoleon did give it a good shot
for a while there.

Today we have new rules -- nukes can fly -- and all can just go down the
drain.

My argument is simple -- the US has developed itself to the point that only
people like Bush and Kerry can be rulers.

Rome had worse psychopaths than GWB for rulers near their ending times.

Course -- when I was young -- in Canada -- no one would have ever dreamed
the US would eventually elect a ruler like GWB -- but then again -- they
didn't -- did they??

To tell the truth -- I have not even bothered entering Kerry's name into my
spell checker -- why even bother -- he'll be old news soon.

 

From snkm at btl.net Wed Oct 13 21:18:02 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:18:02 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Some hard math -- less dreams -- biomass
energyrealities.
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041013185854.009df3b0@pop.btl.net>

At 05:22 PM 10/13/2004 -0700, jerry dycus wrote:
> Hi Peter and All,
>--- Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net> wrote:
> The world price of sugar says it is profitable
>compared to current oil prices. No?
>

It is a very strange market place -- certainly -- you lose you shirt fast
here making and selling sugar for $160 a ton when it costs you $245 per ton
just to put the machine in gear.

 

 

From snkm at btl.net Wed Oct 13 21:18:05 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:18:05 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Supercritical Water Gasification of Biomass
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041013201758.009d9100@pop.btl.net>

Spent some time today updating my personal Hard Drive archives on the
latest into my favorite means of gasifying. Googling for gold -- if you will.

Here is an interesting review of present objectives.

I also downloaded an interesting set of ongoing experiments -- long study
ahead though -- but they uses a cement pump to charge the reaction chamber
with biomass slurry!!

How very creative!! Being as that was one of the major design hurdles that
killed many other attemps.

So -- they pulp the wood by hogging or grinding -- blender well with water
-- make slurry -- use cement pump to charge the reaction vessle -- produce
lot's of rich H2 gas -- or methane.

Also -- here is another interesting Url on this subject:

http://www.btgworld.com/technologies/supercritical-gasification.html

Peter -- Belize

***************************************

http://www.energy.iastate.edu/renewable/biomass/cs-water.html

Supercritical Water Gasification of Biomass

Grant #: 99-01
Principal Investigator: Gary A. Aurand
Organization: The University of Iowa
Technical Area: Renewable Energy

Background and Significance:

Biomass feedstocks are a tremendous potential resource for providing energy
and value-added products, especially in agricultural areas where waste
biomass is abundant or where dedicated energy crops can be produced cheaply
and efficiently. However, increased competitiveness will require advances
in technologies for converting Iowa biomass to value-added products. This
project is an investigation into the use of supercritical fluids,
particularly supercritical water, to efficiently produce valuable products
from biomass.

A supercritical fluid is defined as a substance that is at conditions of
temperature and pressure that are above its vapor-liquid critical point. At
supercritical conditions, a fluid does not meet the definition of a liquid
because it can't be made to boil by decreasing the pressure at constant
temperature. Also it is not a vapor because cooling at constant pressure
won't cause it to condense. Water is a supercritical fluid above 374?C and
22 MPa, 706?F and 3191 psi. Supercritical fluids in general possess unique
solvating and transport properties compared to liquids or gases.
Supercritical fluids can have liquid-like densities, gas-like
diffusivities, and compressibilities that deviate greatly from ideal gas
behavior. Under supercritical conditions, solid solubility often is
enhanced greatly with respect to solubility in the gas or liquid solvent.
Supercritical water in particular has the ability to dissolve materials not
normally soluble in liquid water or steam and also seems to promote some
types of chemical reactions. These properties make supercritical water a
very promising reaction medium for the conversion of biomass to value-added
products.

Organic compounds, including lignocellulosic material such as solid biomass
will readily dissolve in supercritical water. Once dissolved, supercritical
water will efficiently break cellulose bonds. The reactions generally are
not selective, resulting in the rapid formation of gaseous products. This
type of biomass gasification can be used to produce hydrocarbon fuels for
use in an efficient combustion device or to produce hydrogen for use in a
fuel cell. In the latter case, hydrogen yield can be much higher than the
hydrogen content of the biomass due to steam reforming where water is a
hydrogen-providing participant in the overall reaction.

Many organic chemicals that typically do not react in water without the
presence of strong acid or base catalysts will readily react under
hydrothermal conditions. This fact can be exploited to convert biomass to
valuable chemical products. Hydrolysis is a type of reaction that commonly
occurs under hydrothermal conditions, and glucose is an intermediate
hydrolysis product in the hydrothermal decomposition of cellulose.

Typically, the severe reaction conditions of supercritical water result in
subsequent decomposition of hydrolysis intermediates to form primarily
gaseous products. However, at slightly milder near-critical temperatures
water can be used to convert biomass to valuable chemicals. For example, in
principle, glucose from cellulose decomposition can be further converted to
a variety of water-soluble liquid products such as fructose and erythrose.
Erythrose is a high-value chemical with a catalog price of about $50/gram
for 60% D-erythrose syrup. The development of such processes to convert
biomass feedstocks to valuable fuels and chemicals is necessary for
expanding a carbohydrate-based economy that will benefit agricultural
states such as Iowa.

Project Objectives:

Specially constructed hydrothermal reactors will be used to study reactions
of organic matter in supercritical water mixtures. Initially, purified
biomass components such as cellulose and starch will be used as feedstocks,
and the products will be identified and measured. These and subsequent
investigations will increase understanding of the fundamental chemical
reactions occurring during biomass conversion in supercritical or
near-critical water. Using knowledge gained from earlier experiments,
reactions using whole biomass will be conducted to find conditions
favorable for the production of valuable products. The ultimate goal is to
develop a practical process for the conversion of whole biomass such as
corn stover into valuable chemicals or fuels.

Summary of Work:

1. Quantify products from model biomass components.
Relatively well-defined biomass components such as cellulose, lignin, and
starch will be reacted in supercritical and near-critical water under a
variety of reaction conditions. The conversion products will be identified
and quantified. The product distributions then will be compared for the
different feedstocks to determine the effect of reaction conditions on the
reactivities of the major biomass components.

2. Evaluate products from model component mixtures.
Model biomass components will be blended to represent the compositions of
relevant Iowa-produced biomass such as corn stover. Conversion product
distributions from these mixtures of artificial biomass will be compared to
the compositions predicted based on individual reactivities.

3. Determine the effect of salts, minerals and trace metals.
Real biomass contains a variety of salts, minerals, and trace metals not
present in purified model compounds. Many are present due to the biological
incorporation of nutrients into living tissue and others come from soil or
other impurities on the tissue surface. In general these species can be
dissolved under hydrothermal conditions. The presence of metals and
minerals in the reaction mixture may significantly alter the reaction
behavior. For example, silica, which is abundant in biomass, will form
silicic acid under hydrothermal conditions. The effect may be to promote
certain acid catalyzed reactions, thereby changing the product
distribution. Other species, even in trace amounts, may act to catalyze
some conversion reactions. Also, the presence of salts may substantially
increase the corrosiveness of hydrothermal solutions. Relevant minerals
such as silica will be added to model biomass feedstocks to determine the
effects on conversion reactions. When performing these experiments, the
wetted parts of the system will be inspected often for signs of accelerated
corrosion.

Contact Information:

Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering
University of Iowa
4133 Seamans Center
Iowa City, IA 52242
319-384-0970
e-mail: gary-aurand at uiowa.edu

 

From snkm at btl.net Wed Oct 13 21:56:51 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:56:51 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Supercritical Water Gasification of Biomass
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041013205516.009da1e0@pop.btl.net>

Interestingly -- China is investigating super critical water gasification:

http://www.xjtu.edu.cn/en/staff&faculty/Instructors.EN/00476.htm

Also -- for those of you that might like to experiment in this domain but
wonder how you would ever make of find such a reaction vessle -- found this
company that does nothing but!

http://www.autoclaveengineers.com/index.asp?loc=/Supercritical_Fluid_Systems
/Supercritical_Water_Pressure_V/&title=Supercritical%20Water%20Pressure%20Ve
ssels

Cutting right to the chase --

Subcritical water & supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) equipment

Introduction

Supercritical water & subcritical water vessels are the preferred "green
chemistry" reactors for oxidation & hydrolysis. Oxidize waste chemicals
into H2O, CO2 & salts. Supercritical water oxidation (hydrothermal
oxidation) can be called incineration without the smokestack. Near critical
water's (NCW) unique solvent properties (both organic & ionic compounds
dissolve) makes it suitable as a replacement process solvent (low VOC) for
sustainable chemistry.

AE Closure offer pressure ratings to 7,800 psig (538 bar) @ a temperature
of 1,100?F (593?C)

INCONEL? 625, titanium , HASTELLOY? & exotic nickel based alloys are
offered for corrosion resistance

*********************

Or this model -- if you want to do commercial size from the get go:

Features

Operating Pressures to 45,000 psi (3,104 bar)

Temperatures to 1,000?F (538?C)

Inside Diameters to 45" (1143 mm) and Lengths to 50 Feet (13.7 Meters).
Specific sizes determined for each application

Various Closures Available Depending on Process Requirements

Metal or ceramic crucibles for high temperature applications

Control packages including data acquisition

Internal or external furnaces

ASME CE, TUV or other applicable code stamps are available

Valve racks, pumping systems

Various materials of construction available depending on application

*************************

They also sell pumps for this -- but suggest going with the cement pump
which is already proven for biomass slurries.

Re:

Conclusion
1.A semi-solid gel can be made from 4 wt %(or less)corn starch in water.
Wood sawdust and other particulate biomass can be mixed into this gel and
suspended herein, forming a thick paste. This paste is easily delivered to
a supercritical flow reactor by a cement pump.

Get the entire PDF on that deal at:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/25315hh.pdf

and last -- from this same pdf:

Above the critical pressure of water, wood sawdust can be steam reformed
over a carbon catalyst to a gas composed entirely of hydrogen,carbon
dioxide,methane,and a trace of carbon monoxide. There are effectively no
tar or char byproducts.The liquid water effluent from the reactor has a low
TOC value,a neutral pH,and no color.This water can be recycled to the reactor.

Course everyone is chasing after the H@ dream -- making a rich methane
biogass using this same process is even easier. Less pressure -- less hight
temps.

Biomass "Natural" gas anyone??

But then -- would our older school gasifiers on this list be happy without
having the fun of fuel processing (drying it down to exactly such and such)

No work solving tar and char problems --

And having an exit pressure more than enough to charge present technology
natural gas transport vehicle tanks without needing a pump!!

Getting full rated power and efficiencies for existing engines --

Etc -- Etc --

Hell no -- that would be far to easy!!

Acknowledgments:

This work was supported by NREL/DOE under cooperative agreement
DE-FC36-94AL85804,
and the Coral Industries Endowment of the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

There you go -- invented in the US -- soon to be coming from China!

Well -- that is this years report on "Supercritical Water Gasification of
Biomass"

If you want a lot more -- just enter those exact words above -- inside the
quote marks -- into google search engine.

If you search well you should find the work going on in directly gasifying
biomass into liquid fuels -- in that case -- butane -- which is a portable
fuel you know!

Two reactors -- end to end -- biomass in -- butane out.

And under those pressures -- a liguid in a tank!

Butane is such a nice fuel.

Peter -- Belize

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Thu Oct 14 00:04:21 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 01:04:21 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Ans Subject How to Boil a frog question by Leland T.
Taylor
Message-ID: <6.35824df8.2e9f62d5@aol.com>

ANS Subject How to Boil a frog.

Dear Leland:

You put together a proposal that produces a demonstrated profit over cost for
a commercial private customer like a concrete plant needing electrical power
and process heat that is established by you a reputable manufacturer that is
willing to guarantee the project will work and produce exact amount of EPA
certified ash and emissions and identify a similar operational plant you built
that non believers can see operate with the TV crew in tow. Also need a video
tape of the operational plant you designed and built.

And you send it to me now. PDF

Along with my proposed commission/agency agreement we will discuss the terms
depending on how much work I need to do.

In Fla we do frogs Gators and Crocs too

Albest Leonard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041014/19751281/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Thu Oct 14 00:13:02 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 01:13:02 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Sugar ethanol person. Send me an e mail I have a
present for you in PDF
Message-ID: <42.5a40bfc7.2e9f64de@aol.com>

Albest
Leonard Wheeler
Eustis, Fla
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041014/3ff10c4a/attachment.html

From MMBTUPR at aol.com Thu Oct 14 05:55:29 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:55:29 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Food vs. fuel
Message-ID: <1ef.2cc8e117.2e9fb521@aol.com>

to Gasification list from Lewis L.
Smith

I recently returned from four months of travel and had a chance to
download and study some recent postings.

Mine of 27 August this subject generated a number of far-ranging,
informative postings, including Art Krenzel's of 28 and 29 August, Leland T.
Taylor's of 29 August and Tom Miles' of 29 August.

This is just to say thanks.

Cordially.

End.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041014/929919c5/attachment.html

From MMBTUPR at aol.com Thu Oct 14 08:24:29 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:24:29 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] What am I doing on this list ?
Message-ID: <82.189cf723.2e9fd80d@aol.com>

to Gasification list from Lewis L. Smith

Having recently returned to Puerto Rico after four months of travel, I
am trying to pick up the threads which were left dangling last may and answer
accumulated e-mail.

This is in answer to David's post of 26 August above subject.

Hopefully members can find Community Power Corporation at < gocpdc.com >
. They seem to be on the right track, in the world of small gasifiers.

Please someone fill us in on what is meant by "integrated systems" in ag
jargon. I take it that we are not talking about the idea of crop rotation
[which was developed by European monasteries in medieval times] nor about
intercropping but something else. The first is a sequential process. In a given
field, a different crop is planted each year and in a predetermined order. The
second is alternating the crops by rows. The third is ???

Cordially.

End.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041014/0c7e87e0/attachment.html

From tombreed at comcast.net Thu Oct 14 09:36:08 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (TBReed)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:36:08 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Some hard math -- less dreams -- biomass
energyrealities.
References: <20041014002213.7825.qmail@web41012.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <007901c4b1fb$27d45130$3201a8c0@OFFICE>

Dear All:

We seem to be examining a "survival of civilization when oil is gone" mode.
Good!

JD said amongst a lot of other things......

> > One needs convert bagasse to thermal energy then to
> > electrical energy.

Not quite: You need to gasify it to producer or synthesis gas. Then you
have the options of

Heat
Power (in existing IC engines or fuel cells or microturbines or ....)
Liquid fuels (methanol, FT diesel and gasoline, biodiesel from the methanol)
Ammonia and all forms of fixed nitrogen (without which current civilization
collapses - and ammonia costs are going through the roof because of natural
gas prices - the US is importing more than 50% of our ammonia)

So gasification is the key to survival.

TOM REED LIST MODERATOR
----- Original Message -----
From: "jerry dycus" <jerry5335 at yahoo.com>
To: <Gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Some hard math -- less dreams -- biomass
energyrealities.

> Hi Peter and All,
> --- Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Jerry and all;
> >
> > I have been experimenting with cane processing for
> > two years now on a very
> > small scale. Certainly -- extraction of ethanol is
> > costly on the micro
> > level. Especially labor intensive.
>
> Yes but not that expensive if mechanical
> harvesting is used. And those harvesters can run
> easily on producer gas, ethanol,ect.
>
> >
> > My next experiment will probably be in the direction
> > of plant oils for fuel
> > -- specifically African Oil Palm. The new "clones"
> > available from Costa
> > Rica work out to 6000 liters per acre.
> >
> > But really -- these projects are to intensive for
> > any individual to
> > accomplish in 3rd world. They need be village level
> > to work. That is an
> > entire village need become involved.
>
> That's why I'd tend to oil seed like peanuts, ect.
> Also F-T process to turn biomass into fuel.
>
> >
> > Sugarcane is one of the most energy intensive crops
> > of all -- but must be
> > broadly exploited.
>
> Really, here you just plant it and 2 yrs later you
> harvest it. Current world price is about $.06-.08/lb!
> For that you can buy it, turn it into ethanol and
> still make a profit!!!
> Didn't he say 2.2kg of sugar makes 1kg of ethanol?
> So you need 6.6kg at $.07lb of sugar to make 1 US
> gal of ethanol so that equals about $1.00/gal.
> If using cane juice to make it costs go down to
> about $.60/gal to make it for feedstock and $.15/gal
> to proces into 90% ethanol. That sounds ok to me cost
> wise even with the lower energy content of ethanol
> included..
> Not to mention the jobs it will make and the extra
> economic boost of keeping the money here to make more
> jobs rather than letting it go to some Saudi Prince!
> This goes for all US alt fuels.
> It's, cane, is only energy intensive if done by
> hand!
> But with corn, you get 3+ crops a yr from the same
> land and all those byproducts like corn oil, animal
> feed, gasifying stalks, ect..
> So do you see why I think Pimental is full of it?
> >
> > One needs convert bagasse to thermal energy then to
> > electrical energy.
> >
> > I am presently reading studies of animal feeding
> > using cane syrup and yeast
> > by-product of fermentation. With some bagasse as
> > fiber for the diet.
> >
> > The press cake from oil extraction also makes good
> > animal feed.
> >
> > I'm looking at small closed systems for sustainable
> > existence --
>
>
>
> >
> > Certainly -- in a rich -- to fat -- civilization of
> > man (Be that the US
> > (champion consumer of all) or any of the other well
> > industrialize modern
> > nations) there is no hope of such projects meeting
> > anywhere near the
> > present requirements of it's citizens.
>
> Bull!!
>
> >
> > And that is the point David Pimental makes so well.
>
> No he doesn't, it's a very biased view as shown.
>
> >
> > Quoting:
> >
> > Note that in 1850, more than 91% of the energy used
> > in the United States
> > came from wood burning (Pimentel and
> > Pimentel,1996:15).
> >
> > and
> >
> > United States citizens currently use about 9
> > kWyr/cap/yr of net energy from
> > the burning of fossil fuels (see calculation at
> > end); so 1 million ha of
> > sugarcane would provide about 0.0485 / 9 = 0.5% of
> > the energy presently
> > supplied to U.S. citizens from fossil fuels.
>
> He seems to make the opposite point in his
> calculations on yield.
> The world price of sugar says it is profitable
> compared to current oil prices. No?
>
>
>
> > We can't seem to live susatainably as a species on
> > this planet any longer.
> > We have become totally dependent on fossil fuels for
> > survial -- and can't
> > break that habit because to many live a life style
> > to grossly energy
> > consuming.
>
> I can, have and do!!! And because of the way I
> live, I only have to work 8 hrs/week to sustain
> myself.
> And I use AC and don't lack for what I need, what
> I want maybe, another story though ;-)). But as the
> song says, you may not get what you want, but you
> usually get what you need.
> It can easily be done and will be done as the oil
> era comes to a close.
> I agree it won't be easy for a lot of people. They
> will get over it!!!
> >
> > Certainly -- one should light a candle -- but maybe
> > one should be cautious
> > exactly where on earth they plan to shine that
> > candle??
> >
> > EG:
> >
> > Lighting that very large candle of Ethanol in the US
> > is in fact
> > insignifcant -- but lighting a very tiny candle of
> > aguahol here in Belize
> > would be highly significant.
>
> Disagree, I did the numbers a while back and
> ethanol can provide about 15-20% of our transport
> needs. Not a small amount.
> And without increasing the costs of food. We have
> food coming out our ears!!! And much land not planted
> that use to be.
>
> >
> > Jerry -- all IC engines work extremely well fueling
> > with aguahol -- strong
> > rum -- 80% alcohol.
> >
> > Yet I note your committed to pure ethanol?? Which is
> > orders more intensive
> > to produce than aguahol.
>
> No I'm not.
> In fact like 90% ethanol/10% water as a fuel. Most
> of the energy fron making ethanol comes from getting
> the last 10% of the water out of it. Another thing
> Pimental doesn't bother to mention!
> The problem with it is you need an engine designed
> for it where ethanol/gas can be used in present cars
> up to 35% without problems.
> A 90% ethanol engine can be high compression, 13/1
> or more, very eff, high output from a 20% smaller
> sized engine than compared to gasoline of the same hp.
> And it will last longer from slower flame front
> propagation which is why you can use the more eff,
> higher compression ratios..
> H2 has very fast flame propagation thus hammers
> engines.
> >
> > Same in sugar manufacturing. India sells small
> > micro-sized village sugar
> > factories.
> >
> > These produce one tone of pure sugar per day by
> > crystallization process --
> > and 2 tons per day of semi crystallized sugar called
> > Gari -- we call that
> > panela here.
> >
> > As such -- manufacturing costs are orders less than
> > in modern factories
> > where they extract white sugar at over 98%!!
> With the world price so low I doubt that. Their
> energy cost are so high in India it makes sense for
> them but not most places.
> As for your other comments about the costs of
> growing food, it's not anywhere near as bad as you say
> and can easily be powered by energy made on the farm
> such as producer gasifiers, ect for energy, bugs-ect,
> healthy crops instead of pesticides and farm made
> fertilizers instead of the energy hog versions.
> On my level of energy use, if all in the US did
> as I do we would be energy independent now!
> We make almost all our electricity from US energy
> sources and supply about 50% of our
> oil needs, mostly for transport.
> So if it really hits the fan we can just by
> conserving, cut our import needs 50% quickly without
> much pain other than better planning our trips,
> driving slower, filling our tires to max pressure, use
> their highest mileage car formost trips, ect.
> So while it will be painful, it will be worse for
> the rest of the world because our economy will take a
> fall until we ramp up alt fuels, buy smaller cars, ect
> which will take 10 yrs to work itself out.
>
> jerry dycus
> >
> > The Gari is a very good food -- for humans or
> > animals.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
> http://vote.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

 

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Thu Oct 14 10:05:52 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:05:52 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock Ice, anyone have a solution
Message-ID: <001901c4b1ff$4ccd5b40$1900a8c0@a31server>

Hello all!!

I've hit a brick wall !!

Let me elaborate, I think most on the list know what I've been doing, so I
will go with that assumption.

Upon inspecting our piles of "waste", wood chips, I have realized that this
years excessive rain is a catastrophic problem for us, this winter.

The co-combustor downdraft unit of last winter, was taken off-line this
spring for the placement of the new engine/generator based system, this so
far is not a problem, HOWEVER, the fact that the inner base of all the piles
of wood chips is way to wet !! (the previous year, the wood was delivered
just before it turned cold), this years supply is about 1/4 of last years
with the addition of 22 more tons this year, however in all my foresight, It
never occurred to me to cover them ! The problem is NOT the gasifier, it
will handle it nicely (monorator upper container) the problem is that once
we move below 0c the woodchips will simply become a big ball of ice (did
simulations in a chest freezer last couple of days). therefore I can't auger
them into the hopper bottom bin, nor do I think they would move down
(bridging) very nicely. (all of this is outdoors, once the chips enter the
building the gasifier is in, and thaw, there is no problem).

I have thought of two methods of excess water removal:

1) running the chips through the sorter screens again (the first pass did
nice job to the small amount of water the chips had in the first place,
however now sorted, and cooler temp. I don't feel it will remove enough of
the new rain moisture that permeates the piles.

2) "Sun dry" the chips on inclined mesh screens, the problem here is time, I
don't think I can generate enough kg/hr of dried chips to support the larger
engine based gasifier.

My ears are open ! any and all ideas accepted.

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

 

From arnt at c2i.net Thu Oct 14 10:45:31 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:45:31 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock Ice, anyone have a solution
In-Reply-To: <001901c4b1ff$4ccd5b40$1900a8c0@a31server>
References: <001901c4b1ff$4ccd5b40$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <20041014174531.53c96d43.arnt@c2i.net>

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:05:52 -0500, a31ford wrote in message
<001901c4b1ff$4ccd5b40$1900a8c0 at a31server>:

>
> Hello all!!
>
> I've hit a brick wall !!
>
> Let me elaborate, I think most on the list know what I've been doing,
> so I will go with that assumption.
>
> Upon inspecting our piles of "waste", wood chips, I have realized that
> this years excessive rain is a catastrophic problem for us, this
> winter.
>
> The co-combustor downdraft unit of last winter, was taken off-line
> this spring for the placement of the new engine/generator based
> system, this so far is not a problem, HOWEVER, the fact that the inner
> base of all the piles of wood chips is way to wet !! (the previous
> year, the wood was delivered just before it turned cold), this years
> supply is about 1/4 of last years with the addition of 22 more tons
> this year, however in all my foresight, It never occurred to me to
> cover them ! The problem is NOT the gasifier, it will handle it nicely
> (monorator upper container) the problem is that once we move below 0c
> the woodchips will simply become a big ball of ice (did simulations in
> a chest freezer last couple of days). therefore I can't auger them
> into the hopper bottom bin, nor do I think they would move
> down(bridging) very nicely. (all of this is outdoors, once the chips
> enter the building the gasifier is in, and thaw, there is no problem).
>
> I have thought of two methods of excess water removal:
>
> 1) running the chips through the sorter screens again (the first pass
> did nice job to the small amount of water the chips had in the first
> place, however now sorted, and cooler temp. I don't feel it will
> remove enough of the new rain moisture that permeates the piles.
>
> 2) "Sun dry" the chips on inclined mesh screens, the problem here is
> time, I don't think I can generate enough kg/hr of dried chips to
> support the larger engine based gasifier.
>
> My ears are open ! any and all ideas accepted.

..pipe your gen set exhaust thru your hopper to thaw your chips.

--
..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 sigma at ix.netcom.com Thu Oct 14 11:39:35 2004
From: sigma at ix.netcom.com (Len Walde)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:39:35 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock Ice, anyone have a solution
References: <001901c4b1ff$4ccd5b40$1900a8c0@a31server>
<20041014174531.53c96d43.arnt@c2i.net>
<000f01c4b20b$27ab0400$0000a398@Len>
Message-ID: <003f01c4b20c$65128240$0000a398@Len>

A suggestion: (Sorry Arnt, thought it was yours)

> Visit a large paper mill, they routinely restack their wood chip piles to
> prevent spontaneous combustion. This same technology will work as well to
> air dry your fuel. Other than that, the best solution might be to employ a
> rotary dryer using any available waste heat. Both suggestions are
equipment
> intensive but that is usually rentable.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Len Walde, P.E.
>
> Sigma Energy Engineering, Inc.
> Renewable Energy, Process Engineering
> Serving Agriculture, Industry & Commerce
> through "Symbiotic Recycling" tm
> Est. 1985

> > On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:05:52 -0500, a31ford wrote in message
> > <001901c4b1ff$4ccd5b40$1900a8c0 at a31server>:
> >
> > >
> > > Hello all!!
> > >
> > > I've hit a brick wall !!
> > >
> > > Let me elaborate, I think most on the list know what I've been doing,
> > > so I will go with that assumption.
> > >
> > > Upon inspecting our piles of "waste", wood chips, I have realized that
> > > this years excessive rain is a catastrophic problem for us, this
> > > winter.
> > >
> > > The co-combustor downdraft unit of last winter, was taken off-line
> > > this spring for the placement of the new engine/generator based
> > > system, this so far is not a problem, HOWEVER, the fact that the inner
> > > base of all the piles of wood chips is way to wet !! (the previous
> > > year, the wood was delivered just before it turned cold), this years
> > > supply is about 1/4 of last years with the addition of 22 more tons
> > > this year, however in all my foresight, It never occurred to me to
> > > cover them ! The problem is NOT the gasifier, it will handle it nicely
> > > (monorator upper container) the problem is that once we move below 0c
> > > the woodchips will simply become a big ball of ice (did simulations in
> > > a chest freezer last couple of days). therefore I can't auger them
> > > into the hopper bottom bin, nor do I think they would move
> > > down(bridging) very nicely. (all of this is outdoors, once the chips
> > > enter the building the gasifier is in, and thaw, there is no problem).
> > >
> > > I have thought of two methods of excess water removal:
> > >
> > > 1) running the chips through the sorter screens again (the first pass
> > > did nice job to the small amount of water the chips had in the first
> > > place, however now sorted, and cooler temp. I don't feel it will
> > > remove enough of the new rain moisture that permeates the piles.
> > >
> > > 2) "Sun dry" the chips on inclined mesh screens, the problem here is
> > > time, I don't think I can generate enough kg/hr of dried chips to
> > > support the larger engine based gasifier.
> > >
> > > My ears are open ! any and all ideas accepted.
____________________________________________________________________________
_______

 

From snkm at btl.net Thu Oct 14 11:40:22 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:40:22 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock Ice, anyone have a solution
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041014102445.00964210@pop.btl.net>

A real quicky for you Greg;

But a large blanket over your piles for insulation -- double blanket (large
plastic sheets) with insulation in between -- say 4 inches of straw?? -- Or
more layers of plastic.

Then bacterial action should keep your pile warm --

Careful though -- we had barns burn down in the middle of cold winters
where I grew up cause of wet hay and spontaneous combustion.

Run an auger feed to belt conveyer in the center of your pile -- make a
tunnel to that spot so you can maintain integrity of operation.

I seriously doubt your pile will freeze up -- no matter how cold it gets
outside.

You might need to vent the top of that pile -- and take a canary with you
if you go into that tunnel for maintenance!

Peter -- Belize

 

At 10:05 AM 10/14/2004 -0500, a31ford wrote:
>
>Hello all!!
>
>I've hit a brick wall !!
>
>Let me elaborate, I think most on the list know what I've been doing, so I
>will go with that assumption.
>
>Upon inspecting our piles of "waste", wood chips, I have realized that this
>years excessive rain is a catastrophic problem for us, this winter.
>
>The co-combustor downdraft unit of last winter, was taken off-line this
>spring for the placement of the new engine/generator based system, this so
>far is not a problem, HOWEVER, the fact that the inner base of all the piles
>of wood chips is way to wet !! (the previous year, the wood was delivered
>just before it turned cold), this years supply is about 1/4 of last years
>with the addition of 22 more tons this year, however in all my foresight, It
>never occurred to me to cover them ! The problem is NOT the gasifier, it
>will handle it nicely (monorator upper container) the problem is that once
>we move below 0c the woodchips will simply become a big ball of ice (did
>simulations in a chest freezer last couple of days). therefore I can't auger
>them into the hopper bottom bin, nor do I think they would move down
>(bridging) very nicely. (all of this is outdoors, once the chips enter the
>building the gasifier is in, and thaw, there is no problem).
>
>I have thought of two methods of excess water removal:
>
>1) running the chips through the sorter screens again (the first pass did
>nice job to the small amount of water the chips had in the first place,
>however now sorted, and cooler temp. I don't feel it will remove enough of
>the new rain moisture that permeates the piles.
>
>2) "Sun dry" the chips on inclined mesh screens, the problem here is time, I
>don't think I can generate enough kg/hr of dried chips to support the larger
>engine based gasifier.
>
>My ears are open ! any and all ideas accepted.
>
>Greg Manning,
>
>Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

From tmiles at trmiles.com Thu Oct 14 12:57:20 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:57:20 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock Ice, anyone have a solution
References: <001901c4b1ff$4ccd5b40$1900a8c0@a31server>
<20041014174531.53c96d43.arnt@c2i.net>
Message-ID: <013c01c4b218$d2737e00$6501a8c0@OFFICE3>

Aeration drying - use a blower to force air up through a pile of chips. The
air can be ambient or heated. You'll wind up with air dry chips depending on
the emc of your air. Doug Williams shows some examples as "Wood Chip Bunker
Drier" at http://www.fluidynenz.250x.com/

We used to put chips into a 4 x 4 x 4 ft tote box with a screen bottom. Set
the tote on a box plenum and blow warm air into the plenum. An agricultural
belt dryer will also work but you'll have to dry in batches rather than
continuously.

Put a batch of your chips on aeration drying floor, in England they used to
call them "corn floors" consisting of air blown into slots in a concrete
floor.

Regards,

Tom Miles

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arnt Karlsen" <arnt at c2i.net>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Feedstock Ice, anyone have a solution

> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:05:52 -0500, a31ford wrote in message
> <001901c4b1ff$4ccd5b40$1900a8c0 at a31server>:
>
>>
>> Hello all!!
>>
>> I've hit a brick wall !!
>>
>> Let me elaborate, I think most on the list know what I've been doing,
>> so I will go with that assumption.
>>
>> Upon inspecting our piles of "waste", wood chips, I have realized that
>> this years excessive rain is a catastrophic problem for us, this
>> winter.
>>
>> The co-combustor downdraft unit of last winter, was taken off-line
>> this spring for the placement of the new engine/generator based
>> system, this so far is not a problem, HOWEVER, the fact that the inner
>> base of all the piles of wood chips is way to wet !! (the previous
>> year, the wood was delivered just before it turned cold), this years
>> supply is about 1/4 of last years with the addition of 22 more tons
>> this year, however in all my foresight, It never occurred to me to
>> cover them ! The problem is NOT the gasifier, it will handle it nicely
>> (monorator upper container) the problem is that once we move below 0c
>> the woodchips will simply become a big ball of ice (did simulations in
>> a chest freezer last couple of days). therefore I can't auger them
>> into the hopper bottom bin, nor do I think they would move
>> down(bridging) very nicely. (all of this is outdoors, once the chips
>> enter the building the gasifier is in, and thaw, there is no problem).
>>
>> I have thought of two methods of excess water removal:
>>
>> 1) running the chips through the sorter screens again (the first pass
>> did nice job to the small amount of water the chips had in the first
>> place, however now sorted, and cooler temp. I don't feel it will
>> remove enough of the new rain moisture that permeates the piles.
>>
>> 2) "Sun dry" the chips on inclined mesh screens, the problem here is
>> time, I don't think I can generate enough kg/hr of dried chips to
>> support the larger engine based gasifier.
>>
>> My ears are open ! any and all ideas accepted.
>
> ..pipe your gen set exhaust thru your hopper to thaw your chips.
>
> --
> ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
> ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
> Scenarios always come in sets of three:
> best case, worst case, and just in case.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>

 

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Thu Oct 14 13:16:58 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:16:58 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock Ice, anyone have a solution
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20041014102445.00964210@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <001e01c4b219$ff335fe0$1900a8c0@a31server>

Ok, I have seen some replies, and thank you for them, however,
I need to state the following about these piles of woodchips,
for clarification:

1) The piles are 12ft wide, 8ft tall, and 60ft long, AND are located on the
ground 75 ft. from the gasifier (insurance regulation).

2) Cold... this is central Canada, MINUS 45f (as in -45f) is the common cold
temp I'm talking about. (it does get colder also, as well as wind chill).

3) The exhaust from the building is used in 3 heat exchangers before it
leaves the building, and is already condensed when it does. (around 70-100f)

I've been thinking about a "Pre-drying" south facing 3 sided structure (say
12 deep, 8 tall, and 30 wide (w/roof) and closable 4th side (for storms)
something along the lines of say the first 1 foot of wall would be
concrete(stub wall) for the tractors blade to hit, the rest of the walls
would be welded wire mesh on the inside, and closeable plywood "doors" so to
speak, on the outside, again for storm conditions, this way the natural
action of evaporation would still work to my advantage, even in sub 0
temperatures (clothes hung out on the line still dry up here, but slowly in
winter).

I have the front end loader (small one) that I can break up the pile, to
rotate it per say, but the whole problem is can I do all of this before we
get the massive cold (about 30 days or so).

It is already to the point that the furnace is coming on during the night,
as we are already seeing 32f and below. Days are only 50f thereabouts.

The great white north is coming,

Greg Manning

 

 

 

From snkm at btl.net Thu Oct 14 14:17:57 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:17:57 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock Ice, anyone have a solution
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041014130313.009b3b50@pop.btl.net>

Cover with one layer of plastic tarpaulin -- then take it out one end to
the other.

Certainly -- bio digestive processes should keep it warm.

I grew up in Quebec -- where we had days -- weeks -- of 50 below.

Can't ever remember a manure pile freezing -- no matter what.

And if a good layer of snow came down and covered it -- shoveling in
through the side produced clouds of steam. And always the worms in it thrived.

Maybe you could mix a little manure in with your chips to promote more bio
digestive energies??

Also -- under a layer of snow -- even the earth would not turn to frost.!

But dirt under a drive way would freeze to four feet -- often!

Course -- at 45 below -- and setting those chips on a screen -- you could
probably freeze dry them well.

Peter

At 01:16 PM 10/14/2004 -0500, a31ford wrote:
>
>Ok, I have seen some replies, and thank you for them, however,
>I need to state the following about these piles of woodchips,
>for clarification:
>
>1) The piles are 12ft wide, 8ft tall, and 60ft long, AND are located on the
>ground 75 ft. from the gasifier (insurance regulation).
>
>2) Cold... this is central Canada, MINUS 45f (as in -45f) is the common cold
>temp I'm talking about. (it does get colder also, as well as wind chill).
>
>3) The exhaust from the building is used in 3 heat exchangers before it
>leaves the building, and is already condensed when it does. (around 70-100f)
>
>I've been thinking about a "Pre-drying" south facing 3 sided structure (say
>12 deep, 8 tall, and 30 wide (w/roof) and closable 4th side (for storms)
>something along the lines of say the first 1 foot of wall would be
>concrete(stub wall) for the tractors blade to hit, the rest of the walls
>would be welded wire mesh on the inside, and closeable plywood "doors" so to
>speak, on the outside, again for storm conditions, this way the natural
>action of evaporation would still work to my advantage, even in sub 0
>temperatures (clothes hung out on the line still dry up here, but slowly in
>winter).
>
>I have the front end loader (small one) that I can break up the pile, to
>rotate it per say, but the whole problem is can I do all of this before we
>get the massive cold (about 30 days or so).
>
>It is already to the point that the furnace is coming on during the night,
>as we are already seeing 32f and below. Days are only 50f thereabouts.
>
>The great white north is coming,
>
>Greg Manning
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

From mlefcort at shaw.ca Thu Oct 14 13:49:33 2004
From: mlefcort at shaw.ca (Malcolm Lefcort)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:49:33 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock Ice, anyone have a solution
In-Reply-To: <003f01c4b20c$65128240$0000a398@Len>
Message-ID: <000001c4b21e$8f3b2ec0$f21a5118@Malcolm>

Len,

When I was developing the Lamb Wet Cell Burner (the precursor to our
Heuristic 2-Stage EnvirOcycler - first stage gentle updraft gasification,
second stage vigorous double vortex cyclonic combustion) in the mid-1970's,
our 15 Million Btu/h prototype was installed in the Plateau Forest Products
sawmill in Engen, BC in late 1976. The Wet Cell was built, outside, beside
two lumber dry kilns. A refractory lined duct conveyed its 2,000F products
of combustion directly into the combustion chambers of two dry kilns. The
"applications" page of our web site, www.heuristicengineering.com, shows the
installation.

For the first year or so the fuel we burned was drawn from a very large chip
pile left over from a prolonged pulp mill strike in 1974. Most large,
modern, Western Canadian sawmills are designed to convert logs (after they
have been debarked) directly into both lumber and chips. The chips normally
go to the nearest pulp mill.

We regularly measured the moisture content of the three year old, somewhat
decayed, chips. During the winter it was typically in the 60% to 65% (wet
basis) range. Occasionally, we measured moisture contents as high as 71%;
however, these samples usually included small crystals of ice.

In mid December 1978 we trucked a self-unloading truck load of cottonwood
chips from a pulp mill in the Vancouver area up to Plateau. Cottonwood is a
member of the poplar family and is notoriously wet. It grows quite tall
along the Fraser River. 72% moisture content is not uncommon. This was at
the height of the first oil crisis. US President Jimmy Carter had declared
"War on Energy". The pulp mill wanted to see if we could burn these chips.
They wanted to direct fire their "Yankee" dryer with the cottonwood chips
2,000F products of combustion.

We had no trouble burning the chips. However, the interesting part of this
story is what happened to the chips between the time we loaded the chips in
the truck in Vancouver and unloaded them at the sawmill. When we left
Vancouver on a Friday afternoon, it was raining and the temperature was
about 45F (7C). When we reached the mill early the next morning the
temperature was -52F (-47C)! The chips were frozen solid. They wouldn't
come out.

We put the truck into a large, heated "truck stop" garage in nearby
Vanderhoof to allow the chips to thaw overnight. The mill had shut down.
Central Interior sawmills normally shut down when the temperature falls
below -30F (-34C). However, the Wet Cell was running just tickety-boo. It
maintained the heat supply to the two dry kilns without missing a beat.

The next morning the temperature had warmed up to -25F (-32C). We drove out
to the mill and found we could unload the chips but they came out as one
big, rectangular "presto log". However, by running a big 966 Loader all
over the "presto log", we were able to break it up and then scoop up frozen
clumps of chips into the Wet Cell's one hour metering bin. The burner had
no trouble gasifying these chips in its first stage and burning their
producer gas in its second stage.

As part of this test we also measured the particulate level in the Wet
Cell's stack. As I recall it was less than 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic
feet corrected to 11% O2 (i.e., less than 100 mg/Normal dry cubic metre or
0.125 lb/Million Btu).

Subsequent tests in 1999 on a 45 Million Btu/h Wet Cell that has been in
continuous service since 1981 in a waferboard plant in Minnesota, measured
CO as less then 1 ppmv and NOx (corrected for the high fuel nitrogen because
of the resins used to make waferboard) as less than 15 ppmv.

Malcolm Lefcort
Heuristic Engineering Inc
Vancouver, BC

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Len Walde
Sent: October 14, 2004 8:40 AM
To: GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Feedstock Ice, anyone have a solution
Importance: High

A suggestion: (Sorry Arnt, thought it was yours)

> Visit a large paper mill, they routinely restack their wood chip piles to
> prevent spontaneous combustion. This same technology will work as well to
> air dry your fuel. Other than that, the best solution might be to employ a
> rotary dryer using any available waste heat. Both suggestions are
equipment
> intensive but that is usually rentable.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Len Walde, P.E.
>
> Sigma Energy Engineering, Inc.
> Renewable Energy, Process Engineering
> Serving Agriculture, Industry & Commerce
> through "Symbiotic Recycling" tm
> Est. 1985

> > On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:05:52 -0500, a31ford wrote in message
> > <001901c4b1ff$4ccd5b40$1900a8c0 at a31server>:
> >
> > >
> > > Hello all!!
> > >
> > > I've hit a brick wall !!
> > >
> > > Let me elaborate, I think most on the list know what I've been doing,
> > > so I will go with that assumption.
> > >
> > > Upon inspecting our piles of "waste", wood chips, I have realized that
> > > this years excessive rain is a catastrophic problem for us, this
> > > winter.
> > >
> > > The co-combustor downdraft unit of last winter, was taken off-line
> > > this spring for the placement of the new engine/generator based
> > > system, this so far is not a problem, HOWEVER, the fact that the inner
> > > base of all the piles of wood chips is way to wet !! (the previous
> > > year, the wood was delivered just before it turned cold), this years
> > > supply is about 1/4 of last years with the addition of 22 more tons
> > > this year, however in all my foresight, It never occurred to me to
> > > cover them ! The problem is NOT the gasifier, it will handle it nicely
> > > (monorator upper container) the problem is that once we move below 0c
> > > the woodchips will simply become a big ball of ice (did simulations in
> > > a chest freezer last couple of days). therefore I can't auger them
> > > into the hopper bottom bin, nor do I think they would move
> > > down(bridging) very nicely. (all of this is outdoors, once the chips
> > > enter the building the gasifier is in, and thaw, there is no problem).
> > >
> > > I have thought of two methods of excess water removal:
> > >
> > > 1) running the chips through the sorter screens again (the first pass
> > > did nice job to the small amount of water the chips had in the first
> > > place, however now sorted, and cooler temp. I don't feel it will
> > > remove enough of the new rain moisture that permeates the piles.
> > >
> > > 2) "Sun dry" the chips on inclined mesh screens, the problem here is
> > > time, I don't think I can generate enough kg/hr of dried chips to
> > > support the larger engine based gasifier.
> > >
> > > My ears are open ! any and all ideas accepted.
____________________________________________________________________________
_______

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

From psanders at ilstu.edu Thu Oct 14 14:46:22 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:46:22 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock Ice, anyone have a solution
In-Reply-To: <001901c4b1ff$4ccd5b40$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041014144153.022cf100@mail.ilstu.edu>

Greg,

Take heat to the wood pile.

Start low, dig in a small horizontal hole that is to become a "tunnel" into
the pile, shield the top of the tunnel with sheet metal to prevent dripping
and/or collapse of the upper material, have a fire (your choice of types)
to put heat into your tunnel, and "Harvest" the chips from the areas that
are brought above freezing.

Might work.

Paul

At 10:05 AM 10/14/04 -0500, a31ford wrote:

>Hello all!!
>
>I've hit a brick wall !!
>
>Let me elaborate, I think most on the list know what I've been doing, so I
>will go with that assumption.
>
>Upon inspecting our piles of "waste", wood chips, I have realized that this
>years excessive rain is a catastrophic problem for us, this winter.
>
>The co-combustor downdraft unit of last winter, was taken off-line this
>spring for the placement of the new engine/generator based system, this so
>far is not a problem, HOWEVER, the fact that the inner base of all the piles
>of wood chips is way to wet !! (the previous year, the wood was delivered
>just before it turned cold), this years supply is about 1/4 of last years
>with the addition of 22 more tons this year, however in all my foresight, It
>never occurred to me to cover them ! The problem is NOT the gasifier, it
>will handle it nicely (monorator upper container) the problem is that once
>we move below 0c the woodchips will simply become a big ball of ice (did
>simulations in a chest freezer last couple of days). therefore I can't auger
>them into the hopper bottom bin, nor do I think they would move down
>(bridging) very nicely. (all of this is outdoors, once the chips enter the
>building the gasifier is in, and thaw, there is no problem).
>
>I have thought of two methods of excess water removal:
>
>1) running the chips through the sorter screens again (the first pass did
>nice job to the small amount of water the chips had in the first place,
>however now sorted, and cooler temp. I don't feel it will remove enough of
>the new rain moisture that permeates the piles.
>
>2) "Sun dry" the chips on inclined mesh screens, the problem here is time, I
>don't think I can generate enough kg/hr of dried chips to support the larger
>engine based gasifier.
>
>My ears are open ! any and all ideas accepted.
>
>Greg Manning,
>
>Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

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 at 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 arnt at c2i.net Thu Oct 14 14:41:40 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:41:40 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock Ice, anyone have a solution
In-Reply-To: <001e01c4b219$ff335fe0$1900a8c0@a31server>
References: <3.0.32.20041014102445.00964210@pop.btl.net>
<001e01c4b219$ff335fe0$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <20041014214140.3ce7830d.arnt@c2i.net>

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:16:58 -0500, a31ford wrote in message
<001e01c4b219$ff335fe0$1900a8c0 at a31server>:

>
> Ok, I have seen some replies, and thank you for them, however,
> I need to state the following about these piles of woodchips,
> for clarification:
>
> 1) The piles are 12ft wide, 8ft tall, and 60ft long, AND are located
> on the ground 75 ft. from the gasifier (insurance regulation).
>
> 2) Cold... this is central Canada, MINUS 45f (as in -45f) is the
> common cold temp I'm talking about. (it does get colder also, as well
> as wind chill).

..but dry? Keep in mind frozen water too evaporates, otherwise hanging
your laundry out in the winter to dry would be pointless. ;-)

> 3) The exhaust from the building is used in 3 heat exchangers before
> it leaves the building, and is already condensed when it does. (around
> 70-100f)

..this is hot enough to prevent freezing if you cover your piles (tarp?)
and pipe your exhaust gas there, you may wanna put that 75 foot pipe in
a wee ditch. And you will wanna make sure you condense out enough water
to keep your exhaust gas dryer than ambient air at those -45F, or use a
4'th heat exchanger.

> I've been thinking about a "Pre-drying" south facing 3 sided structure
> (say 12 deep, 8 tall, and 30 wide (w/roof) and closable 4th side (for
> storms) something along the lines of say the first 1 foot of wall
> would be concrete(stub wall) for the tractors blade to hit, the rest
> of the walls would be welded wire mesh on the inside, and closeable
> plywood "doors" so to speak, on the outside, again for storm
> conditions, this way the natural action of evaporation would still
> work to my advantage, even in sub 0 temperatures (clothes hung out on
> the line still dry up here, but slowly in winter).
>
> I have the front end loader (small one) that I can break up the pile,
> to rotate it per say, but the whole problem is can I do all of this
> before we get the massive cold (about 30 days or so).
>
> It is already to the point that the furnace is coming on during the
> night, as we are already seeing 32f and below. Days are only 50f
> thereabouts.
>
> The great white north is coming,
>
> Greg Manning
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

--
..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 psanders at ilstu.edu Thu Oct 14 16:26:42 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:26:42 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Please make corrections/adjustments
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041014161202.022d7d50@mail.ilstu.edu>

Gasifier friends,

I am preparing for a biomass energy conference a paper that mainly deals
with my small residential gasifiers. But I want to include a couple of
paragraphs about the current status of the larger gasifiers.

Please read the following and make your editorial comments (gently please,
I am trying to get it correct, not trying to make a statement to
you.). Our recent discussion about a list of gasifiers provided some of
the information, including the websites that Tom Miles cited.

If something needs to be changed, please provide some suggested wording or
numbers or qualifier words.

Thanks in advance.

Paul
********************
Current capabilities of gasifiers:
For societies with reasonable financial resources
Currently no gasifiers compete in the category with large thermo-electric
or nuclear power generation facilities. Indeed, the large fossil fuel
facilities utilize very well the same chemical equations and engineering
principles of combustion, as do the biomass gasifiers. But they are
dependent on large quantities of fossil fuels that have high energy
content. Instead, the current generation of "large" biomass gasifiers that
could be used for electricity generation have capacities of 5 to 500
kw. Their advantages will come from being dispersed close to the sources
of the biomass and to the consumers. In general, current (late 2004)
fossil fuel prices are still so low as to make electricity generation via
biomass gasifiers unattractively expensive. Prices vary, but US$3000 to
$10,000 per kilowatt of capacity is typical. These gasifiers are not
fool-proof; they are commercial/industrial enterprises that require skilled
technicians for operation and maintenance. Also, there are very few
options and very few of these units in existence. Further information is
at the following Internet sites:

Gasification (REPP) http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
Small Scale Gasifiers
(REPP) http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
Gasifier Inventory (BTG) http://www.gasifiers.org/
Status of Gasifiers in IEA Countries (IEA) 2002
http://www.gastechnology.org/webroot/app/xn/xd.aspx?it=enweb&xd=iea/countries.xml

Concerning gasifier-powered vehicles, the only ones currently in existence
would best be considered "experiments and curiosities." A major crucial
issue concerns the combustion of the gases in the internal combustion (IC)
engines. Gasification of wood and other dry biomass commonly creates
significant amounts of tars and particles that are horrible in the tubes
and cylinders of IC engines. During the WWII era, the IC engines usually
required major maintenance as frequently as every 500 hours of
operation. For optimal operation, the tars and particulates must either be
filtered (scrubbed) out of the gases or, preferably, never created because
the gasifier operates at substantially higher temperatures. Either
solution can be costly, bulky, or both.

Therefore, for the developed (affluent) societies, the gasification
technologies for "modern" needs of electricity and vehicles exist but are
currently far short of being able to step in rapidly once the Peak Oil
crisis arrives.

********************
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 at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041014/19d40e75/attachment.html

From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Thu Oct 14 17:35:50 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:35:50 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock Ice, anyone have a solution
References: <3.0.32.20041014130313.009b3b50@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <00b101c4b241$33192200$f3bdf204@7k6rv21>

Peter,

You said:
> Cover with one layer of plastic tarpaulin -- then take it out one end to
> the other.
>
> Certainly -- bio digestive processes should keep it warm.
>
> I grew up in Quebec -- where we had days -- weeks -- of 50 below.
>
> Can't ever remember a manure pile freezing -- no matter what.

The bio-digestive conditions which occur in a manure pile are not present in
a pile of wood chips due to the lack of nitrogen. Wood chips are
essentially all carbon and the microbes need nitrogen as a catalyst to
digest the carbon in a bioprocess. Without available nitrogen, the process
is very long and does not generate alot of heat. It is the same process
which occurs in a septic tank which can freeze at low soil temperatures. In
Alaska, these septic tanks are referred to as "brown Popsicles".

Someone else brought out the reference of barns burning down due to
biodigestion. This is true. The anaerobic bio-digestion process which can
occur in packed hay can generate alcohols as a decomposition byproduct. The
alcohol then evaporates and fumes can waft into the aerobic digestion zone
which operates above the flash point of the alcohol and hay fires can
result. My dad used to add salt to the damp hay to reduce the rate at which
anaerobic digestion processes operated whenever we absolutely could not let
the hay dry before we put it in the hay loft to reduce the potential of
fire.

Greg,

My suggestion would be to build a pile of wood chips over a perforated pipe
which has air from a blower being driven through it. Locate the pile so you
can get all the solar gain available. Cover them anytime weather can
generate additional moisture (rain or snow). Blow air through the pile
during the day anytime the temperature is +5 deg C or above. Remove the
obviously sufficiently dry chips and move the wet ones over the blower pipe
often.

You have very low humidity air where you live and, with only a little
evaporative heat energy available from the air and some blower time, the
pile will dry out sufficiently that you can load off the surface with a skid
steer loader and get sufficiently dry chips that they can be handled for
gasification. With winter coming on, you needed to have started drying the
chips last week :-) The goal is to get a pile which can easily be
handled, not wood with 7% moisture.

It is good to hear the enthusiasm you have as you enter you second winter
with your gasifier.

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

 

 

 

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Thu Oct 14 19:13:13 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:13:13 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock Ice, anyone have a solution
In-Reply-To: <00b101c4b241$33192200$f3bdf204@7k6rv21>
Message-ID: <002601c4b24b$c38919d0$1900a8c0@a31server>

Thanks to all that replied.

I would have to say that the general consensus would agree with Art,

LMAO !! (Laughing My A-- Off !!)

I gota hand it to ya, BANG ON ! everything you said I completely agree with!

Yes, I have been drying what I can when I can, (Dam should have been drying
chips instead of hay (horses):) This is the big dilemma I'm in, got tons &
tons of feedstock, but once it gets cold, will be useless.

I did some research at our local agriculture office today, they have a old
version of a "temporary" grain drying shed (before aerated bins) looks
simple enough to build, will have to adapt it to a concrete floor (for the
loader) but very promising (will reuse the concrete pad next year as a full
fledged storage house) for now the aspect of simple aeration via the shed,
and just a couple of chunks of "perforated septic field pipe" will have to
do as it's way to cold here already to do any serious natural air drying.

Your "easy handling pile", is also correct, it's not "bone dry wood" that I
want, rather it's non bridging chips in the hopper bottom, that interests
me, due to this one fact, the hopper bottom is galv. steel and during the
day, I can see the south side's chips water content melting on the "sunny
days", once it gets evening, the entire thing congealing to a solid clump (I
have a pair of roto-tiller's turned sideways in the center of the hopper 1/4
& 1/2 the way up, and can simply hand crank them every now and then, with
handles on the side of the bin) this should help with any bridging, as long
as it's not one solid mass :)

Thanks for the reply, as it simply reinforced and confirmed my thoughts (and
clarified them also)

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Art Krenzel
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 5:36 PM
To: GASIFICATION at listserv.repp.org; Peter Singfield
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Feedstock Ice, anyone have a solution

Peter,

You said:
> Cover with one layer of plastic tarpaulin -- then take it out one end to
> the other.
>
> Certainly -- bio digestive processes should keep it warm.
>
> I grew up in Quebec -- where we had days -- weeks -- of 50 below.
>
> Can't ever remember a manure pile freezing -- no matter what.

The bio-digestive conditions which occur in a manure pile are not present in
a pile of wood chips due to the lack of nitrogen. Wood chips are
essentially all carbon and the microbes need nitrogen as a catalyst to
digest the carbon in a bioprocess. Without available nitrogen, the process
is very long and does not generate alot of heat. It is the same process
which occurs in a septic tank which can freeze at low soil temperatures. In
Alaska, these septic tanks are referred to as "brown Popsicles".

Someone else brought out the reference of barns burning down due to
biodigestion. This is true. The anaerobic bio-digestion process which can
occur in packed hay can generate alcohols as a decomposition byproduct. The
alcohol then evaporates and fumes can waft into the aerobic digestion zone
which operates above the flash point of the alcohol and hay fires can
result. My dad used to add salt to the damp hay to reduce the rate at which
anaerobic digestion processes operated whenever we absolutely could not let
the hay dry before we put it in the hay loft to reduce the potential of
fire.

Greg,

My suggestion would be to build a pile of wood chips over a perforated pipe
which has air from a blower being driven through it. Locate the pile so you
can get all the solar gain available. Cover them anytime weather can
generate additional moisture (rain or snow). Blow air through the pile
during the day anytime the temperature is +5 deg C or above. Remove the
obviously sufficiently dry chips and move the wet ones over the blower pipe
often.

You have very low humidity air where you live and, with only a little
evaporative heat energy available from the air and some blower time, the
pile will dry out sufficiently that you can load off the surface with a skid
steer loader and get sufficiently dry chips that they can be handled for
gasification. With winter coming on, you needed to have started drying the
chips last week :-) The goal is to get a pile which can easily be
handled, not wood with 7% moisture.

It is good to hear the enthusiasm you have as you enter you second winter
with your gasifier.

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

 

 

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Fri Oct 15 00:19:36 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:19:36 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Some additional info on intended Peer Review
presentation
Message-ID: <ea.5b21b2d8.2ea0b7e8@aol.com>

1. There is a California State gassifier study that is in PDF. Everytime I
try to download my system locks up. I would think you need to look at it.

2. I am looking at verified gassifier performance of 2 to 3 cents per kWh and
working on getting it less with a system costing at about $1500 per kWh.
looking to reduce it to less in bulk.

3. One of the problems that some of you have told me of is the low price for
electrical power especially under 50 MW non continuous. You are looking at
the wrong market. Forget the big power companies go to the manufacturer or
processor using their own generation plant and natural gas or oil.

For those in the NW there is a copper mine and smelting operation that shut
down about 2002 because of the high electrical cost in NW. They are surrounded
by wood and waste. The state has funds for renewable energy too. It was in
Wash or Org maybe Idaho one of them.

I would pay a visit to the Governor's ethanol coalition website and look up
some ethanol producers and see what you can do to supply their very expensive
process heat and electrical power and try to make it out of their agricultural
waste corn stover? Perhaps you can offer them another crop waste stream to
cash in or cost savings in production.

I would like to suggest for those in S. American and the Asian Continent and
Sub Continent to visit the international ethanol groups meetings and web
pages. You folks have some complimentary technology and interest. There was a
meeting noted in Brazil that I found most informative.

To those folks that have a gassifier derived liquid fuel product Ectelene AKA
rocket fuel or super ethanol I would be working closely to get that product
FAA approved for commercial jet fuel. There are seven major airlines and a
bunch of military folks that should be really really interested. Send me your
draft proposal and I will pre review your submission to them.

And one last point of information which many should find really interesting
to revisit.

The economic / engineering model used for your cost benefit and break even
analysis in most of the proposals sent to me to date are now outdated and do not
reflect the current cost of natural gas oil or accommodate higher efficiency
co generation technology. The models I have reviewed including those of
Ethanol fail to count the NEW increased cost of delivery of feedstocks and the
transportation cost of end products to point of consumption of the competitive
products.

Albest
Leonard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041015/28931e94/attachment.html

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Oct 15 02:00:57 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:00:57 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Some additional info on intended Peer Review
presentation
In-Reply-To: <ea.5b21b2d8.2ea0b7e8@aol.com>
References: <ea.5b21b2d8.2ea0b7e8@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20041015090057.49e74597.arnt@c2i.net>

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:19:36 EDT, LWheeler45 at aol.com wrote in message
<ea.5b21b2d8.2ea0b7e8 at aol.com>:

> 1. There is a California State gassifier study that is in PDF.
> Everytime I try to download my system locks up.

..psst: Wintendos aaare like that, try a _modern_ system:
http://damnsmalllinux.org/ or
http://knopper.net/knoppix/index-en.html
details at http://knoppix.net/ ;-)

> I would think you need to look at it.

..url?

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

 

From renertech at xtra.co.nz Fri Oct 15 02:50:54 2004
From: renertech at xtra.co.nz (Ken Calvert)
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:50:54 +1300
Subject: [Gasification] Supercritical Water Gasification of Biomass
References: <3.0.32.20041013201758.009d9100@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <008901c4b28b$b3bd1c50$089898de@coppermine>

Peter, Hi! Its most interesting to me that BTG pops up on your horizon.
This is the company that has kept our gasification program alive in the
Republic of Vanuatu, thats Western Pacific. They were the ones funded by
Shell, who enabled us to clock around 15,000 hours on a small gasification
rig, from 1983 to 1995. A 50kva plant running on green Leucaena
saplings cut every day by school boys, enough to run the power plant for
around 5 hours each day to power the Mission High School they attended.
They have just given us more funding to rebuild the plant and give it a new
lease of life. I am intrigued to see that they are interested in both the
big and the small. All power to their arm.
Ken Calvert. New Zealand.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm at btl.net>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 3:18 PM
Subject: [Gasification] Supercritical Water Gasification of Biomass

Spent some time today updating my personal Hard Drive archives on the
latest into my favorite means of gasifying. Googling for gold -- if you
will.

Here is an interesting review of present objectives.

I also downloaded an interesting set of ongoing experiments -- long study
ahead though -- but they uses a cement pump to charge the reaction chamber
with biomass slurry!!

How very creative!! Being as that was one of the major design hurdles that
killed many other attemps.

So -- they pulp the wood by hogging or grinding -- blender well with water
-- make slurry -- use cement pump to charge the reaction vessle -- produce
lot's of rich H2 gas -- or methane.

Also -- here is another interesting Url on this subject:

http://www.btgworld.com/technologies/supercritical-gasification.html

Peter -- Belize

***************************************

http://www.energy.iastate.edu/renewable/biomass/cs-water.html

Supercritical Water Gasification of Biomass

Grant #: 99-01
Principal Investigator: Gary A. Aurand
Organization: The University of Iowa
Technical Area: Renewable Energy

Background and Significance:

Biomass feedstocks are a tremendous potential resource for providing energy
and value-added products, especially in agricultural areas where waste
biomass is abundant or where dedicated energy crops can be produced cheaply
and efficiently. However, increased competitiveness will require advances
in technologies for converting Iowa biomass to value-added products. This
project is an investigation into the use of supercritical fluids,
particularly supercritical water, to efficiently produce valuable products
from biomass.

A supercritical fluid is defined as a substance that is at conditions of
temperature and pressure that are above its vapor-liquid critical point. At
supercritical conditions, a fluid does not meet the definition of a liquid
because it can't be made to boil by decreasing the pressure at constant
temperature. Also it is not a vapor because cooling at constant pressure
won't cause it to condense. Water is a supercritical fluid above 374?C and
22 MPa, 706?F and 3191 psi. Supercritical fluids in general possess unique
solvating and transport properties compared to liquids or gases.
Supercritical fluids can have liquid-like densities, gas-like
diffusivities, and compressibilities that deviate greatly from ideal gas
behavior. Under supercritical conditions, solid solubility often is
enhanced greatly with respect to solubility in the gas or liquid solvent.
Supercritical water in particular has the ability to dissolve materials not
normally soluble in liquid water or steam and also seems to promote some
types of chemical reactions. These properties make supercritical water a
very promising reaction medium for the conversion of biomass to value-added
products.

Organic compounds, including lignocellulosic material such as solid biomass
will readily dissolve in supercritical water. Once dissolved, supercritical
water will efficiently break cellulose bonds. The reactions generally are
not selective, resulting in the rapid formation of gaseous products. This
type of biomass gasification can be used to produce hydrocarbon fuels for
use in an efficient combustion device or to produce hydrogen for use in a
fuel cell. In the latter case, hydrogen yield can be much higher than the
hydrogen content of the biomass due to steam reforming where water is a
hydrogen-providing participant in the overall reaction.

Many organic chemicals that typically do not react in water without the
presence of strong acid or base catalysts will readily react under
hydrothermal conditions. This fact can be exploited to convert biomass to
valuable chemical products. Hydrolysis is a type of reaction that commonly
occurs under hydrothermal conditions, and glucose is an intermediate
hydrolysis product in the hydrothermal decomposition of cellulose.

Typically, the severe reaction conditions of supercritical water result in
subsequent decomposition of hydrolysis intermediates to form primarily
gaseous products. However, at slightly milder near-critical temperatures
water can be used to convert biomass to valuable chemicals. For example, in
principle, glucose from cellulose decomposition can be further converted to
a variety of water-soluble liquid products such as fructose and erythrose.
Erythrose is a high-value chemical with a catalog price of about $50/gram
for 60% D-erythrose syrup. The development of such processes to convert
biomass feedstocks to valuable fuels and chemicals is necessary for
expanding a carbohydrate-based economy that will benefit agricultural
states such as Iowa.

Project Objectives:

Specially constructed hydrothermal reactors will be used to study reactions
of organic matter in supercritical water mixtures. Initially, purified
biomass components such as cellulose and starch will be used as feedstocks,
and the products will be identified and measured. These and subsequent
investigations will increase understanding of the fundamental chemical
reactions occurring during biomass conversion in supercritical or
near-critical water. Using knowledge gained from earlier experiments,
reactions using whole biomass will be conducted to find conditions
favorable for the production of valuable products. The ultimate goal is to
develop a practical process for the conversion of whole biomass such as
corn stover into valuable chemicals or fuels.

Summary of Work:

1. Quantify products from model biomass components.
Relatively well-defined biomass components such as cellulose, lignin, and
starch will be reacted in supercritical and near-critical water under a
variety of reaction conditions. The conversion products will be identified
and quantified. The product distributions then will be compared for the
different feedstocks to determine the effect of reaction conditions on the
reactivities of the major biomass components.

2. Evaluate products from model component mixtures.
Model biomass components will be blended to represent the compositions of
relevant Iowa-produced biomass such as corn stover. Conversion product
distributions from these mixtures of artificial biomass will be compared to
the compositions predicted based on individual reactivities.

3. Determine the effect of salts, minerals and trace metals.
Real biomass contains a variety of salts, minerals, and trace metals not
present in purified model compounds. Many are present due to the biological
incorporation of nutrients into living tissue and others come from soil or
other impurities on the tissue surface. In general these species can be
dissolved under hydrothermal conditions. The presence of metals and
minerals in the reaction mixture may significantly alter the reaction
behavior. For example, silica, which is abundant in biomass, will form
silicic acid under hydrothermal conditions. The effect may be to promote
certain acid catalyzed reactions, thereby changing the product
distribution. Other species, even in trace amounts, may act to catalyze
some conversion reactions. Also, the presence of salts may substantially
increase the corrosiveness of hydrothermal solutions. Relevant minerals
such as silica will be added to model biomass feedstocks to determine the
effects on conversion reactions. When performing these experiments, the
wetted parts of the system will be inspected often for signs of accelerated
corrosion.

Contact Information:

Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering
University of Iowa
4133 Seamans Center
Iowa City, IA 52242
319-384-0970
e-mail: gary-aurand at uiowa.edu

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Fri Oct 15 13:49:05 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:49:05 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Some additional info on intended Peer Review
presentation
Message-ID: <1ab.2a80c410.2ea175a1@aol.com>

Knoppix is a wonderful approach. It is really slick. I use Apple so I don't
have Mr. Gates' curse, put upon him when he started Micro-soft here in
Albuquerque. I think he pissed off an indian.

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 LWheeler45 at aol.com Fri Oct 15 14:26:13 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:26:13 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Point for Producer discussion supercritical and
near-critical water
Message-ID: <ac.647f6c45.2ea17e55@aol.com>

For the group's information:

This near-critical water is a process akin in result to low acid bio mass
stripping for fuel ethanol production. The Low acid process in lab test yields 60
to 70 percent process yields on a continuous thru put basis and is most
favorable with achieving the results HOPED FOR in BCI and Canadian Shell Oil bio
ethanol processes. Continuous thru put without batch process and with wide
variety non food cellulose feed stocks along with low process energy consumption
really lowers fuel ethanol cost. BCI has a website in chemical technospeak
should you want to know more. The BCI process rights have been sold in USA years
ago. DOE funded the lab project. Project results are sealed. No engineering
scale up to validate economics of scale have been done.

It works REAL Well on most MSW waste streams according to the chemical
engineer that invented it..

Ref:

1. Quantify products from model biomass components.
Relatively well-defined biomass components such as cellulose, lignin, and
starch will be reacted in supercritical and near-critical water under a
variety of reaction conditions. The conversion products will be identified
and quantified. The product distributions then will be compared for the
different feedstocks to determine the effect of reaction conditions on the
reactivities of the major biomass components.

Point two. I have reviewed most all that has been sent. I also have received
the negative info as well. Nothing brought up as a problem is insurmountable
or daunting. The reasons for the failures are very clear and easily recognized
by an engineer with project costing knowledge familiar with the petroleum
refinery cost models. It is the engineering solutions to avoid those failures
repeated in Fla that I am still working on solving. I have lots of Fla energy
materials and commercial needs identified.

To the negative: I have a qualified staff to review this material BEFORE I
recommend or support any of it. BS never gets a first chance. Yes, I have access
to decision/policy makers. At least one of you got a call for further
details.

I guess Monday I go it alone with what I have and make a presentation. I
thank the folks that invited me and the media to tour their operational plant in
Iowa. May do that. I also thank the two folks that supplied me with the really
fine materials to support their guaranteed products for Fla debris disposal.
Which is only one use I need a system for.

I will again send those who requested it a copy of the Fla Sunshine Energy
Plan. in PDF this time. Let me know if you don't get it.

Take a look at the documented Fla waste streams URL's cited and energy
analysis and the (DOCUMENTED. Engineering Validated) claims of Plasma Gasification
(See too 300 TPD Hitachi Plasma System) and Bio Ethanol. If you substitute your
various process for the plasma Gasification of a Specific waste stream and
commercially validate a way to Interlink the super critical water bio ethanol
method ref by our researcher I think you will see some real gassifier
opportunities.

To date I have spent between $40,000 to $50,000 MY US dollars in researching
and promoting renewable energy in Fla. I note some of you have spent several
million and Westinghouse spent several hundred million and still none have
claimed market share. Fellow optimistic I think it was money wisely invested. How
to cash in?

Albest.

Leonard Wheeler
Eustis, Fla
32726

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041015/183cf821/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Fri Oct 15 14:57:24 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:57:24 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] A free gassifier maker Ad visit
www.biodieselindustrydirectory.com
Message-ID: <d5.18e1ab30.2ea185a4@aol.com>


This is an opportunity for a FREE ad in a renewable fuels industry directory
for your gassifier products.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041015/552e1fee/attachment.html

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sat Oct 16 08:00:42 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:00:42 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Wales UK gasification system
In-Reply-To: <MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGKEMGDPAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
References: <12e.4e0e53a0.2e9c37f1@aol.com>
<MABBJLGAAFJBOBCKKPMGKEMGDPAA.Gavin@aa3genergi.force9.co.uk>
Message-ID: <u942n0trqqri3sngr5qdshqo0lpn355et7@4ax.com>

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:21:20 +0100, Gavin Gulliver-Goodall wrote:

>-----Original Message-----
>From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
>[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of LINVENT at aol.com
>Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 20:25
>To: tombreed at comcast.net; sylva at iname.com; gasification at listserv.repp.org
>Subject: [Gasification] Wales UK gasification system
>
>I have been told that there is a gasification system in or South of Wales,
>UK. Is there any awareness of this project?
>
>Leland T. Taylor
*****
>Need to ask AJH on this one...
>
>Gavin

I am not sure which one Leland refers to, ours is a pyroliser running
a gt at Cardiff, it is mothballed atm. The firms we collaborated with
both had wood fired devices but they were tiny, one never was
completed even though we initially intended to use the "hearth" from
it, as it did not materialize David Beedie designed and had built our
own. The gt rig had previously been developed for direct firing by
wood so was not really a gasifier.

The other scheme I know about is in Bridgend, half way between Swansea
and Cardiff, this is/was a waste reduction system using some sort of
steam reformation/thermolysis, the business was named something like
"Davis brothers".

AJH

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sat Oct 16 08:00:42 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:00:42 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Re Question for group Where is the PR?
In-Reply-To: <jjhim091p8ilomvd56j1vqj6gqrd7j7pot@4ax.com>
References: <198.300a2b99.2e95f7bf@aol.com><15cc01c4ac6d$3c066000$0000a398@Len><41655707.7252CB06@3iAlternativePower.com>
<000901c4ae8a$151787c0$cf8f58db@newpc>
<003501c4aecb$231cca60$3201a8c0@OFFICE>
<rmgim0dds90oq7oqfr9s0i09kfpqaebtme@4ax.com>
<jjhim091p8ilomvd56j1vqj6gqrd7j7pot@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <mu52n05l8vq1pil5rp8jgi7mat72hi43if@4ax.com>

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 15:29:23 +0100, list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 15:10:54 +0100, list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk wrote:
>
>>Fluidyne introduced me to gasification in about 1983, when I
>>corresponded with Mrs. Humphreys about gasifiers. At that time they
>>offered a conversion for the large number of NATO Unimog 404s which
>>were being cast from service.
>
>I have had a rapid reply from someone off list asking for
>specifications of this, I may well have some old documents. It did
>make me think a bit harder though and whilst the Fluidyne gasifier was
>offered I wonder if it was a Lambiotte which was coupled to the
>Unimog.

OK I have rummaged around, I have a letter dated 3rd December 1981,
from Fluidyne offering a gasifier to run a 50hp reciprocating ic
engine. This was not for automobile use, which Doug also confirms in a
personal e-mail. However I do have photos of their hearth module
connected to a 30hp tractor via a trailer.

The "integral gas producer" conversion of the unimog ex-NATO trucks
was for a 82hp engine and offered by Lambiotte & CIE Energie,
Bruxelles. It will be from the same period and offered a range of 3hrs
at 60kph in a unit weighing 450kg, the single page B&W brochure only
has an outline line drawing of the vehicle on it. I have no further
details.

From the same source I have photos of a lister sr1 connected to their
gasifier

AJH

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sat Oct 16 11:29:02 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 17:29:02 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock Ice, anyone have a solution
In-Reply-To: <00b101c4b241$33192200$f3bdf204@7k6rv21>
References: <3.0.32.20041014130313.009b3b50@pop.btl.net>
<00b101c4b241$33192200$f3bdf204@7k6rv21>
Message-ID: <jsh2n0909mc2ocmn38hg5s09jj1ecgvhif@4ax.com>

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:35:50 -0700, Art Krenzel wrote:

>Peter,
>
>You said:
>> Cover with one layer of plastic tarpaulin -- then take it out one end to
>> the other.
>>
>> Certainly -- bio digestive processes should keep it warm.

At some cost in loss of dry matter, not to mention the sheet would
keep additional water from the decomposition in.

>The bio-digestive conditions which occur in a manure pile are not present in
>a pile of wood chips due to the lack of nitrogen. Wood chips are
>essentially all carbon and the microbes need nitrogen as a catalyst to
>digest the carbon in a bioprocess.

Wood seems to have a carbon to nitrogen ratio of ~400:1, aerobic
bacteria need something like 35:1.

>Someone else brought out the reference of barns burning down due to
>biodigestion. This is true. The anaerobic bio-digestion process which can
>occur in packed hay can generate alcohols as a decomposition byproduct.

OK

> The
>alcohol then evaporates and fumes can waft into the aerobic digestion zone
>which operates above the flash point of the alcohol and hay fires can
>result.

Alcohols and more likely methane can be formed and under some
circumstances may accumulate with air in the right proportions to form
a flammable mixture, also that this may be above the flash point.
However the spark (flash) has to come from somewhere. Any ideas? I
have no doubt Tom Reed has but it's not my story to tell.

>
>My suggestion would be to build a pile of wood chips over a perforated pipe
>which has air from a blower being driven through it. Locate the pile so you
>can get all the solar gain available. Cover them anytime weather can
>generate additional moisture (rain or snow). Blow air through the pile
>during the day anytime the temperature is +5 deg C or above. Remove the
>obviously sufficiently dry chips and move the wet ones over the blower pipe
>often.

To use the solar gain to the sheet wouldn't sucking be better? If the
drying is taking place then the result will be cooled to ambient and
no additional loss over blowing would occur (apart from the extra
volume of moisture in the exhaust needing pumping), the fan motor heat
would be lost though. A rh switch comparing ambient and exhaust
humidity may be a worthwhile addition.

I have a feeling in Greg's situation the value of the drying would be
negligibly above the electricity expense in blowing, drying in high rh
or cold climates benefits greatly from adding heat to the drying air
as then lower air volumes need to be pumped.
>
>You have very low humidity air where you live and, with only a little
>evaporative heat energy available from the air and some blower time, the
>pile will dry out sufficiently that you can load off the surface with a skid
>steer loader and get sufficiently dry chips that they can be handled for
>gasification. With winter coming on, you needed to have started drying the
>chips last week :-) The goal is to get a pile which can easily be
>handled, not wood with 7% moisture.

OK so Greg has low humidity, you'd need to look at a psychometric
chart to work out how much moisture a m^3 of air can hold before
saturation at near zero C, not much I suspect. So as each m^3 of air
pumped through the heat has a (known?) electricity cost the break even
on adding a little heat can be calculated.

AJH

 

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Sat Oct 16 13:33:24 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 13:33:24 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock Ice, anyone have a solution
In-Reply-To: <jsh2n0909mc2ocmn38hg5s09jj1ecgvhif@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <003601c4b3ae$9faea200$1900a8c0@a31server>

Andrew, Peter, Art, and all....

The problem I have at the moment is a "this winter" one, not permanent in
anyway (I learned my lesson this year :) I hope, I simply have to get
through the next 6 months of the cold season.

For all that are following this thread.

It got down to -8c last night, the little tests that I had going on, where
as follows:

1) Inclined mesh screens, facing south with a layer of sorted chips about
5cm thick (about 2 1/2"). (2m x 3m surface area)

2) Steel Drum (45 gallon) no top, filled with sorted but not dried (off the
pile, into the sorter, into the drum).

3) Small pile (about 0.5M in diameter and about the same height) of sorted
un-dried chips, resting on the ground uncovered.

Here are the results:

1) the mesh did the best, the chips had the look of being "freeze-dried"
small pockets of frost style ice crystals in little groups randomly across
the top of the chips. very easy to breakup, the rest of the mesh screen
areas where dry enough that the chips where still loose. I separated the
areas (frosted and non) and bagged them into small test samples for moisture
content tests later today.

2) Drum, did terrible (what I suspected would happen in the hopper bottom
bin has happened in the drum), upper 1/3 of the drum is not bad, kind of
like the frosty patches on the screens, BUT, the bottom of the drum, ONE
congealed mass of ice and chips, to the point that a pick-axe was the only
thing that would break it up.

3) Small pile, actually faired not bad, the upper 1/3 was again frosty, but
the inner portion of the pile was not yet frozen, HOWEVER, our frost line in
the middle of winter goes down 2m (about 6ft.) this can also be said
latterly as well, I would need piles of massive size to retain an inner core
that would not freeze.

One more thing, the evening low until last night has been around the 0c
mark, the daytime high for the last week or so has been around 10c, this is
the first night that it "started to get down there" for coldness, and this
is nothing, as yet.

I have spoken to my main supplier of wood chips, and of recent, he has not
had any larger chipping sessions (not enough to make it worth his while to
drive out here). I do have a smaller chipper I can use, but this or that, I
chip more fresh (dryer) chips, or try to save the 22 tons or so that I have,
both will be at least somewhat labor intensive, if not somewhat costly,
However, even using a blower 24/7 to aerate a pile, would still be cheaper
than heating with electricity or fossil fuel.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of
list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 11:29 AM
To: GASIFICATION at listserv.repp.org
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Feedstock Ice, anyone have a solution

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:35:50 -0700, Art Krenzel wrote:

>Peter,
>
>You said:
>> Cover with one layer of plastic tarpaulin -- then take it out one end to
>> the other.
>>
>> Certainly -- bio digestive processes should keep it warm.

At some cost in loss of dry matter, not to mention the sheet would
keep additional water from the decomposition in.

>The bio-digestive conditions which occur in a manure pile are not present
in
>a pile of wood chips due to the lack of nitrogen. Wood chips are
>essentially all carbon and the microbes need nitrogen as a catalyst to
>digest the carbon in a bioprocess.

Wood seems to have a carbon to nitrogen ratio of ~400:1, aerobic
bacteria need something like 35:1.

>Someone else brought out the reference of barns burning down due to
>biodigestion. This is true. The anaerobic bio-digestion process which can
>occur in packed hay can generate alcohols as a decomposition byproduct.

OK

> The
>alcohol then evaporates and fumes can waft into the aerobic digestion zone
>which operates above the flash point of the alcohol and hay fires can
>result.

Alcohols and more likely methane can be formed and under some
circumstances may accumulate with air in the right proportions to form
a flammable mixture, also that this may be above the flash point.
However the spark (flash) has to come from somewhere. Any ideas? I
have no doubt Tom Reed has but it's not my story to tell.

>
>My suggestion would be to build a pile of wood chips over a perforated pipe
>which has air from a blower being driven through it. Locate the pile so
you
>can get all the solar gain available. Cover them anytime weather can
>generate additional moisture (rain or snow). Blow air through the pile
>during the day anytime the temperature is +5 deg C or above. Remove the
>obviously sufficiently dry chips and move the wet ones over the blower pipe
>often.

To use the solar gain to the sheet wouldn't sucking be better? If the
drying is taking place then the result will be cooled to ambient and
no additional loss over blowing would occur (apart from the extra
volume of moisture in the exhaust needing pumping), the fan motor heat
would be lost though. A rh switch comparing ambient and exhaust
humidity may be a worthwhile addition.

I have a feeling in Greg's situation the value of the drying would be
negligibly above the electricity expense in blowing, drying in high rh
or cold climates benefits greatly from adding heat to the drying air
as then lower air volumes need to be pumped.
>
>You have very low humidity air where you live and, with only a little
>evaporative heat energy available from the air and some blower time, the
>pile will dry out sufficiently that you can load off the surface with a
skid
>steer loader and get sufficiently dry chips that they can be handled for
>gasification. With winter coming on, you needed to have started drying the
>chips last week :-) The goal is to get a pile which can easily be
>handled, not wood with 7% moisture.

OK so Greg has low humidity, you'd need to look at a psychometric
chart to work out how much moisture a m^3 of air can hold before
saturation at near zero C, not much I suspect. So as each m^3 of air
pumped through the heat has a (known?) electricity cost the break even
on adding a little heat can be calculated.

AJH

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

From arnt at c2i.net Sat Oct 16 15:04:53 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 22:04:53 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock Ice, anyone have a solution
In-Reply-To: <003601c4b3ae$9faea200$1900a8c0@a31server>
References: <jsh2n0909mc2ocmn38hg5s09jj1ecgvhif@4ax.com>
<003601c4b3ae$9faea200$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <20041016220453.3b6bcd1a.arnt@c2i.net>

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 13:33:24 -0500, a31ford wrote in message
<003601c4b3ae$9faea200$1900a8c0 at a31server>:

>
> Andrew, Peter, Art, and all....
>
> The problem I have at the moment is a "this winter" one, not permanent
> in anyway (I learned my lesson this year :) I hope, I simply have to
> get through the next 6 months of the cold season.

..I mentioned tarp, to clarify, I meant cheap clear plastic, I suspect
you have enough sunshine this winter to dream up a greenhouse-like
rig to let the sun thaw your chips in the day, vent some of the warm
damp air out and have the condensate collect on the plastic and run
down it, say into a bucket, ditch or whatever that remains frozen or dry
the next day etc.

..another way is take pallet size batches and wrap those in plastic,
leave leave the bottom open and a wee hole in the top so "warm damp"
air can escape.

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

 

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Sat Oct 16 21:59:38 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:59:38 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Feedstock Ice, anyone have a solution
In-Reply-To: <20041016220453.3b6bcd1a.arnt@c2i.net>
Message-ID: <003701c4b3f5$57bcd8d0$1900a8c0@a31server>

Hello Arnt, Art, Peter, Andrew & all!!! (list is getting long, sorry if I
missed someone).

After my last notes (re: 1) 2) 3) on small tests).

My Moisture Content percentage findings are as follows:

ONE kg. of wood chips at 100C for one hour in an electric oven. (Kitchen
type)

1) The Mesh Screens, dry area test equals 0.90 kg. (10 % MC)

(if I'm taking the test right (differential from wet basis)).

1a) Mesh Screen areas (clumps of "freeze dried") 0.85 kg (15% MC)

2) Upper area of 45 gal. drum .82 kg (18% MC)

2a) Lower area of 45 gal drum (cut with a saw while still frozen), 0.56 kg
(44% MC). (WOW !)

3) Small pile, outer edge, 0.82 kg. (18% MC)

3a) "core" of small pile, 0.76 kg. (24% MC)

Based on my findings I would assume that the inner core of my large piles of
chips at roughly in the 25-44% MC mark. The Interesting thing is that the
chips on the mesh screens (3/8" x 3/8" grid) saw only about 4 hours of sun,
and only lite wind (under 10mph) for about 6 hours, other than that just
natural evaporation during the night.

The next test is the pipe tunnel (acquired 36' of some 4" perforated septic
weep pipe) will build a simple wooden distro box to hook it to an old
furnace fan.

Will follow with my findings.

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

 

From snkm at btl.net Sun Oct 17 13:18:44 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:18:44 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane digestion device
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041017121733.00998d10@pop.btl.net>

(Flipping this to Gas list as well -- being as this is about gas making)

Posting this with all respect to A. D. Karve -- who in my opinion is the
brightest beacon of pratical solutions on this mail list for all we here
living in 3rd world.

Now -- this posting should get a few gears engaged!

Quoting A.D. Karve:

"The gas produced by this
system has thus almost the same calorific value as LPG. It burns without
smoke or soot, producing an almost invisible bluish flame similar to
that of LPG."

As by now a few stover list members might be scratching their collective
minds -- along these lines:

Gee -- gas production for cook stoves is a fine methology to avoid death
due to smoke inhalation. Instead of harvesting/finding biomass for fuel --
than intensive fuel conditioning -- designing tricky stoves that need
constant attention to burn smoke free -- still requiring chimney and vents
-- just grow some sugar cane!

so -- for now -- "Focussing" on cane juice as portable fuel for A.D.s
digester.

OK -- how do really poor people make cane juice??

Traditionally -- here in Central America:

Hand extraction of cane juice involves boring two holes in a tree -- the
upper one has a moveable stick inserted -- the lower a fatter -- jammed in
hard -- not moveable -- the "anvil" inserted.

A stalk of cane is placed between these two -- the top stick being raised
-- then pressed down -- squeezing out juice -- this is repeated down the
length of cane. The juices collected below.

If we can get A. D. to enter into discussion -- some questions need be asked.

1: Will fresh cane juice be a good "food" for your digester?

re:

Because the
material to be fed into the biogas plant consists mainly of starch and
sugary material like sugarcane juice or fruit pulp,

2: How much cane juice would be required per day to supply for normal
cooking needs?

(I self answer that based on information A.D has sent -- below)

3: Is it possible that the residual stalk -- which when extracted in this
inefficient manner - -and still contains much sugar juice -- can also be
added to digester?? (Could digestion of begasse further enhance gas product
out?)

Re:

"Our studies also indicated that
the gas yield could be increased by using combinations of feedstock
materials. We are now looking at additives such as micronutrients,
nitrogen, phosphorous compounds etc."

Bagasse is very mineral rich.

4: The residue after digestion -- you note is a valid fertilizer agent --
is it a possible animal feed as well??

Re:

"The effluent slurry generated daily by the plant
is just a couple of litres. It can be used as manure for plants growing
around the house."

5: Source for bacteria required??

Self answer from notes below:

We do not use any special bacteria. To begin with we mix
about 10 kg cattle dung and water and pour the slurry into the
fermenter.

and:

However, to make the system more readily acceptable to the
users, we shall have to produce the culture ourselves and give it to the
users along with the biogas plant.

6: Is this device difficult to build??

Self answer:

A schoolgirl submitted a working model of it in a statewide
science project competition and won the first prize in the state.

***************************

Ok -- found this to self-answer #2:

"1kg of sugar or starch yields about 400 litres of methane,
within a period of 6 to 8 hours. This quantity is enough for cooking one
meal for 5 to 6 persons."

So that would mean around 12 kilograms of cane using the crude extraction
methology above -- quite labor instensive -- but then -- a small hand
operated rool type crusher could be used by numerous families to save much
labor.

You can see example of such at:

http://www.rajeximp.com/products/sc.html

I have acquired and operated model "A" -- powered by a two HP electric
engine -- for well over on year now. When in use we process 1400 kilo of
cane stalk per day -- 3 workers.

This at better efficiency of juice extraction than the above -- but keeping
a safety in guestimation factor there -- say the same --

1400/12 -- sufficient per day to supply fuel for 117 meals to be cooked.

At village level this would mean each household would collect by container
the required amount of cane juice -- daily -- for their needs in their own
individual digesters.

So yes -- "portable-fuel"

*********************************************

To bring others on this list up to speed:

Posted to this list originally:

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:48:03 +0530
Reply-To: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Extracted of importance:

I have developed a highly compact biogas plant, having a volume of just
400 litres. It operates on waste starch (spoilt grain, nonedible seed of
various species, oilcake of non-edible oilseeds, rhizomes of banana, canna,
nutgrass, arums, flour swept from the floor of a flour mill etc.) and
produces about 800 litres of gas from just 1 kg starch. It produces daily
just 5 litres of effluent, which can just be thrown at the base of any tree,
or applied to the vegetable bed in the backyard. The retention time of dung
in the dung-based biogas fermenter is 6 weeks, while that of starch is only
6 hours, which is why the volume of the fermenter could be reduced. The
biogas produced from starch has about 60% methane by weight, while that
produced from cattle dung has only 25% methane by weight. As a result, even
the 800 litres produced by my biogas plant is enough for cooking the meal of
a family.
We are trying to commercialise this new biogas fermenter. It costs only
US$30 as against US$250 for the conventional biogas fermenter.
Yours A.D.Karve

***********************************

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 05:50:59 +0530
Reply-To: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

"Extracted":

As far as the biogas fermenter is concerned, it is a small version of the
standard moving dome biogas plant, a very simple contraption
consisting of two drums, telescoping into one another. the outer drum is
open at the top and the inner one is open at its bottom. The outer drum is
filled with the material to be fermented and the inner drum is lowered into
it. A tap at the top of the inner drum is kept open while lowering the drum
into the outer one, and when it has been completely inserted into the outer
drum, the tap is closed. The gas accumulates in the inner drum which gets
lifted up due to increased buoyancy. (If a girl falls accidentally into
water, she should not remove her dress because the air caught in the dress
acts like a buoy :-))The inner drum is provided with a tap at the top,
through which the biogas can be led to the burner. Both the drums have a
capacity of approximately 200 litres.
A.D.Karve

******************************

Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 05:58:20 +0530
Reply-To: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

Several members asked me to provide more details about the compact
biogas plant being developed by us. I give below the latest status of
this technology.

The biogas plant consists of two cylindrical vessels telescoping into
one another. The larger vessel, called the fermenter, has a total
internal volume of about 500 lit. A drum having diameter of 85 cm and
height of 85 cm would have the desired volume. The smaller vessel, which
telescopes into the larger one, serves as the gas-holder. The diameter
of the gas holder is about 2 cm smaller than that of the fermenter. The
fermenter vessel is provided with appropriate inlet and outlet pipes for
introducing the feedstock into it and for removal of spent slurry from
it. The gas holder is provided with a gas tap, through which the gas is
led to the burner. This system uses starchy or sugary material as
feedstock. 1kg of sugar or starch yields about 400 litres of methane,
within a period of 6 to 8 hours. This quantity is enough for cooking one
meal for 5 to 6 persons. The biogas produced by this system contains
theoretically about equal volumes of carbondioxide and methane, but in
reality, it turned out to have less than 5% carbondioxide. This
phenomenon is explained by the fact that carbon dioxide dissolves in the
water in the fermenter vessel and diffuses out of it through the 1 cm
gap between the fermenter and the gas holder. The gas produced by this
system has thus almost the same calorific value as LPG. It burns without
smoke or soot, producing an almost invisible bluish flame similar to
that of LPG.

Several prototypes, in operation for more than a year, have been
successfully tested using various feedstocks. The potential candidate
feedstocks, namely rain damaged or insect damaged grain, flour spilled
on the floor of a flour mill, oilcake from non-edible oilseeds, seed of
various tree species, non-edible rhizomes (banana, arums, dioscoreas),
leftover food, spoiled and misshapen fruits, non-edible and wild fruits,
spoilt fruit juice, etc. are readily available in rural areas. This
system is much easier to operate than the dung based biogas plant,
because of the relatively small quantities of feedstock and effluent
slurry to be handled. The effluent slurry generated daily by the plant
is just a couple of litres. It can be used as manure for plants growing
around the house. The 500 litre biogas plant, mass produced from moulded
plastic drums, would cost about Rs. 3,500 (US$ 78). The smallest
cattle-dung based domestic biogas plant costs about Rs. 12,000 (US$267).
It requires daily 40kg dung, and owing to the retention period of almost
40 days, such plants have a minimum capacity of 2000 litres. They
generate daily 80 to 100 litres of effluent slurry. Daily handling of
such large quantities of feedstock and effluent is considered to be
arduous and bothersome by users.
Preliminary studies indicated that the amount of biogas produced and the
retention period varied from feedstock to feedstock and from season to
season. Also, when the feedstock was changed from one form to another,
the system took a few days to stabilise. Our studies also indicated that
the gas yield could be increased by using combinations of feedstock
materials. We are now looking at additives such as micronutrients,
nitrogen, phosphorous compounds etc., which might bacterial action and
yield more gas at a faster rate. Since the users would depend mainly
upon locally available feedstock, field trials are essential to
determine the retention periods and gas yield for different raw materials.
Many people in India, who read my article in a local neuspaper, copied
our design and have started to use this biogas plant in their
households. A schoolgirl submitted a working model of it in a statewide
science project competition and won the first prize in the state. A
company supplying science equipment to educational institute wants to
manufacture models (50 litre capacity) for supply to schools and colleges.
We have supplied 200 litre models to 10 voluntary agencies in different
regions for demonstrating this technology to villagers in their
respective areas. This model is meant for areas where the main diet is
rice. This model yields enough gas to operate a pressure cooker to cook
rice, beans, vegetables or meat for a family of five. In areas, where
the main diet of the people consists of unleavened flat bread, somewhat
like the tortilla, each piece of bread is made individually, and
therefore the stove has to be in operation for a longer time. In such
cases, we recommend the five hundred litre model.

A.D.Karve

***************************

Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 08:06:52 +0530
Reply-To: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
Sender: The Stoves Discussion List <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>

Dear Mr. Henson,
The fermenter vessel contains almost 200 litres of liquid. When you
pour a few litres of feedstock slurry into the biogas plant, a
corresponding quantity comes out of the outlet pipe. Because the
material to be fed into the biogas plant consists mainly of starch and
sugary material like sugarcane juice or fruit pulp, the slurry consists
almost exclusively of water with a little suspended matter in it. In the
case of cattle dung or municipal soild waste, the slurry is thicker,
because the feedstock material contains a lot of cellulose and lignin,
which are not as easily digestible as starch or sugar. Because the
effluent also consists of bacteria, and because the quantum of the
effluent is very small (just a few litres), we mix the starch powder or
fruit pulp into the effluent slurry and recycle it. We are currently
advocating that the feedstock be fed into the biogas plant once in the
morning and once again in the evening. Because the reaction time is
short, one can theoretically have a continuous drip feed, but the
relatively high viscosity of the feedstock may cause mechanical problems
like clogging of the dripper. It may also be theoretically possible to
produce alcohol and methane simultaneously, but we haven't looked for
alcohol. The system however runs on vinegar, which is the oxidised
product of alcohol. The system is sensitive to temperature. Here in Pune
it is not as cold as in the US, but at present the night temperatures
touch 10 degrees C. This lowering of the night temperature has reduced
the gas outflow considerably. However, it would not be difficult to
cover the drums with an insulating material and conserve the heat
produced by the bacterial process. I t would however add to the cost of
the system. We do not use any special bacteria. To begin with we mix
about 10 kg cattle dung and water and pour the slurry into the
fermenter. However, to make the system more readily acceptable to the
users, we shall have to produce the culture ourselves and give it to the
users along with the biogas plant. Dung is a dirty and smelly material.
In the initial phase, we add daily just 200 grams of flour. When gas
starts emanating, we test it for its combustibility. We get combustible
gas in 7 to 15 days.After the methane production has started, we
increase the daily dose of 1 kg starch at each feeding. The inlet and
outlet pipes have a diameter of about 5 cm.
A.D.Karve

 

***************************

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 19:38:38 +0530
Reply-To: adkarve <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>

 

Dear Mr. Manar,
please tell me what is meant by AD, VS and TS.

I wish to correct the figures of oilcake used and biogas generated. It
takes daily about 30 kg oilcake to produce 15 cubic meters of gas.But this
gas consists of almost pure methane. It is not a case of co-generation, but
direct fermentation. Cattle dung was used only initially as a source of
bacteria, but for more than a month, they are using only oilcake.

Let me also correct a fallacy that is current among scientists and laymen
alike. The fact, that methanogenic bacteria are found in the excreta of
animals, led people to think that dung was their food. It is not. One
should take the advice of Mark Twain, namely not to allow school to
interfer with one's education, seriously. These bacteria live in our
intestines and eat whatever we eat. They are swept out of the intestine
along with undigested food and therefore they are found in the faeces.
Because dung is not the food of these bacteria, they have to take the help
of several other species of faecal bacteria, which break down the dung into
sugars and organic acids, before the methanogenic bacteria can convert
them into methane. As a result, the quantity of methane produced from dung
(and distillery effluent, paper factory waste, municipal solid waste etc.)
is very low in proportion to the feedstock used, and secondly, it also
takes a lot of time.
Mr. Malar wanted to know the production potential of oilcake to methane. It
is stated in the standard textbooks on biogas technology, that 1 kg of
starch or sugar produces about 800 litres of biogas, out of which about 400
litres are methane. In our biogas plants, the reaction time of the
starch-to-methane process is 8 hours. Theoretically, the product should
also contain equal volume of carbon dioxide, but in the system that we are
using, the carbon dioxide dissolves in the water in the fermenter and
diffuses out of the fermenter through the gap between the fermenter vessel
and the moving dome. After seeing the nalysis of our biogas, somebody
suggested that we could use our gas for a driving a car. We do not have the
compressor to put the gas into a cylinder, but we operated a petrol driven
portable electricity generator for about two hours, using just the biogas
produced from oilcake.
Yours
Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
Pune, India.

**************************************

rom: Carefreeland at aol.com
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 03:46:00 EDT
Subject: Re: [STOVES] Does the methane flame travel back?
To: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN, stoves at listserv.repp.org

"extracted"

Methane may also
explode, as in the cylinder of an internal combustion engine, if it is mixed
with the appropriate quantity of oxygen. But under the anaerobic conditions
under which methane is produced and stored, it would not explode or burn as
long as it is inside the gas holder or inside the fermenter.
You also asked me if agricultural crop residues could be used for producing
methane instead of making charcoal. Unfortunately, the anaerobic bacteria
cannot digest lignin. Woody and lignified crop residues like cotton stalks,
sugarcane leaves or wheat straw have to be first decomposed by aerobic
organisms. The digested mass is then fed into a biogas digester. This is
called two stage fermentation. It is used for agricultural residues and also
for municipal solid waste, but not in a domestic methane fermenter, because
the added cost of the extra fermenter and the extra space required by the
system.

The residual slurry of a biogas fermenter is a good organic source of plant
nutrients, because the process of methane formation removes CO2 and CH4 from
the biomass. Because of the selectinve removal of these elements form the
biomass, the other constituents such a N,P,K,Ca, Fe, etc. get concentrated
in residual slurry.

Now -- for those on the Gas list that have made it down this far -- what do
you believe is the practical economic viability of converting abandoned
sugar factory plants into centralized gas production facilities for further
distribution??

Peter Singfield -- in Belize

From tombreed at comcast.net Sun Oct 17 11:17:46 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (Tom Reed)
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:17:46 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Energy balance
References: <1d6.2ca0e71a.2e92b6ae@aol.com>
Message-ID: <009901c4b477$b37e8e20$04013b0a@TOMBREED>

Dear Enoojibail:

You can do the math yourself, but as a general statement more than 15% water is bad news. In Denver 9-10% is the equilibrium moisture content. So be patient, stack it openly and let it dry wherever you are.

Gasification to hot, combustible gas can be 90% efficient, since there is no place for the heat to go except chemical and sensible heat. If you want to put cold gas into an engine you must remove (and often waste) the sensible heat, and that takes "cold gas efficiency" to about 70% if you don't recover it.

Yours truly, TOM REED MODERATOR
----- Original Message -----
From: Enoojibail at aol.com
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 8:22 AM
Subject: [Gasification] Energy balance

Does any one has energy "input and output" numbers when we gasify organic materials? What is the energy efficiency of the gasifier? How much enegy is consumed to "remove" moisture (60-75%) contained in the material? How much energy is used to gasify the dry material?

Esh
Anergen
enoojibail at anergen.com

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

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041017/1c0b91a0/attachment.html

From tombreed at comcast.net Sun Oct 17 10:10:03 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (Tom Reed)
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 09:10:03 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
References: <A1CF906CC309D642B8B9567A4D2D79F10351B3@EXCHSERVER.tke.local>
Message-ID: <009601c4b477$b0dcba20$04013b0a@TOMBREED>

Dear Thomas Koch and all:

Having written two of those "Survey of Biomass Gasification" lists (one in 1980 at SERI), one in 2000 for NREL, I feel your pain. It is instructive to read the hype for most gasifiers at the time and see how quickly it was exposed. (Similar for other pyrolysis, ethanol, etc. projects.)

None of these projects were complete failures, but each had a fatal flaw preventing final commercialization. IT SHOULD BE A REQUIREMENT THAT A THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF THE WEAK POINTS BE WIDELY PUBLISHED BEFORE THE FUNDING IS CUT OFF. That way, when we need it we can pick up where the project left off, rather than starting over again.

Most of the investigators will still be alive, licking their wounds in some hideyhole. Give them $10,000 to write up why their $10,000,000 project failed with suggestions for how to continue.

Personally, I'd start with the SynGas Inc. project of Prof. Mike Graboski at CSM. They operated a 25 t/d air and oxygen gasifier for 3 years and reached the 75t/day level before the low cost of oil and a hurricane shut them down.

World Governments spend big bucks (>$50M) on many of these projects, but don't say a word when they go down the tubes. Time to learn from our mistakes as well as our successes.

Your pal, TOM REED BEF

----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas Koch
To: Kollol Dey ; Tom Miles ; GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Cc: Sam Baldwin ; Robb Walt
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 9:35 AM
Subject: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers


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

Fra: Thomas Koch
Sendt: 4. oktober 2004 17:24
Til: 'TBReed'; Kollol Dey; Tom Miles; GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Cc: Sam Baldwin; Robb Walt
Emne: SV: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers

Dear Tom, Tom and Kollol and other gasification nerds.

It is a very interesting conversation you are having.

In the joint IEA-GASNET meeting in Strasbourg 2 years ago we discussed the quality of the country reports and the official contributions about the national activities.

I was surpriced to read about some gasification projects classified as "alive" although I would have classified them as "Completely DEAD".

I learned that it was not easy to agree on a common definition on how to evaluate gasifyers.

Operating hours, money spend on the technology, quality of the business proposal behind the proposal, enthusiasm of the inventor behind the process or ???

On the meeting it was proposed that I should come up with some new criteria for the coming country reports. Of course a logical decision because I was the one criticising, and as coming from a private enterprise I had no money to pay for such an exercise I realized that it was a too big job for me.

I Denmark we have one gasifier that can full fill the criteria of 5000 hours operation. This an updraft gasifiyer in Harboore operating with two 700 kW gas engines. We have a small gasifier (Viking) that have operated approx 2000 hours.

Nice plants both of them, I just wonder why the commercial interest is so small. They have both been around for approx. 10 years but no plants sold.

Then there are a number of gasification plants that are trying to enter the world of commercial gasifyers.

One project has millions of dollars from DOE (in Denmark???) and millions of Euro from EU and millions of Kroner from DEA (Danish Energy Agency).

Others have enthusiastic inventors and less money.

And some are (almost) DEAD, only kept alive as a grant that still exists as a number somewhere.

I have heard similar stories from other countries.

I have come to the conclusion that I only believe in the state of art for a certain gasifyer if I have touched it my selves.

Best regards

Thomas Koch


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

Fra: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] P? vegne af TBReed
Sendt: 4. oktober 2004 14:56
Til: Kollol Dey; Tom Miles; GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
Cc: Sam Baldwin; Robb Walt
Emne: Re: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers

Dear Kollol Dey, Tom Miles and All:

The only gasifiers I know that come to this standard are the PRM rice hull gasifiers, PRIME ENERGY.

When I published my "Survey of Biomass Gasification" for the US DOE in 2000 I had a picture of the Cargill (then) Greenville, Mississippi rice hull gasifiers on the cover (300 t/day) and I said "Possibly more biomass has been gasified in PRMES gasifiers than all other gasifiers combined, including the million gasifiers in WWIII.* It is truly commercial with over 20 current installations and another 8 planned." I put a picture of this gasifier on the cover of the draft of the book.

The US DOE was paying for the book and for the development of the FERCO (developed by Battelle) gasifier, so they said I should remove the PRIME gasifier from the cover and substitute their FERCO gasifier installed in Burlington, Vt.

I said that since the FERCO gasifier was not commercial yet, it could prove an embarrassment to them. They have funded a number of gasifiers that have failed, probably $100 million in development money come to naught. But I doubt if they embarrass easily.

The US DOE has primarily funded megawatt sized gasifiers, forgetting that it is wise to learn to walk before you run.

I have hopes that the CPC BIOMAX gasifiers will clock 5000 hours soon... They are running nicely at 15 kW (turnkey, tarfree) and they are testing 5 kW and 50 kW units this year. Makes good sense when you need combined heat and power. Our 3 kW woodgas stoves are spreading nicely, and the 3 burner stove in Ward may clock > 500 meals/yr - OK for cookstoves.

Yours truly,

TOM REED BEF MODERATOR

* Over a million biomass gasifier trucks, buses, cars, boats operated during WWII according to reliable oil industry sources. Of course maybe that statistic was generated to scare the oil companies into re-establishing cheap oil after the war as soon as possible. That was the "Golden Age of Gasification".

If we don't develop advanced gasification for liquid fuels soon, we may be running our vehicles on wood again.

http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

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

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041017/4186d37b/attachment.html

From rstanley at legacyfound.org Mon Oct 18 13:37:01 2004
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:37:01 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane digestion device
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20041017121733.00998d10@pop.btl.net>
References: <3.0.32.20041017121733.00998d10@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <41740D4D.6020104@legacyfound.org>

Peter et al .

I wholeheartedly support the concept and AD's pioneering work and yours.
Now couple this with what is already known about biogas burners (I
wonder AD, about the viscosity of the gas. Assuming its exits the
digester at about the same pressure as a conventional floating drum
biogas plant) do you have to use a larger bore burner then LPG
appliances or..?

Having lived daily with my own conventional biogas plant at my own house
in Tanzania for four years, the very improvements Ad suggests with thie
new version, are exactly on the mark toward widespread adaptability.
Now all we need is a thinking and for a change legally elected president
to guide the policy here...
Aluta continua,
Richard Stanley,
from the US of the North American continent

Peter Singfield wrote:

>(Flipping this to Gas list as well -- being as this is about gas making)
>
>Posting this with all respect to A. D. Karve -- who in my opinion is the
>brightest beacon of pratical solutions on this mail list for all we here
>living in 3rd world.
>
>Now -- this posting should get a few gears engaged!
>
>Quoting A.D. Karve:
>
>"The gas produced by this
>system has thus almost the same calorific value as LPG. It burns without
>smoke or soot, producing an almost invisible bluish flame similar to
>that of LPG."
>
>
>As by now a few stover list members might be scratching their collective
>minds -- along these lines:
>
>Gee -- gas production for cook stoves is a fine methology to avoid death
>due to smoke inhalation. Instead of harvesting/finding biomass for fuel --
>than intensive fuel conditioning -- designing tricky stoves that need
>constant attention to burn smoke free -- still requiring chimney and vents
>-- just grow some sugar cane!
>
>so -- for now -- "Focussing" on cane juice as portable fuel for A.D.s
>digester.
>
>
>OK -- how do really poor people make cane juice??
>
>Traditionally -- here in Central America:
>
>Hand extraction of cane juice involves boring two holes in a tree -- the
>upper one has a moveable stick inserted -- the lower a fatter -- jammed in
>hard -- not moveable -- the "anvil" inserted.
>
>A stalk of cane is placed between these two -- the top stick being raised
>-- then pressed down -- squeezing out juice -- this is repeated down the
>length of cane. The juices collected below.
>
>If we can get A. D. to enter into discussion -- some questions need be asked.
>
>1: Will fresh cane juice be a good "food" for your digester?
>
>re:
>
>Because the
>material to be fed into the biogas plant consists mainly of starch and
>sugary material like sugarcane juice or fruit pulp,
>
>2: How much cane juice would be required per day to supply for normal
>cooking needs?
>
>(I self answer that based on information A.D has sent -- below)
>
>3: Is it possible that the residual stalk -- which when extracted in this
>inefficient manner - -and still contains much sugar juice -- can also be
>added to digester?? (Could digestion of begasse further enhance gas product
>out?)
>
>Re:
>
>"Our studies also indicated that
>the gas yield could be increased by using combinations of feedstock
>materials. We are now looking at additives such as micronutrients,
>nitrogen, phosphorous compounds etc."
>
>Bagasse is very mineral rich.
>
>4: The residue after digestion -- you note is a valid fertilizer agent --
>is it a possible animal feed as well??
>
>Re:
>
>"The effluent slurry generated daily by the plant
>is just a couple of litres. It can be used as manure for plants growing
>around the house."
>
>5: Source for bacteria required??
>
>Self answer from notes below:
>
>We do not use any special bacteria. To begin with we mix
>about 10 kg cattle dung and water and pour the slurry into the
>fermenter.
>
>and:
>
>However, to make the system more readily acceptable to the
>users, we shall have to produce the culture ourselves and give it to the
>users along with the biogas plant.
>
>6: Is this device difficult to build??
>
>Self answer:
>
>A schoolgirl submitted a working model of it in a statewide
>science project competition and won the first prize in the state.
>
>***************************
>
>Ok -- found this to self-answer #2:
>
>"1kg of sugar or starch yields about 400 litres of methane,
>within a period of 6 to 8 hours. This quantity is enough for cooking one
>meal for 5 to 6 persons."
>
>So that would mean around 12 kilograms of cane using the crude extraction
>methology above -- quite labor instensive -- but then -- a small hand
>operated rool type crusher could be used by numerous families to save much
>labor.
>
>You can see example of such at:
>
>http://www.rajeximp.com/products/sc.html
>
>I have acquired and operated model "A" -- powered by a two HP electric
>engine -- for well over on year now. When in use we process 1400 kilo of
>cane stalk per day -- 3 workers.
>
>This at better efficiency of juice extraction than the above -- but keeping
>a safety in guestimation factor there -- say the same --
>
>1400/12 -- sufficient per day to supply fuel for 117 meals to be cooked.
>
>At village level this would mean each household would collect by container
>the required amount of cane juice -- daily -- for their needs in their own
>individual digesters.
>
>So yes -- "portable-fuel"
>
>
>*********************************************
>
>To bring others on this list up to speed:
>
>
>Posted to this list originally:
>
>Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:48:03 +0530
>Reply-To: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
>
>Extracted of importance:
>
>I have developed a highly compact biogas plant, having a volume of just
>400 litres. It operates on waste starch (spoilt grain, nonedible seed of
>various species, oilcake of non-edible oilseeds, rhizomes of banana, canna,
>nutgrass, arums, flour swept from the floor of a flour mill etc.) and
>produces about 800 litres of gas from just 1 kg starch. It produces daily
>just 5 litres of effluent, which can just be thrown at the base of any tree,
>or applied to the vegetable bed in the backyard. The retention time of dung
>in the dung-based biogas fermenter is 6 weeks, while that of starch is only
>6 hours, which is why the volume of the fermenter could be reduced. The
>biogas produced from starch has about 60% methane by weight, while that
>produced from cattle dung has only 25% methane by weight. As a result, even
>the 800 litres produced by my biogas plant is enough for cooking the meal of
>a family.
> We are trying to commercialise this new biogas fermenter. It costs only
>US$30 as against US$250 for the conventional biogas fermenter.
>Yours A.D.Karve
>
>***********************************
>
>Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 05:50:59 +0530
>Reply-To: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
>
>"Extracted":
>
>As far as the biogas fermenter is concerned, it is a small version of the
>standard moving dome biogas plant, a very simple contraption
>consisting of two drums, telescoping into one another. the outer drum is
>open at the top and the inner one is open at its bottom. The outer drum is
>filled with the material to be fermented and the inner drum is lowered into
>it. A tap at the top of the inner drum is kept open while lowering the drum
>into the outer one, and when it has been completely inserted into the outer
>drum, the tap is closed. The gas accumulates in the inner drum which gets
>lifted up due to increased buoyancy. (If a girl falls accidentally into
>water, she should not remove her dress because the air caught in the dress
>acts like a buoy :-))The inner drum is provided with a tap at the top,
>through which the biogas can be led to the burner. Both the drums have a
>capacity of approximately 200 litres.
>A.D.Karve
>
>******************************
>
>Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 05:58:20 +0530
>Reply-To: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
>
> Several members asked me to provide more details about the compact
>biogas plant being developed by us. I give below the latest status of
>this technology.
>
>The biogas plant consists of two cylindrical vessels telescoping into
>one another. The larger vessel, called the fermenter, has a total
>internal volume of about 500 lit. A drum having diameter of 85 cm and
>height of 85 cm would have the desired volume. The smaller vessel, which
>telescopes into the larger one, serves as the gas-holder. The diameter
>of the gas holder is about 2 cm smaller than that of the fermenter. The
>fermenter vessel is provided with appropriate inlet and outlet pipes for
>introducing the feedstock into it and for removal of spent slurry from
>it. The gas holder is provided with a gas tap, through which the gas is
>led to the burner. This system uses starchy or sugary material as
>feedstock. 1kg of sugar or starch yields about 400 litres of methane,
>within a period of 6 to 8 hours. This quantity is enough for cooking one
>meal for 5 to 6 persons. The biogas produced by this system contains
>theoretically about equal volumes of carbondioxide and methane, but in
>reality, it turned out to have less than 5% carbondioxide. This
>phenomenon is explained by the fact that carbon dioxide dissolves in the
>water in the fermenter vessel and diffuses out of it through the 1 cm
>gap between the fermenter and the gas holder. The gas produced by this
>system has thus almost the same calorific value as LPG. It burns without
>smoke or soot, producing an almost invisible bluish flame similar to
>that of LPG.
>
>Several prototypes, in operation for more than a year, have been
>successfully tested using various feedstocks. The potential candidate
>feedstocks, namely rain damaged or insect damaged grain, flour spilled
>on the floor of a flour mill, oilcake from non-edible oilseeds, seed of
>various tree species, non-edible rhizomes (banana, arums, dioscoreas),
>leftover food, spoiled and misshapen fruits, non-edible and wild fruits,
>spoilt fruit juice, etc. are readily available in rural areas. This
>system is much easier to operate than the dung based biogas plant,
>because of the relatively small quantities of feedstock and effluent
>slurry to be handled. The effluent slurry generated daily by the plant
>is just a couple of litres. It can be used as manure for plants growing
>around the house. The 500 litre biogas plant, mass produced from moulded
>plastic drums, would cost about Rs. 3,500 (US$ 78). The smallest
>cattle-dung based domestic biogas plant costs about Rs. 12,000 (US$267).
>It requires daily 40kg dung, and owing to the retention period of almost
>40 days, such plants have a minimum capacity of 2000 litres. They
>generate daily 80 to 100 litres of effluent slurry. Daily handling of
>such large quantities of feedstock and effluent is considered to be
>arduous and bothersome by users.
>Preliminary studies indicated that the amount of biogas produced and the
>retention period varied from feedstock to feedstock and from season to
>season. Also, when the feedstock was changed from one form to another,
>the system took a few days to stabilise. Our studies also indicated that
>the gas yield could be increased by using combinations of feedstock
>materials. We are now looking at additives such as micronutrients,
>nitrogen, phosphorous compounds etc., which might bacterial action and
>yield more gas at a faster rate. Since the users would depend mainly
>upon locally available feedstock, field trials are essential to
>determine the retention periods and gas yield for different raw materials.
>Many people in India, who read my article in a local neuspaper, copied
>our design and have started to use this biogas plant in their
>households. A schoolgirl submitted a working model of it in a statewide
>science project competition and won the first prize in the state. A
>company supplying science equipment to educational institute wants to
>manufacture models (50 litre capacity) for supply to schools and colleges.
>We have supplied 200 litre models to 10 voluntary agencies in different
>regions for demonstrating this technology to villagers in their
>respective areas. This model is meant for areas where the main diet is
>rice. This model yields enough gas to operate a pressure cooker to cook
>rice, beans, vegetables or meat for a family of five. In areas, where
>the main diet of the people consists of unleavened flat bread, somewhat
>like the tortilla, each piece of bread is made individually, and
>therefore the stove has to be in operation for a longer time. In such
>cases, we recommend the five hundred litre model.
>
>A.D.Karve
>
>***************************
>
>Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 08:06:52 +0530
>Reply-To: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
>Sender: The Stoves Discussion List <STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
>
> Dear Mr. Henson,
> The fermenter vessel contains almost 200 litres of liquid. When you
>pour a few litres of feedstock slurry into the biogas plant, a
>corresponding quantity comes out of the outlet pipe. Because the
>material to be fed into the biogas plant consists mainly of starch and
>sugary material like sugarcane juice or fruit pulp, the slurry consists
>almost exclusively of water with a little suspended matter in it. In the
>case of cattle dung or municipal soild waste, the slurry is thicker,
>because the feedstock material contains a lot of cellulose and lignin,
>which are not as easily digestible as starch or sugar. Because the
>effluent also consists of bacteria, and because the quantum of the
>effluent is very small (just a few litres), we mix the starch powder or
>fruit pulp into the effluent slurry and recycle it. We are currently
>advocating that the feedstock be fed into the biogas plant once in the
>morning and once again in the evening. Because the reaction time is
>short, one can theoretically have a continuous drip feed, but the
>relatively high viscosity of the feedstock may cause mechanical problems
>like clogging of the dripper. It may also be theoretically possible to
>produce alcohol and methane simultaneously, but we haven't looked for
>alcohol. The system however runs on vinegar, which is the oxidised
>product of alcohol. The system is sensitive to temperature. Here in Pune
>it is not as cold as in the US, but at present the night temperatures
>touch 10 degrees C. This lowering of the night temperature has reduced
>the gas outflow considerably. However, it would not be difficult to
>cover the drums with an insulating material and conserve the heat
>produced by the bacterial process. I t would however add to the cost of
>the system. We do not use any special bacteria. To begin with we mix
>about 10 kg cattle dung and water and pour the slurry into the
>fermenter. However, to make the system more readily acceptable to the
>users, we shall have to produce the culture ourselves and give it to the
>users along with the biogas plant. Dung is a dirty and smelly material.
>In the initial phase, we add daily just 200 grams of flour. When gas
>starts emanating, we test it for its combustibility. We get combustible
>gas in 7 to 15 days.After the methane production has started, we
>increase the daily dose of 1 kg starch at each feeding. The inlet and
>outlet pipes have a diameter of about 5 cm.
>A.D.Karve
>
>
>
>
>***************************
>
>Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 19:38:38 +0530
>Reply-To: adkarve <adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN>
>
>
>
>Dear Mr. Manar,
>please tell me what is meant by AD, VS and TS.
>
>I wish to correct the figures of oilcake used and biogas generated. It
>takes daily about 30 kg oilcake to produce 15 cubic meters of gas.But this
>gas consists of almost pure methane. It is not a case of co-generation, but
>direct fermentation. Cattle dung was used only initially as a source of
>bacteria, but for more than a month, they are using only oilcake.
>
>Let me also correct a fallacy that is current among scientists and laymen
>alike. The fact, that methanogenic bacteria are found in the excreta of
>animals, led people to think that dung was their food. It is not. One
>should take the advice of Mark Twain, namely not to allow school to
>interfer with one's education, seriously. These bacteria live in our
>intestines and eat whatever we eat. They are swept out of the intestine
>along with undigested food and therefore they are found in the faeces.
>Because dung is not the food of these bacteria, they have to take the help
>of several other species of faecal bacteria, which break down the dung into
>sugars and organic acids, before the methanogenic bacteria can convert
>them into methane. As a result, the quantity of methane produced from dung
>(and distillery effluent, paper factory waste, municipal solid waste etc.)
>is very low in proportion to the feedstock used, and secondly, it also
>takes a lot of time.
>Mr. Malar wanted to know the production potential of oilcake to methane. It
>is stated in the standard textbooks on biogas technology, that 1 kg of
>starch or sugar produces about 800 litres of biogas, out of which about 400
>litres are methane. In our biogas plants, the reaction time of the
>starch-to-methane process is 8 hours. Theoretically, the product should
>also contain equal volume of carbon dioxide, but in the system that we are
>using, the carbon dioxide dissolves in the water in the fermenter and
>diffuses out of the fermenter through the gap between the fermenter vessel
>and the moving dome. After seeing the nalysis of our biogas, somebody
>suggested that we could use our gas for a driving a car. We do not have the
>compressor to put the gas into a cylinder, but we operated a petrol driven
>portable electricity generator for about two hours, using just the biogas
>produced from oilcake.
>Yours
>Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
>Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
>Pune, India.
>
>
>**************************************
>
>rom: Carefreeland at aol.com
>Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 03:46:00 EDT
>Subject: Re: [STOVES] Does the methane flame travel back?
>To: adkarve at PN2.VSNL.NET.IN, stoves at listserv.repp.org
>
>"extracted"
>
>Methane may also
>explode, as in the cylinder of an internal combustion engine, if it is mixed
>with the appropriate quantity of oxygen. But under the anaerobic conditions
>under which methane is produced and stored, it would not explode or burn as
>long as it is inside the gas holder or inside the fermenter.
>You also asked me if agricultural crop residues could be used for producing
>methane instead of making charcoal. Unfortunately, the anaerobic bacteria
>cannot digest lignin. Woody and lignified crop residues like cotton stalks,
>sugarcane leaves or wheat straw have to be first decomposed by aerobic
>organisms. The digested mass is then fed into a biogas digester. This is
>called two stage fermentation. It is used for agricultural residues and also
>for municipal solid waste, but not in a domestic methane fermenter, because
>the added cost of the extra fermenter and the extra space required by the
>system.
>
>The residual slurry of a biogas fermenter is a good organic source of plant
>nutrients, because the process of methane formation removes CO2 and CH4 from
>the biomass. Because of the selectinve removal of these elements form the
>biomass, the other constituents such a N,P,K,Ca, Fe, etc. get concentrated
>in residual slurry.
>
>Now -- for those on the Gas list that have made it down this far -- what do
>you believe is the practical economic viability of converting abandoned
>sugar factory plants into centralized gas production facilities for further
>distribution??
>
>
>Peter Singfield -- in Belize
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
>
>
>

 

From snkm at btl.net Sun Oct 17 13:54:20 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:54:20 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Reviewing A.D. Karve's methane digestion device
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041017125017.00942100@pop.btl.net>

***********************
If we can get A. D. to enter into discussion -- some questions need be asked.

1: Will fresh cane juice be a good "food" for your digester?

**********************

Further investigations of my extensive archives on hard drive have derived
A.D.'s answer to this question -- above -- addressed to me personally on
this same mail list -- and some time back!

So embarrassing to age and lose my mental capacities --

Here is that answer:

Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 19:27:25 +0530
From: "A.D. Karve" <adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>
Subject: Re: [STOVES] compact biogas plant
To: Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net>, STOVES at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG
X-Accept-Language: en-us

Dear Peter,

Our biogas plant accepts both sugarcane juice as also macerated whole
sugarcane.

In the case of the latter, the advantage is that the cellulose in the cane
is also converted into gas, albeit after a retention period of about 20
days.

The maceration is done with the help of a machine called the chaff cutter,
which is used for chopping stems of sorghum or maize into small pieces. One
can set the machine to give different sizes of the chopped up material.

We use the setting for the smallest pieces. Under Indian conditions, where
we get rains only during the four months of monsoon, sugarcane needs
irrigation.

Therefore it is not such a simple crop to grow and it is also costly. There
are many crops that produce starchy material (e.g. sorghum, pearl millet,
sweet potato and several perennial tree species). Many of them can be grown
purely under rainfed situations, and therefore starchy material is
generally cheaper.

It can also be stored more easily than sugarcane juice or sirup.

I have not patented my biogas plant as I use the same standard design. The
fact that one can get methane from starch or sugar is also not my
invention.

This is common information to everybody in the biogas game. Many people
have reported high biogas yields with oilcakes. There was however a general
tendency among all workers to use only waste material such as animal dung,
municipal solid waste, distillery effluent etc. as the raw material for
making methane.

All that I did was to conduct some experiments with starchy and sugary
material. When I got good results, I started to search for such material
that could be used as feedstock without competing with human or animal
food, and found that farmers generally have a lot of starchy and sugary
material, which they considered as waste. One can of course have commercial
methane production using commercially grown starchy material such as
sorghum or tapioka. The farmer does not care for what his produce is being
used for, after he has sold it.

In fact none of our technologies is patented, as we want them to reach the
people who are need of them.

As to diversifying our operation to other areas, would certainly like to
do it, if the money is made available for it.

Yours
A.D.Karve

**************in reply to********************

Peter Singfield wrote:
At 05:58 AM 1/5/2004 +0530, A.D. Karve wrote:
Several members asked me to provide more details about the compact
biogas plant being developed by us. I give below the latest status of
this technology.

Dear A.D.Karve;

I live in Belize, Central America, in a small village "Xaibe" -- that is
literally surrounded in cane fields.

I wonder if an optimized version of your design could be made to operate on
only fresh cane juice??

Have you tried this as of yet??

For the other stovers on the list -- sugar cane is a wonderfully productive
plant for any place in the tropics. Very easy to grow. For a large
percentage of the world's poorest populations it is feasible to have a
small plot of cane. This certainly would solve the "where do we find all
the biomass to burn" problem!

Certainly -- it would be of interest to me to pursue this topic further.

Mr. A.D.Karve -- it is commercially impossible to ship such devices around
the globe. But have you considered diversifying your operation to other
areas??

"Franchising" this gas producer -- based specifically on cane juice --
would be in teresting and profitable.

One small cane crusher in each village would suffice for everyone's gas
generator.

Though this is about gas -- and is about small stoves -- there may be a few
on this list adverse to such a discussion being as it deals not with --
what to date -- is considered as standard "stove".

But then -- locking oneself into a rigid mind set is often counter
productive to innovation or eventual application.

By coincidence I happen to have that "one small cane crusher" --

Peter Singfield
Belize





From MMBTUPR at aol.com Sun Oct 17 14:07:37 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:07:37 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Peak crude-oil capacity
Message-ID: <149.35d0fa35.2ea41cf9@aol.com>

to Gasification list from Lewis L. Smith

There is a short but very interesting article on page 25 if "Oil & Gas
Journal" for October 4. [These people are sort of dinosaurs. They still don't
believe in Global Warming. But this weekly is must reading for anyone in the
oil and/or natural-gas industries.]

It reports a stalwart defense of Saudi crude-oil capacity, reserves and
reservoir-management practices by Nasen G. Saleri, reservoir manager of Saudi
Aramco, which is responsible for all of the Kingdom's oil and gas. Since I
don't have the info to evaluate what he said, I wont ! [He was talking to the
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, recently held in Houston TX.

However, he did say something that is probably true and makes one
cautious about whom and what to believe, in the debate over when crude-oil pumping
capacity will peak. Saleri said that Saudi Aramco monitors and reviews 25 key
parameters in each of its reservoirs. Moreover, the firm is using "geosteering"
in determining where to drill development wells, which are wells drilled in
fields whose dimensions and characteristics are already known to some degree,
so as to optimize future oil extraction. ["Geosteering" is a term so new that
it is isn't in any of my technical dictionaries ! However, I imagine that it
refers to the use of satellite imaging.]

One wonders how many of those 25 parameters are necessary to give
someone a rough feel for the condition of a reservoir and by what means an outsider
might go about obtaining them, or talking to someone who knew what they were ?
I suspect that we are dealing here with what economists euphemistically
call "an asymmetric information problem", but very, very asymmetric!

The foregoing confirms my previous conjecture. Yes, crude-oil production
capacity will peak in this century, probably before 2050, but when is
anybody's guess ! The plain truth is that we are dealing with a very uncertain
situation here, one which is not going to clarified for quite a few years, if
ever. So the most important question and the easier one to answer has to do with
the future of coal gasification.

This makes it rough on all of us trying to devise a strategy for the
successful promotion of biomass gasification. However, as Pres. Carter has
reminded us, "Life is unfair" !

Cordially.

End.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041017/30c77804/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Sun Oct 17 14:13:49 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:13:49 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] RE None of these projects were complete failures
Message-ID: <fa.43689da.2ea41e6d@aol.com>

Boy are you on point with this one.

The success stories of some of these grant USA funded projects are also
sealed from peer review by non disclosure agreements with the parties. How do you
advance, refine or debunk with no peer review? You don't. We reinvent the wheel
without making any revolutions. That is in all areas of hydrogen bio
technology based, bio ethanol, plasma and Gasification I have tried to document.

Leonard Wheeler
Eustis

Pyrolysis, ethanol, etc., projects.)

None of these projects were complete failures, but each had a fatal flaw
preventing final commercialization. IT SHOULD BE A REQUIREMENT THAT A THOROUGH
ANALYSIS OF THE WEAK POINTS BE WIDELY PUBLISHED BEFORE THE FUNDING IS CUT OFF.
That way, when we need it we can pick up where the project left off, rather
than starting over again.

Most of the investigators will still be alive, licking their wounds in some
hideyhole. Give them $10,000 to write up why their $10,000,000 project failed
with suggestions for how to continue.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041017/25f28e90/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Sun Oct 17 14:42:32 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:42:32 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] RE Refinery Model of Gassifier production. explained.
Message-ID: <7a.63c245c6.2ea42528@aol.com>

Off net I have been challenged to explain or defend my statements by some
rather distinguished members of this group. Also to explain what I mean by
refinery model of production.

Within the constraints of my non disclosure agreements protecting trade
secrets of your industry competition and others in kindred relationships I will
give it a try.

Everyone I have reviewed in mainstream plasma Gasification, hydrogen, ethanol
and bio ethanol is doing business by means of last century industrial
process. Dirty expensive and really inefficient and labor intensive.

Lets say we build a 300 to 600 TPD gassifier. The high efficiency gassifier
conversion of bagasse or wood or sugar what ever. We are close by supply of
required quantity of feedstock needed located in Grand Fork, ND type
neighborhoods. *Grand Forks now looks like it does because we used all the trees to supply
our local power for the last xxx years.

We have those warm 50 degree below zero winters and shallow 20 foot snow
drift that kinda slows down the 24/7 365 day a year operation to contend with too.
Crops are unavailable off season.

Virtually all production of renewable energy in ethanol bio mass plasma Redux
has these problems with feedstock availability and the consumer market for
the finished market.

The USA market for fuel ethanol auto fuel is #1 California. A review of the
California Ethanol Study of 1999 and 2004 as well as the 1995 Hawaii Ethanol
study is virtually no different in problems of feedstock and market friction of
distance cost with end product of ethanol or electrical power or heat. Same as
the gassifier makers who want to make electrical power, ethanol, chemical
additives etc.

This problem was also faced by the oil industry and they found the solution
to it. It is also one faced by the USA power grid and generation capacity. See
Fla Governor's Report on Electrical Crisis in Fla, Apollo Project and I can
send you another one in PDF on US energy policy if you are interested.

Instead of taking the bio Feedstocks and turning them into heat steam and
electrical power which require expensive to build and maintain power grids
loading docks, trucks, RR cars and lot of labor and expensive NEW capital
investment. Use the existing low tech stuff.

A gas pipeline! Pipe the syn gas which ranges from 150 to 950 BTU SCF to the
power company which already has the system to use it in place bought and paid
for. You can pipe the syngas to a plant to make it into fuel ethanol too.
Also hydrogen. All those C's and H's in your gas really have some versatile
applications. Some of you folks have already done the chemistry process but none
have apparently done the transportation models for your gas markets.

Nothing transports bulk energy cheaper or better than a pipeline. At least
that is what the Oil and Gas industry tells me. They make a few bucks at doing
it.

Startech converts MSW, etc., to Syngas and after transport it can then be
made into alcohol or Hydrogen on site without any messy tanker trucks.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041017/184de86c/attachment.html

From arnt at c2i.net Sun Oct 17 17:41:53 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:41:53 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Peak crude-oil capacity
In-Reply-To: <149.35d0fa35.2ea41cf9@aol.com>
References: <149.35d0fa35.2ea41cf9@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20041018004153.66992556.arnt@c2i.net>

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:07:37 EDT, MMBTUPR at aol.com wrote in message
<149.35d0fa35.2ea41cf9 at aol.com>:
>
> Moreover, the firm is using "geosteering" in determining where to
> drill development wells, which are wells drilled in fields whose
> dimensions and characteristics are already known to some degree, so as
> to optimize future oil extraction. ["Geosteering" is a term so new
> that it is isn't in any of my technical dictionaries ! However, I
> imagine that it refers to the use of satellite imaging.]

..geosteering??? Like in drill string navigation to drill horisontal
wells? Over here they drops vertically thru the seabed and the first
few hundres meters thru rock, then bends out to horizontal some 3km
deep and traverses the next 5 or so kilometers of the reservoir(s),
usually with better drain yields than say 15 vertical wells, these
penetrates vertically thru an often thin reservoir, while the horisontal
well can be strung out along the best part of the same thin reservoir.

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

 

From MMBTUPR at aol.com Sun Oct 17 18:22:51 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:22:51 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Peak crude-oil capacity
Message-ID: <dc.1702f891.2ea458cb@aol.com>

to Gasification list from Lewis L.
Smith

Ref. my post this date and above subject.

From the article, I suspect that they are using satellites to spot the
locations of development-type wells, rather that using satellites to guide the
drill bit in directional drilling. [Which need not be 90 degrees from the
vertical.]

Cordially.

End.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041017/d66d0d2d/attachment.html

From arnt at c2i.net Sun Oct 17 18:30:54 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 01:30:54 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] RE Refinery Model of Gassifier production.
explained.
In-Reply-To: <7a.63c245c6.2ea42528@aol.com>
References: <7a.63c245c6.2ea42528@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20041018013054.2be97f1b.arnt@c2i.net>

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:42:32 EDT, LWheeler45 at aol.com wrote in message
<7a.63c245c6.2ea42528 at aol.com>:

> Lets say we build a 300 to 600 TPD gassifier. The high efficiency
> gassifier conversion of bagasse or wood or sugar what ever. We are
> close by supply of required quantity of feedstock needed located in
> Grand Fork, ND type neighborhoods. *Grand Forks now looks like it does
> because we used all the trees to supply our local power for the last
> xxx years.

..and how many tons of MSW could such a 50,000 head hood produce a day?
If EPA still is right with 2 tonnes per year per yankee, 275 TPD? ;-)

..do I hear "Can do."? ;-)

--
..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 Sun Oct 17 20:59:04 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 03:59:04 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Peak crude-oil capacity
In-Reply-To: <dc.1702f891.2ea458cb@aol.com>
References: <dc.1702f891.2ea458cb@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20041018035904.41117a16.arnt@c2i.net>

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:22:51 EDT, MMBTUPR at aol.com wrote in message
<dc.1702f891.2ea458cb at aol.com>:

> to Gasification list from
> Lewis L. Smith
>
> Ref. my post this date and above subject.
>
> From the article, I suspect that they are using satellites to spot the
> locations of development-type wells, rather that using satellites to
> guide the drill bit in directional drilling. [Which need not be 90
> degrees from the vertical.]

..ah. You could push me as far as thinking satellites are useful to
help place reference signal sources on the surface. ;-)

--
..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 LWheeler45 at aol.com Sun Oct 17 22:46:18 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:46:18 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Please check out http://aceee.org/energy/efnatgas-
study.htm).
Message-ID: <141.362a6410.2ea4968a@aol.com>

I am certain that Gassifiers who make large syngas producing systems will
find this info study most informative

Leonard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041017/1274c61c/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Sun Oct 17 23:18:20 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:18:20 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] REF TO
http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/hes3/curves.html
Message-ID: <1c0.1f8e1ab6.2ea49e0c@aol.com>

I would recommend that those in the commercial application of Gassifiers
review this Hawaii gov study 1995. I call your attention to the fact there is
little or no mention to your specific technology under Gasification.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041018/27e39b10/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Sun Oct 17 23:22:58 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:22:58 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] A FREE LISTING SERVICE FOR GASSIFIERS
http://www.gasifiers.org/
Message-ID: <143.35c342af.2ea49f22@aol.com>

Welcome to the home of the Gasifier Inventory.

The Gasifier Inventory gives an overview of existing biomass gasifier
installations and accompanying manufacturers. covers all types of gasifier
technologies, capacity ranges and manufacturers, worldwide. Laboratory systems are not
included. Information is stored in database records and is made accessible for
all Internet users via the World Wide Web.

We present two main resources to serve you with the best available
information on.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041018/7fc114c7/attachment.html

From tmiles at trmiles.com Mon Oct 18 00:14:53 2004
From: tmiles at trmiles.com (Tom Miles)
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:14:53 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] REF
TOhttp://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/hes3/curves.html
References: <1c0.1f8e1ab6.2ea49e0c@aol.com>
Message-ID: <001401c4b4d1$6d1f5130$6701a8c0@Yellow>

Leonard,

You'll find active waste gasfiication projects reviewed at:
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/coal/cfft/cct/pub/tsr017.pdf
The principal suppliers of these technologies have told me that they are waiting for economics to improve before they actively promote waste gasification projects for cofiring.

I know you're fascinated with vitrification. You can look at the economic failure of waste vitrification right in Florida at Disney with the Andco Torrax process. The blast furnace style vertical shaft gasifier made glass but never had a paying market for the glass. So it ultimately failed. The Andco Torrax unit was a survivor from the EPA (formerly Public Health Administration) experiments of the 1970s and 1980s. At the time there were similar gasifiers in Japan including Purox, Ebara etc.

In the 1990s we worked with ASME Research on vitrification of ash from MSW. Several of the major suppliers of vitrifiers were involved in that project. Since then we've built small systems for special wastes that have a high tipping fee.

Conventional waste to energy processes still seem to have the lowest risk for MSW. Look at the 13 waste to energy plants you have in Florida. If I were advising a county in Florida about processes for disposing of 175,000 tpy of waste a gasification technology would have to have a big margin over a conventional waste to energy plant to be considered. So far what I have seen with vitrification processes is not convincing. They are expensive when used for mass burning and the economics don't seem to be there.

The suppliers of the waste gasfiers in Europe would probably tell you that they are still in development, unless, of course, you have lots of money and want to buy one and take all the risk.

Tom Miles


----- Original Message -----
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 9:18 PM
Subject: [Gasification] REF TOhttp://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/hes3/curves.html

I would recommend that those in the commercial application of Gassifiers review this Hawaii gov study 1995. I call your attention to the fact there is little or no mention to your specific technology under Gasification.

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

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041018/4acb221c/attachment.html

From MMBTUPR at aol.com Mon Oct 18 04:53:01 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 05:53:01 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] A FREE LISTING SERVICE FOR GASSIFIERS
http://www.gasifiers.org/
Message-ID: <13c.40b364d.2ea4ec7d@aol.com>

to Gasification list from Lewis L. Smith

Ref. L Wheeler's posting of 18 Oct.

Clicks on "manufacturers" and "installations" returned a "could not find
this URL".

Last copyright was through 2002.

Are these guys still in business ?

Cordially.

End.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041018/95233cbf/attachment.html

From snkm at btl.net Mon Oct 18 11:10:50 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:10:50 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Dissemination - What's the Score?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041018100936.009c7b20@pop.btl.net>

(Let's make soup)

Hi Art;

Thanks for all the input.

In this years searching and reviewing of super critical water reactors and
biomass I could not help but note that at relatively low temps -- lower
than required for reformation -- all cellulose dissolves into water -- due
to the pressure.

You don't suppose ---------

>Any soluble feedstock (sugar, starch, cellulose, etc) will decompose by
>microbial action when dissolved in water and a broadband source of microbes
>from a source such as manure is added.

Have appended more extracts along these lines below from your original
message.

If you put water at ambient temperature in a sufficiently strong steel
container (reactor) and seal it -- then heat to 550 F -- you get over
10,000 PSI pressure -- due to water "expansion" --

Course -- with a water biomass slurry at even that relatively (to
reformation) pressure -- you might get more -- due to gas evolving -- but
then -- not much more - -as it is hard to push 10,000 psi around -- and the
gasses will tend to stay dissolved.

At 6040 F the same container goes well beyond 15,000 PSI pressure.

So -- X quantities of biomass slurry inserted into such a cylinder/reactor
heated for Y period at even 500 F will turn biomass slurry into biomass
water solution.

Now -- for small units -- how big a batch per day of whole -- fresh -- cane
juice slurry would need to be processed to feed a bio digester??

Want Urls for quotes on steel tubing 10 in diameter -- lengths to forty
feet -- rated at 10,000 PSI at 100 F??

Not that expensive. Considering the amount of product produced and how long
it will last -- maintenance free so to speak.

You need not fancy valving -- just bolted/locked/sealed end caps.

There is no reformation involved at those low temps -- so it is just
heating water to that temperature and letting sit for a very short period
(Should I look up the refs and post them -- believe it is 30 seconds or so)

Less energy required than "boiling" --

True -- it is a radical thought process -- and might well deserved to be
damned -- if but for no other reason -- especially these days!

Of course -- if one wanted to do streaming processing of large tonnage per
day -- you put a cement pump at one end of that cylinder and a valve
release mechanism at the other -- cement pumps work fine for those
pressures -- and are being used at present for exactly that -- posted those
Urls already "once" --

So -- blend well then heat -- make soup -- feed bio digester.

What I am really interested in and you might be able to supply Art is this:

In the very end -- how much of initial energy -- as in for example -- BTU
per pound -- comes out in the bio digestion product as gas??

Now -- that could kill this line of thought right there.

But if it is "respectable" -- better hang up your gasifiers right now --

I'm pressed for time right now -- later I'll work that out according to the
figures A.D. posted.

Even if one burns some of the product gas to heat reactor -- though a
simple biomass combustion chamber would suffice. Think of a closed off
single tube boiler -- eh??

Heat can be raised gently in a timely fashion -- highly advisable in fact
if you don't want to blow yourself and you neighbors up -- it would take
only a very small fire box.

Can this all be made "small to micro"?? You bet it can!!

Besides -- biomass soups might have all kinds of other applications.
Dissolved in water cellulose might even be considered a portable fuel --
just as it is.

Dump into your digesting gas tank in your vehicle and putt -- putt -- putt --

Every village could be in the soup business to.

I know -- just to radical a concept --

Peter -- Belize

At 08:08 AM 10/18/2004 -0700, Art Krenzel wrote:
>Peter,
> The process depends upon the
>ability to dissolve starches and sugars in a water solution because the
>microbes do not have any teeth to chew solids. They glean their livelihood
>from "organic soup".
>
>You can try to dissolve a tree by putting it in water and still have almost
>a complete tree left in six months. >

To speed up the
>dissolution of the solid, use small particles or thin sheets of the
>feedstocks and raise the temperature to improve the solubility rate.

>Any soluble feedstock (sugar, starch, cellulose, etc) will decompose by
>microbial action when dissolved in water and a broadband source of microbes
>from a source such as manure is added.

From snkm at btl.net Mon Oct 18 12:20:33 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:20:33 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] A.D. Karve's methane digestion device
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041018112030.009cd630@pop.btl.net>

(Gas-bags??)

Hello A.D.

Thanks for all the updated data -- this is what counts more than anything
else.

Jumping right to the point that is probably the greatest technical
difficulty -- cost wise -- to applying this process:

>which
>too must have a volume of about 500 litres. We have several firms selling
>plastic water tanks.

Such tanks are made and used here and cost around $125 US each -- quite and
expense. Generally -- 50 cents US per gallon capacity is the rule -- though
smaller containers come out more -- larger less.

I have a question -- what would be the minimum size required to generate
that amount of gas??

Next -- the cost of a large gas bag might be less than the cost for a
container to store liquids. Plus greatly increase capacity.

Bag -- net -- weights??

I do ferment cane juice to "wine" at present -- using plastic cisterns of
450 liter capacity.

In my search to simplify venting I found the easiest method was in such
manner.

Old car tube -- cut out from that large rubber bands.

Plastic garbage bag fitted over mouth -- rubber band fitted to seal well --
little hole made in end of bag -- actually -- a small number of very small
pin pricks.

These are controlled later by simply blocking off with little strips of
plastic tape.

The bags soon fill with gas product of fermentation -- CO2 and vent through
small holes -- as fermentation progresses -- I block off more vent holes --

I can easily see the state of fermentation by observing the gas bags over
each fermentation vessel.

500 liter garbage bags are probably hard to find -- but one could fill a
number os such -- through the day -- then tie off.

Extraction would be by inserting tube into mouth -- laying on ground --
putting a weight on top.

Bags would be re-usable.

Or -- just have some one make up -- say -- 1000 liter bags?? With net over
them --

Peter -- Belize

At 09:34 AM 10/18/2004 +0530, you wrote:
>Dear Stovers,
>I was flooded with requests from members for details of the compact biogas
>digester.

From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Mon Oct 18 12:22:30 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:22:30 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Dissemination - What's the Score?
References: <3.0.32.20041018100936.009c7b20@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <001801c4b537$0d927fb0$f1c0f204@7k6rv21>

Peter,

You said: > (Let's make soup)
> In this years searching and reviewing of super critical water reactors and
> biomass I could not help but note that at relatively low temps -- lower
> than required for reformation -- all cellulose dissolves into water -- due
> to the pressure.

You are correct, under supercritical conditions, all cellulose should
dissolve in the water. Unfortunately most reactions which benefit from
super critical conditions, need to occur under super critical conditions.
When you cool them back down, there are precipitates and supersaturation
conditions which could coat heat transfer surfaces, etc. These could lead
to building use-once-and-throw-away reactors which could be quite expensive.

Why not work WITH nature instead of forcing it all the time. You have
aspired to the right lifestyle there in Belize- relax. Use the products
which are easily soluble in water (and there are many) and reduce your
labor. Tanks cost about $2 per gallon, much cheaper than high pressure
pipe. Plan ahead and have your gas production on line the day you need it
by using a floating top water tank.

> If you put water at ambient temperature in a sufficiently strong steel
> container (reactor) and seal it -- then heat to 550 F -- you get over
> 10,000 PSI pressure -- due to water "expansion" --
>
> Course -- with a water biomass slurry at even that relatively (to
> reformation) pressure -- you might get more -- due to gas evolving -- but
> then -- not much more - -as it is hard to push 10,000 psi around -- and
the
> gasses will tend to stay dissolved.
>
> At 6040 F the same container goes well beyond 15,000 PSI pressure.

I think that was a typo - I think you meant 604 deg F.

> So -- X quantities of biomass slurry inserted into such a cylinder/reactor
> heated for Y period at even 500 F will turn biomass slurry into biomass
> water solution.
>
> Now -- for small units -- how big a batch per day of whole -- fresh --
cane
> juice slurry would need to be processed to feed a bio digester??

I turn the question around - how many BTU's do you want per day?

> Want Urls for quotes on steel tubing 10 in diameter -- lengths to forty
> feet -- rated at 10,000 PSI at 100 F??
>
> Not that expensive. Considering the amount of product produced and how
long
> it will last -- maintenance free so to speak.

Putting the high cost of the reactors aside, just the physical problems of
getting bagass into a 10 inch diameter tube in a routine manner is quite
high. The high pressure concrete pumps only really work with fluidized
particles. Moyno pumps are not a good choice for stringy, abrasive things
either. Once you get into stringy things like raw bagass feedstocks, the
valves bridge open quickly and you lose the pressure in the vessel. Bagass
needs to be composted and put back into the soil as it's best use. Food
waste and organic oils are great choices for biogas production.

> You need not fancy valving -- just bolted/locked/sealed end caps.
>
> There is no reformation involved at those low temps -- so it is just
> heating water to that temperature and letting sit for a very short period
> (Should I look up the refs and post them -- believe it is 30 seconds or
so)
>
> Less energy required than "boiling" --
>
> True -- it is a radical thought process -- and might well deserved to be
> damned -- if but for no other reason -- especially these days!

Peter, your thoughts are radical and interesting but I think they fail just
because of the material handling problems of getting biomass into up to 40
ft lengths of 10 inch diameter tubes in a cost effective manner. Most
likely, you would need some form of mechanical process since the hand labor
process would require a significant amount of daily hand labor. It might
work for a demonstration but I wouldn't be able to run the process for more
than a couple of days before the luster of the adventure would be gone.
:-)

> What I am really interested in and you might be able to supply Art is
this:
>
> In the very end -- how much of initial energy -- as in for example -- BTU
> per pound -- comes out in the bio digestion product as gas??

I must confess to have made a technical term error in my previous posting.
Instead of % volatile solids, I meant % soluble solids in the feedstock.
Solubility of cellose can be inhanced using super critical conditions as
proposed by Peter.

The answer is that you generate approximately 5 cubic feet of 600 - 650 BTU
(65% methane 35% carbon dioxide) biogas per pound of soluble solids digested
in a preferably methane generating process. For instance, you can get less
gas if the biological process generates alcohols rather than acetates.
Acetates are the preferred feedstock of the methanogenic bacteria. The rate
and degree of completion of the reaction is quite pH sensitive as well.

> Now -- that could kill this line of thought right there.

Thou hast said it.

Art Krenzel

> At 08:08 AM 10/18/2004 -0700, Art Krenzel wrote:
> >Peter,
> > The process depends upon the
> >ability to dissolve starches and sugars in a water solution because the
> >microbes do not have any teeth to chew solids. They glean their
livelihood
> >from "organic soup".
> >
> >You can try to dissolve a tree by putting it in water and still have
almost
> >a complete tree left in six months. >
>
> To speed up the
> >dissolution of the solid, use small particles or thin sheets of the
> >feedstocks and raise the temperature to improve the solubility rate.
>
> >Any soluble feedstock (sugar, starch, cellulose, etc) will decompose by
> >microbial action when dissolved in water and a broadband source of
microbes
> >from a source such as manure is added.
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Mon Oct 18 13:18:21 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:18:21 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] RE Gassification Plasma and Steam and Controlled
burning etc. Thank you
Message-ID: <27.64252d08.2ea562ed@aol.com>

I did not know of the Fla project Thank you Tom.

Are you reading my briefing sheets or just my mind?

There have been some developments that changed the economic energy balances
in Gasification as well as hydrogen and ethanol production. Off net I am going
to send you personally some contact info to verify or debunk my information.

If you take any gassifying project and strip away the assessories gen sets
and boilers needed for on site gas use and focus only on a producer gas that is
clean enough to pipeline and meets spec for the Siemens Westinghouse or GE
syngas high efficiency gen sets you cut the cost of electrical generation per kWh
really significantly. Under 1200.00 kWh

If you eliminate highly polluting and politically sensitive expensive Oil and
Coal fired power company systems in Fla substitute with a gassifier Syngas
system using syngas made from our statewide abundant waste streams you get much
cleaner non mercury filled air and save MILLIONS of gal of our short in supply
aquifer water.

If you put these small systems matched systems next to bulk waste generators
and network them with pipelines you have collectively made the BTU gas
capacity of a new refinery or two with zero harmful refinery type emissions. You also
made it all in Fla and we are going to tax it.

And unlike almost all current gassifier systems which are mostly customer
ordered custom made with unknown exact outputs I can make these Gassifiers in an
assembly line process like Ford Motor Co. with off the shelf parts that are
interchangeable and know before I build it what I am going to for sure as a
syngas and ash/co/nx/ CO2 etc. byproduct. Solves lots of permitting issues too.

You may want to read some of the public statements in Texas Oil Meetings U of
Tex of Dr Lord Brown CEO of BP on" beyond petroleum "to see what BP is
looking at. GAS

A quality Syngas supplier system using Fla waste streams such as I identified
in the Fla Sunshine Energy Plan I discussed with Fla Gov in July and is what
I am working to put together yesterday. I just have not found all the gas
generator systems components to do it yet on a large scale.

Thanks for your help Tom.

Leonard

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041018/8f2fb48d/attachment.html

From snkm at btl.net Mon Oct 18 15:14:33 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:14:33 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Dissemination - What's the
Score?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041018141325.009464a0@pop.btl.net>

OK Art;

At 10:22 AM 10/18/2004 -0700, Art Krenzel wrote:
>Peter,
>
>You are correct, under supercritical conditions, all cellulose should
>dissolve in the water. Unfortunately most reactions which benefit from
>super critical conditions, need to occur under super critical conditions.
>When you cool them back down, there are precipitates and supersaturation
>conditions which could coat heat transfer surfaces, etc. These could lead
>to building use-once-and-throw-away reactors which could be quite expensive.
>

That is the data I was looking for -- thanks!

>Why not work WITH nature instead of forcing it all the time. You have
>aspired to the right lifestyle there in Belize- relax. Use the products
>which are easily soluble in water (and there are many) and reduce your
>labor.

Yup -- back to plan "A" -- got small sugar cane press -- cane industry is
collapsing here -- cane fields like a sea of green laying all about --
worthless now -- so just do cane juice.

>Tanks cost about $2 per gallon, much cheaper than high pressure
>pipe.

Even cheaper here -- pvc/fiberglass tanks (water cisterns) -- excellent
"reaction vessels -- 50 cents per gallon. Tank made of SS TP 304 (I know
not food quality) 20 gauge -- $1.00 per gallon.

>> At 6040 F the same container goes well beyond 15,000 PSI pressure.
>
>I think that was a typo - I think you meant 604 deg F.

-- yes
>> Now -- for small units -- how big a batch per day of whole -- fresh --
>cane
>> juice slurry would need to be processed to feed a bio digester??
>
>I turn the question around - how many BTU's do you want per day?
>

A.D. says 500 liters bio digester gas for one meal --

>
>> Not that expensive. Considering the amount of product produced and how
>long
>> it will last -- maintenance free so to speak.
>
>Putting the high cost of the reactors aside, just the physical problems of
>getting bagass into a 10 inch diameter tube in a routine manner is quite
>high. The high pressure concrete pumps only really work with fluidized
>particles.

Actually -- the paper mill stone grinders of times past comes to mind --
pulping.

But your right -- next big problem.

>Moyno pumps are not a good choice for stringy, abrasive things
>either. Once you get into stringy things like raw bagass feedstocks, the
>valves bridge open quickly and you lose the pressure in the vessel.

The valves are at the other end of the reactor -- it is continuous flow
example. And not so much a valve are a flow regulator -- or even a fixed
size orifice -- and adjust by pump rate.

>Bagass
>needs to be composted and put back into the soil as it's best use. Food
>waste and organic oils are great choices for biogas production.
>

Yes -- all that bagasse just piles up. When dry -- very nice fuel -- but
manually -- you sweat steady feeding the boiler -- i know -- i run a small
one.

OK -- you win - -tell me more about composting. In small two roll sugar
cane juice presses the bagasse is one long flattened out strip.

>
>Peter, your thoughts are radical and interesting but I think they fail just
>because of the material handling problems of getting biomass into up to 40
>ft lengths of 10 inch diameter tubes in a cost effective manner. Most
>likely, you would need some form of mechanical process since the hand labor
>process would require a significant amount of daily hand labor. It might
>work for a demonstration but I wouldn't be able to run the process for more
>than a couple of days before the luster of the adventure would be gone.
>:-)

Your right!! It suffers from the same headaches all gasification process
endure -- fuel conditioning headaches!

>> In the very end -- how much of initial energy -- as in for example -- BTU
>> per pound -- comes out in the bio digestion product as gas??
>
>I must confess to have made a technical term error in my previous posting.
>Instead of % volatile solids, I meant % soluble solids in the feedstock.
>Solubility of cellose can be inhanced using super critical conditions as
>proposed by Peter.
>
>The answer is that you generate approximately 5 cubic feet of 600 - 650 BTU
>(65% methane 35% carbon dioxide) biogas per pound of soluble solids digested
>in a preferably methane generating process. For instance, you can get less
>gas if the biological process generates alcohols rather than acetates.
>Acetates are the preferred feedstock of the methanogenic bacteria. The rate
>and degree of completion of the reaction is quite pH sensitive as well.
>

so if one really wanted to supercharge this system --

I take cane juice -- raw -- no boiling -- no concentrating. I place in tank
and ferment to cane juice "beer" - -about 6 to 7% alcohol. I rig up a small
air pump with air stone as used in a fish aquarium and turn beer to vinegar --

I then add cow patty soup -- and get lot's of methane fast -- from a small
bio digester.

Would this be worth the effort in that production would be so greatly
increased that one could use vinegar as the portable fuel??

That is a reactor where methane production is governed by feed rate of
vinegar to bio digester??

Why bother with all this extra effort??

Here is a few "maybes"

#1 Cane vinegar:

This is a fine product for human consumption. It is rich in micronutrients
of the most import kind -- has no sugar.

So benefits of cane juice -- which is considered -- with just cause -- a
medicinal drink in many countries -- can be had by diabetics -- who due to
mineral depletion as part of their problems -- need it most of all.

"Fresh" cane juice is impossible to store for more than 24 hours. Cane
vinegar -- like wine -- ages well. The older the better.

Food preservation is a mighty important item in 3rd world where people
can't afford "feezers" -- cane vinegar with some salt in solution will
ferment safely so many foods for longer term storage -- plus add to
nutritional and health benefits of that food in the process.

I am under the impression that it is the bacteria "lactobacillus" that we
are talking about?

So -- it is an easy and simple process -- but takes some time -- say one
month -- to end up with lot's of cane vinegar. More than you can give away
for "food" -- so yes -- need to know if this is the better fuel for that
process -- if so -- it fits into this flow diagram well.

2: Bagasse

Art -- you have my undivided attention at this point regarding composting
bagasse - -and what uses there are for that product after.

A while back it was pointed out that compost is bad for growing stuff in.
So -- how does one make it good?

One can build a small thermal plant and use bagasse for fuel -- but bagasse
from small presses is far to moist to burn well. Drying is fast when the
sun is out -- impossible when it rains even a little -- once every few days.

That means building roof -- and over a relatively large area. Even for a
small press like I operate.

One has to feed bagasse continuously to a furnace for things to work -- it
burns like gasoline -- poof!! -- and you grab stringy strips and pack/fold
those into packages -- then insert through fire door -- you just never can
stop --

The other option for bagasse -- one that A.D. is involved with -- is making
charcoal -- any input on that A.D.??

for my small operation - -as it stands now -- about 1/3 of the bagasse is
burned for concentrating raw cane juice to a SG of 1.085 to 1.090 for
making cane wine -- roughly 12% alcohol -- and the rest just piles up!!

What a terrible waste of biomass. -- So not -- 3rd potential application --

Gasifying bagasse --

But again -- all the same hassles fuel conditioning -- plus worse!!

What is simple and straight forward is cane grinding to extract cane juice
-- no boiling -- fermenting (which is does quick enough on it's own -- just
give it the good container) -- converting to vinegar -- again -- it does
that on it's own to -- if exposed to air -- but takes months to years --
unless aerated.

Still -- the small air pump uses very little power -- one small solar panel
-- a small battery -- and a small inverter would slave those energy needs.

Now -- would that greatly enhance and benifit methane production by
bio-digestion?

The advantage to local village style economies is one central processing
unit could then supply vinegar (portable "fuel") for many bio-digesters --
and each individual biodigester could be far smaller than noemal -- and
less costly??

And further -- it might even work for running a genset?? Even if just a
very small one -- 1000 watts or less?

All with the very minimum of capital investment -- and not so labor
intensive that people starve for lack of time to go grow food -- or the
cane as far as that goes!

As for gasifiers -- turning bagasse into charcoal might be the best method
of fuel conditioning of all!

Or -- turning this wheel right around -- small charcoal gasifiers to supply
product for cooking!!

Kind of a double whammy --

all that would then be "wasted" is off gasses from the charcoal making
process -- and heat in that processing.

But then again -- we might have use for that as well -- but how to kerep is
simple??

Certainly -- small partial combustion gasifiers using charcoal are "simple"
-- as are small cane crushers -- as are tanks and vats -- as is a
biodigester --

Tom Reed -- bagasse charcoal will probably be a dust -- so it need
briquetting??

A.D. -- is that not what you are doing now -- charcoal dust to briguetts??

And no -- we can't afford the pelletizer --

Everything comes with a price --

Peter

>
>> Now -- that could kill this line of thought right there.
>
>Thou hast said it.
>
>Art Krenzel
>

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Mon Oct 18 16:32:36 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:32:36 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] I never said polluting . However you raise an
important question
Message-ID: <157.41ba1339.2ea59074@aol.com>

Comment off net:,
I think that the EPA, DOE, TECO, Texaco-GE would not appreciate having their
systems called polluting. Fractional analysis of systems with jumped to
conclusions on being able to build cheap systems in assembly fashion assumes that
there is a huge market which can be secured quickly. If gasifier producers were
making several hundred thousands of unit/year, then the assumptions would
work, but so far, I see only a few being made and no integration in the market.
There is no Ford in this business yet.

ANS Comment:

In the technical accounts of Oil and Gas development HISTORY thermal
Gasification technology is LONG past the time that it needs a multitude of designs and
custom made systems with non proven unverified outcomes to populate this
industry.

Market? there is a huge market which can be secured quickly?
The day of judgment is now at 55.00 a barrel and projected to be going higher
to a 50 to 65 dollar range. Electric bills for energy needing processors look
like the national debt. Only thing we have lots of is waste.

If a technically on the edge of leading edge development gassifier company
TODAY is unable to nearly mass produce from their as built plans a range of
completely tested and proven commercially sized systems to just produce a known
syngas from a range of bio mass that everyone on the planet has tried Why is
this so?

If it cannot be done TODAY Why not?

By the way there are NOW a few gassifier maker exceptions to this that can do
this now.
Ford is on the way! ( : )

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041018/37d12e9b/attachment.html

From snkm at btl.net Mon Oct 18 19:47:01 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:47:01 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Dissemination - What's the
Score?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041018183938.009a5940@pop.btl.net>

At 01:58 PM 10/18/2004 -0700, Len Walde wrote:
>Peter:
>
>If you start with a large poly bag, -- think "Ag-Bag" ( search google) chop
>the fresh cane, recover and save the juice for inclusion, add yeast and in a
>few days you will have rough alcohol, you will have to distill it to rid it
>of H2O and then denature it to be legal. ( Or not! , as the case may be!)
>Use denatured alcohol for engine fuel. Let the remainder of biomass ferment
>to silage as cow/goat feed or add to the AD, with animal manure to produce
>methane. Why waste all of that good sugar when you can covert it simply to
>fuel? Brazil runs thousands of cars on it. Also, if you have a source of
>other high sugar waste ( fruit etc.) you can add it at the same time.
>
>Now you know!
>
>Good luck,
>
>Len Walde
>

Hi Len;

That was the original plan. Aguahol -- 80% strong rum. No blending -- just
run it straight.

Well -- one would need at least $15 per gallon to do it though. Remember --
it takes two gallons of aguahol to equal one gallon of gasoline -- in BTU
-- fuel milage -- value.

Stills of any kind are strictly illegal here.

They even have a very tight sugar making monopoly -- only one company is
allowed to own and operate a cane crusher -- and I had to get special
permission from Government just to bring one small cane crusher in this
country!!

That on experimental basis only.

Still -- I'm parking that venture until gasoline get's over -- saying --
$12 us per gallon. By then I believe approval for a still will be easy to get!

As for "alternative" portable fuels -- plant oils -- as extracted from
African Oil Palms as example -- keeps looking better and better.

I hope to put in about 1/4 acre of special high production oil palms in the
coming year -- and see if indeed that can produce 1/4 of 1500 gallons -- or
say 375 gallons per year.

Say even 7 gallons per week -- and I burn less than 3 gallons per week now
for transportation needs -- we travel little these days.

Four gallons per week should be more than sufficient for electrical energy
needs. when this style of crunch comes -- if it should -- but better
prepared a little anyway -- I'll be putting acid into a 15 kva set of
plante style power plant -- lead acid batteries.

These live for 20 years after they first see acid. Have indefinite life
when stored "dry/new"

So genset will run at peak efficiency (the right load for max fuel
efficiency) for 4 or so hours every two days.

My oil expeller set up does an easy 5 gallons per hour. So figure 75 hours
of oil processing time per year.

They start producing in 3 years time -- are full rating in 5 -- and game
over at 20 years from planting.

We also have a lot of "wild" plant oils here -- like "Cohune" --

The system I describe is far to expensive for normal 3rd world use. So is
of no value for this discussion.

 

Peter

 

 

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Mon Oct 18 20:20:25 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:20:25 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Has anyone gassified ethanol corn stock? What was
the makeup of the gas? BTU?
Message-ID: <1c8.1fc24a69.2ea5c5d9@aol.com>

Can anyone out there answer these questions? ASAP

Has anyone gassified ethanol corn stock?
What was the makeup of the gas?
Hydrogen Co. CO2 etc. also BTU.
How about the make up of sugar cane and sugar cane bagasse and sweet sorghum?

Leonard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041018/510476ef/attachment.html

From LINVENT at aol.com Tue Oct 19 12:41:31 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:41:31 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] List Of Operating Gasifiers
Message-ID: <6a.48012989.2ea6abcb@aol.com>

Dear Tom,
I fully agree with you. A person can find out what happened to a well
published and highly promoted plant if they do some snooping, or get enough
information to find out for themselves what the problems are. Too often, not much
information is available and only guessing can be done.
A list of the failures can result in an absolute termination of any
interest by financing concerns. This is the muddy tracks and dead body problem with
this industry. My feeling has been that the engineers involved rely upon
their ego instead of cool headed rational approach to the technology and this is
the major reason the projects take a hit. Examples are the Hawaii project,
Occidentals' flash pyrolysis project, EDL/Britestar, Arbre, and others. One
obscure project was Siemens' MSW gasification project in Europe. It had great
fanfare there but shortly later was abandoned. Of course, the review process by
financing organizations is likewise defective as without a technically successful
project, who is qualified to review the technology for approval or
disapproval?
As an example, I submitted a flow diagram to an engineering company in
Rome and they said that they would have to guarantee the process and in order to
do so, they would want a venturi scrubber on the end of the system. I said
that was fine, it was at their cost, risk and complications. That was the only
technology they felt comfortable with for gas cleaning and it was an
unnecessary complication. They did not go forward.
Sooner or later, the industry will find it's headings and become a
serious industry. The concept is gaining acceptance even without the success rates
necessary for large scale successful projects. The EOI's, RFPs, and other
documents from major entities reflects this.

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 jonpratt76 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 19 13:09:12 2004
From: jonpratt76 at hotmail.com (Jonathan Pratt)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:09:12 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Piping Syngas through current infrastructure
Message-ID: <BAY17-F25rVjYKtWfN30002d464@hotmail.com>

Someone here mentioned the most economical way to transport energy is
through pipelines.

Has anyone studied the possibility of using the existing natural gas
pipeline infrastructure to transport syngas? If this country gets real
tight on natural gas logic would only follow that we would have to make up
for it by gasifying coal again and this time also use biomass.

What is the energy value of the H2 and CO again? Maybe it can be done just
by scrubbing the CO prior to injection into the pipes without much energy
loss as the CO has a low energy value.

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee?
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

 

From snkm at btl.net Tue Oct 19 13:59:06 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:59:06 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Gas-er-up!! Data listings -- process flow --
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041019125752.009bc690@pop.btl.net>

General Composition of Bio-Gas Produced From Farm Wastes
CH4 methane 54 - 70%
CO2 carbon dioxide 27 - 45%
N2 nitrogen 0.5 - 3%
H2 hydrogen 1 - 10%
CO carbon monoxide 0.1%
O2 oxygen 0.1%
H2S hydrogen sulfide trace

Fuel Value of Bio-Gas and Other Major Fuel Gases
Fuel gas Fuel value (BTU/ft3)
Coal (town) gas 450-500
Bio-gas 540-700
Methane 896-1069
Natural gas 1047-1210

Nat Gas (methane or
propane-based) 1050-2200
Propane 2200-2600
Butane 2900-3400
Producer gas 135-170
SynGas 290-320
Coke oven Gas
(pyrolysis) 550-560

Biology of Digestion:

Bio-Succession in the Digester:

Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that digestion is a
biological process.

The "anaerobic" bacteria responsible for digestion can't survive with even
the slightest trace of oxygen. So, because of the oxygen in the manure
mixture fed to the digester, there is a long period after loading before
actual digestion takes place. During this initial "aerobic" period, traces
of oxygen are used up by oxygen-loving bacteria, and large amounts of
carbon dioxide (C02) are released.

When oxygen disappears, the digestion process can begin. That process
involves a series of reactions by several kinds of anaerobic bacteria
feeding on the raw organic matter. As different kinds of these bacteria
become active, the by-products of the first kind of bacteria provide the
food for the other kind (Fig. 6). In the first stages of digestion, organic
material which is digestible (fats, proteins and most starches) are broken
down by acid producing bacteria into simple compounds. The acid bacteria
are capable of rapid reproduction and are not very sensitive to changes in
their environment. Their role is to excrete enzymes, liquefy the raw
materials and convert the complex materials into simpler substances
(especially volatile acids, which are low molecular weight organic acids --
See 4 Raw Materials).

The most important volatile acid is acetic acid (table vinegar is dilute
acetic acid), a very common by-product of all fat, starch and protein
digestion. About 70% of the methane produced during fermentation comes from
acetic acid (Ref. 12).

Ref 12: Jeris, J. & P. McCarty. 1965. The Biochemistry of Methane
Fermentation Using C14 Traces. Journal Water Poll. Control Fed., 37(2):
178-192.

Once the raw material has been liquefied by the acid producing bacteria,
methane producing bacteria convert the volatile acids into methane gas.
Unlike the acid bacteria, methane bacteria reproduce slowly and are very
sensitive to changes in the conditions of their environment. (More
information on the biology of methane fermentation can be found in Ref. 13
and 14.)

Refs 13 and 14:

13. Boswell, A. M. 1947. Microbiology and Theory of Anaerobic Digestion.
Sewage Works Journal 19:28.

14. Barker, H. 1956. Bacterial Fermentations. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Biologically, then, successful digestion depends upon achieving and (for
continuous-load digesters) maintaining a balance between those bacteria
which produce organic acids and those bacteria which produce methane gas
from the organic acids.

************************

Looking at the compass -- where does it point??

Production of cane juice is a relatively straight forward procedure -- from
manual level (two stick jammed in a tree) -- the micro mechanized -- small
two roll cane crusher -- to large crushers of great capacity -- as seen in
sugar making factories.

In any and all cases -- it is simple process -- let's call this a "given" --

Compare this to chopping down a tree -- cutting to right lengths --
splitting it -- to result in fire wood.

Fuel conditioning loads in cane juice extraction is probably much less.

The rest of this process can be very "passive".

The cane juice once stored in a cistern will ferment by natural means to
alcohol of 5 to 7% content in 10 to 15 days. The only requirement being
absence of O2 -- which is arranged easily --

One the cane juice has completely fermented it can be "racked" into a fresh
container -- and the "yeast" thus recovered. Yeast is a powerful food
product -- be it for human consumption -- or as supplementary addition to
animal feeds.

(I have some interesting papers on this -- but for another time and place)

Suffice to say -- the yeast by product alone more than pays the cost of a
cistern "waiting" for fermentation to complete.

The voided fermentation cistern is then replenished with fresh cane juice.
And that cycle repeats.

The fermented juice now racked into a fresh cistern is allowed to turn to
vinegar.

This rate of this process can be greatly increased by introduction of air.

Some methods of aeration.

1: Draw out liquid from bottom of tank then pour down from a small tower
suspended over the tank -- and while falling down it passes over -- well here:

Process

Water is concentrated to 10 per cent level by fortifying with sugar. The
fortified water is then fermented by inoculating the solution with yeast,
Sacharomyces cerviseae.

After alcoholic fermentation for about 4 to 5 days, the clear liquid is
siphoned off and inoculated with mother vinegar containing acetobacter
bacteria. The alcoholic ferment obtained is then fed into a vinegar
generator where the feed is uniformly sprayed over the surface of the
porous packing medium (corn cobs). Here the alcoholic ferment is oxidized
to acetic acid. The product is run out from the packing medium by gravity
flow into the receiving vat from where it is recycled into the vinegar
generator and the process of acetification is repeated until a strength of
4 per cent is attained.

Vinegar is also a "food" -- and also a food preservative --

Now -- a possible missing link to this flow diagram is:

"Once the raw material has been liquefied by the acid producing bacteria,
methane producing bacteria convert the volatile acids into methane gas."

Ergo -- the ultimate value added village level methane producer might be
the one that uses vinegar (4%) as the feed -- and one encourages only (easy
enough to do in an acidic environment) "methane producing bacteria convert
the volatile acids into methane gas"

A.D. -- your sitting on the grant money -- figure it's worth while
investigating??

I have not found anything in regards to what by-products would be produced
in this final process -- that is after bacteria have converted acid to
methane.

Fertilizer?? Or more "food"?? Or both??

And of course -- just what to do with all that bagasse!! Compost and make
fertilizer? Would the effluents from the final stage -- after methane
production of vinegar -- in the digester be the right thing to mix with
bagasse for increasing compost values?? As bagasse from a two roller
crusher still contains residual sugars -- and moisture --

"Poof" they are calling me -- got to go --

by the way -- it is acetobacter bacteria -- not lactobacillus -- than makes
vinegar??

Or: mycoderma aceti , the bacteria culture, used to make vinegar??

Or:

Epicurious' food dictionary defines Mother of Vinegar as: A slimy, gummy
substance made up of various bacteria ? specifically mycoderma aceti ? that
cause fermentation in wine and cider and turn them into vinegar. Known as
m?re de vinaigre in French and sometimes simply as "mother" in English, its
growth is best fostered in a medium-warm environment (60?-85?F). The mother
should be transferred to a new mixture or discarded once the liquid has
turned to vinegar.

Later I will check that out better --

Peter -- in Belize

 

 

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Tue Oct 19 14:28:12 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:28:12 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] DOEVision 21Gassification Plasma Redux Ethanol Bio
Ethanol and British Petroleum
Message-ID: <75.35e3bed9.2ea6c4cc@aol.com>

Discussion point.

You are ALONE in front of a group THIS MONTH of government and Sr business
executives and you are asked the following question on the transcribed record:

Having reviewed and compared the pros and cons of the aforementioned
technologies which technology or combination of technologies do you recommend for
Vision 21 in Fla? Why?

Send me your best answers please

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041019/9269b26c/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Tue Oct 19 14:53:10 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:53:10 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Anyone designed made and currently has working a
variable fuel gassifier
Message-ID: <8a.1805ce14.2ea6caa6@aol.com>

One of the major selling point on Gassifiers is the limited range of
feedstock that most but not all companies claim are viable for commercial operations.

One feature in design is to make a trial run with designated Feedstocks
selecting only one to optimize combustion for. These Feedstocks are noted as:

Sugar cane, bagasse, sweet sorghum, wood chips, rice husk, coal, manure,
straw stover, corn stover, sewer sludge. Any others?

Can anyone currently operating VALIDATED system be in the field reconfigured
to optimize combustion of a varied wastestream of feedstocks? One day wood
next day manure, next day rice husk etc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041019/98909533/attachment.html

From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Tue Oct 19 15:03:17 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:03:17 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Gas-er-up!! Data listings -- process
flow --
References: <3.0.32.20041019125752.009bc690@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <006801c4b616$ad7c8090$8dc3f204@7k6rv21>

Peter,

You have taken off with the zeal of an Evangelist with this biogas project!
You did a great job gathering the necessary information for you bio process.

You said:
>Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that digestion is a
>biological process.

>The "anaerobic" bacteria responsible for digestion can't survive with even
>the slightest trace of oxygen. So, because of the oxygen in the manure
>mixture fed to the digester, there is a long period after loading before
>actual digestion takes place. During this initial "aerobic" period, traces
>of oxygen are used up by oxygen-loving bacteria, and large amounts of
>carbon dioxide (C02) are released.

Actually, in the latest biogas technology, the anaerobic process is broken
into two separate steps. The first step, acetate formation by organic
acids, is somewhat tolerant of the presence of small amounts of oxygen. The
second stage, methanation, the presence of any oxygen means sudden and
instant death to the methagens.

Just Google TWO PHASE ANAEROBIC DIGESTION for the latest information.

>Biologically, then, successful digestion depends upon achieving and (for
>continuous-load digesters) maintaining a balance between those bacteria
>which produce organic acids and those bacteria which produce methane gas
>from the organic acids.

Again, the newer production anaerobic processes are hybrids. They have
daily batch tanks for the first stage (hydrolyis and acetate formation) and
pulse feeding of the second stage (methane formation). The net effect is
that we have a continuous process that can handle surge loading on the feed
side and a near constant output of biogas.

Peter, I still think you should make beer. Think of it - now we could have
a reason for our Evangelistic rants! :-) We could sell the bad batches of
beer as vinegar and have two markets.

I built and operated a microbrewery during one of my earlier lives and it
was a pleasure - especially at break time. :-)

Art Krenzel

 

 

 

 

From snkm at btl.net Tue Oct 19 15:14:41 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:14:41 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] From vinegar to Methane
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041019141206.009bc690@pop.btl.net>

Gasifying vinegar -- it's all about enzymes produced by bacteria!

Code word: "methyl coenzyme M"

code word: "methanogenesis"

Code words: "Methanosarcina thermophila"
"Methanosarcina barkeri"

And really reaching -- as in what to do with all the CO2 from fermenting
cane juice!

"Elucidation of the pathway for CO2 reduction to CH4"

Highlighting from the second abstract below:

Enzymes have been purified and characterized. The genes encoding these
enzymes have been cloned, sequenced, transcriptionally mapped, and their
regulation defined on a molecular level. This review emphasizes recent
developments concerning the enzymes which are unique to the acetate
fermentation pathway in M. thermophila.

You don't suppose -- have tank full of diluted -- natural -- vinegar -- add
enzymes -- here come de gas?? Start motor -- drive off??

Interesting indeed!

It is all about "passive" production of gas -- in this case -- methane. no
machinery required -- just let sit in tank. No gasifier to fiddle with --
no distillery to fiddle with -- no fiddling around at all.

Or how about fermenting butane -- a truly ideal portable fuel.

Butanol-isopropanol Fermentation
The butanol-isopropanol fermentation (Refs. 7 to 9) is mediated by the
anaerobic bacterium Clostridium butylicum. A wide variety of carbohydrate
feeds maybe used. Saccharin feeds yield 30 to 33 percent mixed solvents,
based on the original sugars. At 33 to 37 deg C. the fermentation is
complete within 30 to 40 hours. Product ratios vary with the strain and
with culture conditions, but are normally in the range 33 to 65 percent
n-butanol, 19 to 44 percent isopropanol, 1 to 24 percent acetone, and 0 to
3 percent ethanol. This fermentation has been supplanted by petrochemical
synthetic processes.

Oh ya -- want to bet on that last line -- eh?? Check this out!!

Anaerobic digestion of organic solids wastes has been investigated as an
alternative methane source. Various cost estimates have been made which
indicate production costs, including gas purification and compression, in
the range of $0.40 to $2.00 per million Btu. The major cost items, and
sources of variability in the estimates, are the digester capital costs,
waste sludge disposal cost, and the credit or debit associated with the
collection and preparation of the solid waste feed material. Multiple
staging and separate optimization of anaerobic digestion may provide
reduced capital costs through lower detention times and reduced operation
and maintenance costs by improved process stability.

Price of natural gas is now over $8.00 per per million Btu.

Mr. Wheeler -- are you paying any attention to these lines of "thought"??

Take you sugar cane -- use the juices to make lot's of gas -- burn the
bagasse to makes lot of power.

You can burn it direct as it comes out of a big crusher set up (55%
humidity) -- get 25% out of that as export electrical power -- or you can
really get complicated -- playing around with all kinds of plumbers
nightmares -- and maybe get 25% if your lucky -- and then God only know for
how long per year -- or how long before it dies!

And if you want to really reach for the stars -- do this with bagasse:

Cellulose Degradation

A significant portion of the organic matter suitable for fermentation to
fuels is cellulosic. Cellulosic materials tend to resist biochemical
degradation. A system has been described which utilizes fungal cellulase
for the hydrolysis of cellulose (Refs. 22 and 23). Wilke (Ref. 24)
described a system for the net production of 429 tons of glucose (5.88%
w/w) per day from 885 tons of waste paper at a cost of $18.56 per ton of
glucose, excluding credits or debits associated with the disposal of the
paper.

Instead of man's machines -- maybe we should be paying more attention to
mother nature's little "helpers" -- eh?

 

Peter -- Belize

***********on with it***************

Acetate catabolism by Methanosarcina barkeri: evidence for involvement of
carbon monoxide dehydrogenase, methyl coenzyme M, and methylreductase.

Krzycki JA, Lehman LJ, Zeikus JG.

The pathway of acetate catabolism in Methanosarcina barkeri strain MS was
studied by using a recently developed assay for methanogenesis from acetate
by soluble enzymes in cell extracts. Extracts incubated with
[2-14C]acetate, hydrogen, and ATP formed 14CH4 and [14C]methyl coenzyme M
as products. The apparent Km for acetate conversion to methane was 5 mM. In
the presence of excess acetate, both the rate and duration of methane
production was dependent on ATP. Acetyl phosphate replaced the cell extract
methanogenic requirement for both acetate and ATP (the Km for ATP was 2
mM). Low concentrations of bromoethanesulfonic acid and cyanide, inhibitors
of methylreductase and carbon monoxide dehydrogenase, respectively, greatly
reduced the rate of methanogenesis. Precipitation of CO dehydrogenase in
cell extracts by antibodies raised to 95% purified enzyme inhibited both CO
dehydrogenase and acetate-to-methane conversion activity. The data are
consistent with a model of acetate catabolism in which methylreductase,
methyl coenzyme M, CO dehydrogenase, and acetate-activating enzymes are
components. These results are discussed in relation to acetate uptake and
rate-limiting transformation mechanisms in methane formation.

**********2nd*************

Enzymology of the fermentation of acetate to methane by Methanosarcina
thermophila.

Ferry JG.

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Pennsylvania State
University, University Park 16802-4500, USA.

Biologically-produced CH4 derives from either the reduction of CO2 or the
methyl group of acetate by two separate pathways present in anaerobic
mierobes from the Archaea domain. Elucidation of the pathway for CO2
reduction to CH4, the first to be investigated, has yielded several novel
enzymes and cofactors. Most of the CH4 produced in nature derives from the
methyl group of acetate. Methanosarcina thermophila is a moderate
thermophile which ferments acetate by reducing the methyl group to CH4 with
electrons derived from oxidation of the carbonyl group to CO2. The pathway
in M. thermophila is now understood on a biochemical and genetic level
comparable to understanding of the CO2-reducing pathway. Enzymes have been
purified and characterized. The genes encoding these enzymes have been
cloned, sequenced, transcriptionally mapped, and their regulation defined
on a molecular level. This review emphasizes recent developments concerning
the enzymes which are unique to the acetate fermentation pathway in M.
thermophila.

Publication Types:
Review
Review, Tutorial

PMID: 9233537 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

From renertech at xtra.co.nz Tue Oct 19 15:22:46 2004
From: renertech at xtra.co.nz (Ken Calvert)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:22:46 +1300
Subject: [Gasification] Re: Upping the quality of raw biogas!-
References: <3.0.32.20041019125752.009bc690@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <002701c4b619$66cc28f0$f09d98de@coppermine>

Taking it a stage further!!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Singfield" <snkm at btl.net>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>; <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 7:59 AM
Subject: [Gasification] Gas-er-up!! Data listings -- process flow --

Peter, I have filed this shot of yours as an excellent brief of the A.D.Process.
However, in Vietnam, we are working on coffee juice with a couple of short cuts.
For every tonne of coffee beans exported to the World, someone has to process
around 6-7 tonnes of dirty wet fruit pulp and waste process water, high in sugars, and like
sugar cane loaded with soil bacteria. As Vietnam now surpasses Columbia as the second biggest Global coffee producer, we have had to work hard to stay ahead of the flood.
Our wastes go into a long open pond, and with a small feed back of fluid from the kumsouta to the guzinta. The factory effluent takes 24 hours to traverse the length of the tank and by that time it is all acid, and the low pH has precipitated all the pectins which act like a floc to clarify the solution of other solids as well. Then we pump the clear yellow acid solution up through a bed of marble chips. (easily got in Central Vietnam but nothing like Carrera.) This gives us a crude calcium acetate solution and lots of CO2, which means that the resultant biogas has less than half the usual CO2 content down line. We find that the limestone treatment stabilises the pH at 6.1. And with a bit of natural enrichment, we now have a nicely granulated sludge bed of highly enriched methanogens, no entanglement with acetogens, in a UASB reactor/digester which will process our waste water , at ambient temperature, around 16oC, in 6-8 hours. That means our most expensive component, the gas tight digester, needs to be a small fraction of the size of the traditional 16-20 day solids digester. All the rest is open air ponds etc. The major hastle is collecting the solid calcium phosphate that builds up on everything past the digester. However, it is good fertiliser that we don't need to loose in our effluent stream. If we had a cheap source of magnesium or dolomite in the vicinity, we would be using that instead of marble so that we could gather Struvite instead of phosphate and strip out all the waste ammonia as well. Peter, starting with cane juice, your solids would be low enough not to worry about natural flocculants You could just about process everything in 24-30 hours flat, and with a down hill gravity plant , do it without electricity as well??.

There are more details on my website. QV, "The Renertech Biogas Process" on my publications page. www.coffee.20m.com Ken C.


 


 

General Composition of Bio-Gas Produced From Farm Wastes
CH4 methane 54 - 70%
CO2 carbon dioxide 27 - 45%
N2 nitrogen 0.5 - 3%
H2 hydrogen 1 - 10%
CO carbon monoxide 0.1%
O2 oxygen 0.1%
H2S hydrogen sulfide trace

Fuel Value of Bio-Gas and Other Major Fuel Gases
Fuel gas Fuel value (BTU/ft3)
Coal (town) gas 450-500
Bio-gas 540-700
Methane 896-1069
Natural gas 1047-1210

Nat Gas (methane or
propane-based) 1050-2200
Propane 2200-2600
Butane 2900-3400
Producer gas 135-170
SynGas 290-320
Coke oven Gas
(pyrolysis) 550-560

Biology of Digestion:

Bio-Succession in the Digester:

Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that digestion is a
biological process.

The "anaerobic" bacteria responsible for digestion can't survive with even
the slightest trace of oxygen. So, because of the oxygen in the manure
mixture fed to the digester, there is a long period after loading before
actual digestion takes place. During this initial "aerobic" period, traces
of oxygen are used up by oxygen-loving bacteria, and large amounts of
carbon dioxide (C02) are released.

When oxygen disappears, the digestion process can begin. That process
involves a series of reactions by several kinds of anaerobic bacteria
feeding on the raw organic matter. As different kinds of these bacteria
become active, the by-products of the first kind of bacteria provide the
food for the other kind (Fig. 6). In the first stages of digestion, organic
material which is digestible (fats, proteins and most starches) are broken
down by acid producing bacteria into simple compounds. The acid bacteria
are capable of rapid reproduction and are not very sensitive to changes in
their environment. Their role is to excrete enzymes, liquefy the raw
materials and convert the complex materials into simpler substances
(especially volatile acids, which are low molecular weight organic acids --
See 4 Raw Materials).

The most important volatile acid is acetic acid (table vinegar is dilute
acetic acid), a very common by-product of all fat, starch and protein
digestion. About 70% of the methane produced during fermentation comes from
acetic acid (Ref. 12).

Ref 12: Jeris, J. & P. McCarty. 1965. The Biochemistry of Methane
Fermentation Using C14 Traces. Journal Water Poll. Control Fed., 37(2):
178-192.

Once the raw material has been liquefied by the acid producing bacteria,
methane producing bacteria convert the volatile acids into methane gas.
Unlike the acid bacteria, methane bacteria reproduce slowly and are very
sensitive to changes in the conditions of their environment. (More
information on the biology of methane fermentation can be found in Ref. 13
and 14.)

Refs 13 and 14:

13. Boswell, A. M. 1947. Microbiology and Theory of Anaerobic Digestion.
Sewage Works Journal 19:28.

14. Barker, H. 1956. Bacterial Fermentations. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Biologically, then, successful digestion depends upon achieving and (for
continuous-load digesters) maintaining a balance between those bacteria
which produce organic acids and those bacteria which produce methane gas
from the organic acids.

************************

Looking at the compass -- where does it point??

Production of cane juice is a relatively straight forward procedure -- from
manual level (two stick jammed in a tree) -- the micro mechanized -- small
two roll cane crusher -- to large crushers of great capacity -- as seen in
sugar making factories.

In any and all cases -- it is simple process -- let's call this a "given" --

Compare this to chopping down a tree -- cutting to right lengths --
splitting it -- to result in fire wood.

Fuel conditioning loads in cane juice extraction is probably much less.

The rest of this process can be very "passive".

The cane juice once stored in a cistern will ferment by natural means to
alcohol of 5 to 7% content in 10 to 15 days. The only requirement being
absence of O2 -- which is arranged easily --

One the cane juice has completely fermented it can be "racked" into a fresh
container -- and the "yeast" thus recovered. Yeast is a powerful food
product -- be it for human consumption -- or as supplementary addition to
animal feeds.

(I have some interesting papers on this -- but for another time and place)

Suffice to say -- the yeast by product alone more than pays the cost of a
cistern "waiting" for fermentation to complete.

The voided fermentation cistern is then replenished with fresh cane juice.
And that cycle repeats.

The fermented juice now racked into a fresh cistern is allowed to turn to
vinegar.

This rate of this process can be greatly increased by introduction of air.

Some methods of aeration.

1: Draw out liquid from bottom of tank then pour down from a small tower
suspended over the tank -- and while falling down it passes over -- well here:

Process

Water is concentrated to 10 per cent level by fortifying with sugar. The
fortified water is then fermented by inoculating the solution with yeast,
Sacharomyces cerviseae.

After alcoholic fermentation for about 4 to 5 days, the clear liquid is
siphoned off and inoculated with mother vinegar containing acetobacter
bacteria. The alcoholic ferment obtained is then fed into a vinegar
generator where the feed is uniformly sprayed over the surface of the
porous packing medium (corn cobs). Here the alcoholic ferment is oxidized
to acetic acid. The product is run out from the packing medium by gravity
flow into the receiving vat from where it is recycled into the vinegar
generator and the process of acetification is repeated until a strength of
4 per cent is attained.

Vinegar is also a "food" -- and also a food preservative --

Now -- a possible missing link to this flow diagram is:

"Once the raw material has been liquefied by the acid producing bacteria,
methane producing bacteria convert the volatile acids into methane gas."

Ergo -- the ultimate value added village level methane producer might be
the one that uses vinegar (4%) as the feed -- and one encourages only (easy
enough to do in an acidic environment) "methane producing bacteria convert
the volatile acids into methane gas"

A.D. -- your sitting on the grant money -- figure it's worth while
investigating??

I have not found anything in regards to what by-products would be produced
in this final process -- that is after bacteria have converted acid to
methane.

Fertilizer?? Or more "food"?? Or both??

And of course -- just what to do with all that bagasse!! Compost and make
fertilizer? Would the effluents from the final stage -- after methane
production of vinegar -- in the digester be the right thing to mix with
bagasse for increasing compost values?? As bagasse from a two roller
crusher still contains residual sugars -- and moisture --

"Poof" they are calling me -- got to go --

by the way -- it is acetobacter bacteria -- not lactobacillus -- than makes
vinegar??

Or: mycoderma aceti , the bacteria culture, used to make vinegar??

Or:

Epicurious' food dictionary defines Mother of Vinegar as: A slimy, gummy
substance made up of various bacteria - specifically mycoderma aceti - that
cause fermentation in wine and cider and turn them into vinegar. Known as
m?re de vinaigre in French and sometimes simply as "mother" in English, its
growth is best fostered in a medium-warm environment (60?-85?F). The mother
should be transferred to a new mixture or discarded once the liquid has
turned to vinegar.

Later I will check that out better --

Peter -- in Belize

 

 

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041019/519ab0f3/attachment.html

From randsney at comcast.net Tue Oct 19 15:59:32 2004
From: randsney at comcast.net (randsney at comcast.net)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:59:32 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] bio-metabolism,
co-metabolism &/or catabolism by anaerobic or aerobic
Message-ID: <00bb01c4b61e$8900ed70$6401a8c0@randsney>

I new at this and was wondering if studies have been done to discern which anaerobic and/or aerobic microbes are best to produce bio-metabolism, co-metabolism, and/or catabolism to get the best results? I may not understand the response but would
appreciate an answer.

Thanks.

Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041019/66a3d57d/attachment.html

From oscar at geprop.cu Tue Oct 19 15:17:36 2004
From: oscar at geprop.cu (Oscar Jimenez)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:17:36 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Anyone designed made and currently has working
avariable fuel gassifier
Message-ID: <A6C7CDF4EB4F92459A97B5514EC9F1D9092040@geprop-server.172.16.1.254>

>>>Can anyone currently operating VALIDATED system be in the field reconfigured to optimize combustion of a varied wastestream of feedstocks? One day wood next day manure, next day rice husk etc.

....theorically speaking feeding a gasifier with varied wastestreams of feedstocks is not possible... from the very beginning, when designing gasifiers the feedstock to be used is characterized, has to be known: size, humidity, heating content...etc. ...

regards.

Oscar.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: LWheeler45 at aol.com [mailto:LWheeler45 at aol.com]
Enviado el: martes, 19 de octubre de 2004 14:53
Para: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Asunto: [Gasification] Anyone designed made and currently has working avariable fuel gassifier

One of the major selling point on Gassifiers is the limited range of feedstock that most but not all companies claim are viable for commercial operations.

One feature in design is to make a trial run with designated Feedstocks selecting only one to optimize combustion for. These Feedstocks are noted as:

Sugar cane, bagasse, sweet sorghum, wood chips, rice husk, coal, manure, straw stover, corn stover, sewer sludge. Any others?

Can anyone currently operating VALIDATED system be in the field reconfigured to optimize combustion of a varied wastestream of feedstocks? One day wood next day manure, next day rice husk etc.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041019/e3ef944f/attachment.html

From snkm at btl.net Tue Oct 19 16:54:54 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:54:54 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Gas-er-up!! Data listings -- process
flow --
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041019154716.009bc690@pop.btl.net>

 

At 01:03 PM 10/19/2004 -0700, Art Krenzel wrote:
>Peter,
>
>You have taken off with the zeal of an Evangelist with this biogas project!
>You did a great job gathering the necessary information for you bio process.
>

Well -- we have LLWheeler shaking our collective tree in regards to why
something aint happening -- as you know -- I have claimed for years the
entire industry is in a rut.

I made my living by researching and applying results from researching --
but researching gas production is not my occupation.

But it is hard to resist shaking collective tree -- having seen the fun
LWheeler is getting -- thought I would as well.

You might note by the last posting -- it gets deeper and deeper.

Now -- can't we consider using a little less machinery -- and a little more
of Mother's helpers??

In fact -- we better consider alternatives -- as a rule -- the older a
technology gets -- the more chance it can be knocked off it's imagined high
horse.

Seems to me Tom Taylor was involved with gasifying biomasses to syngas
using mother's little helpers -- what happened to that side Tom??

I am only doing an over view in regards to present state of the art -- but
seems to me times are a changing??

>You said:
>>Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that digestion is a
>>biological process.
>
>Actually, in the latest biogas technology, the anaerobic process is broken
>into two separate steps. The first step, acetate formation by organic
>acids, is somewhat tolerant of the presence of small amounts of oxygen. The
>second stage, methanation, the presence of any oxygen means sudden and
>instant death to the methagens.

I'm reviewing and saving to hard drive some three stage processes right now
-- maybe will comment on this later -- if the moderators don't shut me down
first that is.

>
>Just Google TWO PHASE ANAEROBIC DIGESTION for the latest information.
>

Thanks -- I will --

>
>>Biologically, then, successful digestion depends upon achieving and (for
>>continuous-load digesters) maintaining a balance between those bacteria
>>which produce organic acids and those bacteria which produce methane gas
>>from the organic acids.
>

I'm trying to find the part about bacteria reducing CO2 to methane right now.

>Again, the newer production anaerobic processes are hybrids. They have
>daily batch tanks for the first stage (hydrolyis and acetate formation) and
>pulse feeding of the second stage (methane formation). The net effect is
>that we have a continuous process that can handle surge loading on the feed
>side and a near constant output of biogas.

Well -- the model I use from the beginning is going from raw "juice" -- to
alcohol -- to vinegar -- then to gas. but in a very "passive" manner.

We here in 3rd world like "passive" -- while people like LWheeler like big
plumber's nightmares.

Time will tell -- as always.

>
>Peter, I still think you should make beer. Think of it - now we could have
>a reason for our Evangelistic rants! :-) We could sell the bad batches of
>beer as vinegar and have two markets.
>

Cane wine here is called Chee-Cha- - and I have been consuming nothing but
Chee-cha for years now. As required -- not all the time.

One of our greatest causes of poor health is alcohol -- because the mass
produced stuff is lacking in so much. A good Cheecha is highly "medicinal"
- -as it supplies an incredible range of mineral micronutrients -- as well
as vitamins -- etc -- from the yeast.

Stuff coming out of the plumber's nightmares might pass FAD approval -- but
are still long term poisons for the human body. hard liquor strips minerals
out of the body - -especially the liver -- and you know where that neds up.
Chee cha replenishes vital minerals. And all in the most perfect dietary form.

Of course -- rules of the highly slanted playing field makes it all but
impossible to break into the market place in modern nations in regards to
introucing alcoholic content products -- well -- have a happy cancer event
-- not to mention cardiovascular -- liver -- etc problems.

Better dead than not politically correct is the motto --

>I built and operated a microbrewery during one of my earlier lives and it
>was a pleasure - especially at break time. :-)

I could be producing an easy 600 liters a day. But instead -- I process 10
tens of cane once per year to put up a measily 1750 or so liters.

This year I plan to also do a run of 1750 liters of vinegar -- as well as
1750 of cheecha -- ergo -- my sudden interest in this topic.

What holds me back is 20 liter containers to rack the product into -- I
recycle 20 liter plastic cooking oil containers.

Even small traces of oil will ruin a wine -- so each container does 48
hours of soaking full of caustic soda. Then a thorough rinse job after.

I can but acquire -- on average -- 5 such containers per week -- at a cost
of $1.25 US each.

Finding sufficient 1 litter bottles is the next problem. But I have that
well in hand -- paying $0.05 per empty one liter plastic coca cola bottles
-- which i have found to be of excellent food grade quality.

These to require washing -- and everything -- before racking -- need to be
sterilized -- using "Sodium"

Cheecha is 12 to 13% alcohol. The taste takes getting used to -- but the
effects are excellent. you wake up ready to charge -- rather than with a
head-ache.

It also has interesting diuretic properties --

Now -- the two phase process is appended

But here is the "meat":

"COD loads of 20-60 kg/m3/day for acidogenic fermentation (1st phase) and
6-30 kg/n^/day for methanogenic fermentation (2nd phase)."

As in: Make vinegar first -- then transmute to methane after.

Hmm -- sound familliar -- eh??

As in make vinegar -- then deliver that to village biodigestors to make
methane -- for stoves.

 

Peter

>
>Art Krenzel

Two-phase methane fermentation processes

Novel bioreactors for methane fermentation such as the UASB, UAFP, and AFBR
experience inherent problems when operated at high COD loads, due to the
fact that the overall growth rate of acidogenic bacteria proceeds faster
(10-fold) than that of methanogenic bacteria. When this occurs, inhibitory
products such as volatile fatty acids and H2 accumulate in the reactor,
slowing down the entire process. In order to overcome this, two-phase
processes consisting of acidogenic and methanogenic fermentation's have
been investigated (16).

In one full-scale two-phase system + the Anodek process (Belgium) + 70-97%
COD removal and biogas production of 3-13 Kg/m2 day with a methane content
of 65 to 80% was obtained when operated at COD loads of 20-60 kg/m3/day for
acidogenic fermentation (1st phase) and 6-30 kg/n^/day for methanogenic
fermentation (2nd phase). In another example, a two-phase system consisting
of a complete stirred reactor for the first phase and a UASB for the second
phase was constructed. When this system was applied in the treatment of
alcohol distillery waste (COD =10,000 mg//) at HRTs of 16-72 hours in the
first phase, and 14 hours in the second phase, 84% COD removal and 92% BOD
removal were accomplished. A two-phase system consisting of a UAFP for the
first phase and a horizontal AFP for the second phase has also been
proposed, with which it should be possible to treat sewage waste water (COD
800 to 2,600 mg/l) at HRTs of 2-5.5 hours with a high methane content (~90%).

In addition, since SS in waste water greatly influences the performance of
the UASB or UAFP, an acidogenic fermentation first phase in combination
with a UASB or UAFP second phase is useful in reducing the SS which enter
the second phase.

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Tue Oct 19 23:04:42 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:04:42 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] gas values
Message-ID: <81.18b57ead.2ea73dda@aol.com>

What is the reason for the wide variance in these outcomes?

> Nat Gas (methane or
> propane-based) 1050-2200
> Propane 2200-2600
> Butane 2900-3400
> Producer gas 135-170
> Syngas 290-320
> Coke oven Gas
> (Pyrolysis) 550-560
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041020/f0215f0b/attachment.html

From snkm at btl.net Tue Oct 19 23:20:28 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:20:28 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Make wood vinegar from bagasse?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041019222014.009c5ce0@pop.btl.net>

Half kidding -- but of interest to the pyrolysis crew??

The Making of Wood Vinegar

One chemical industry that was ubiquitous in earlier times (1920?s) was the
wood distillation industry. The principle product, after processing, was a
charcoal with low yields of chemical products. The wood used for
distillation was air dried for 6 to 18 months. Artificial drying methods
were later developed to shorten the drying time and better control the
moisture content. During distillation, wood is placed inside an oven and
heating started. When wood is heated above 270C, it begins a process of
decomposition called carbonization. If air is absent, the final product is
charcoal (since there is no oxygen present to react with the wood). If air,
which contains oxygen is present, the wood will catch fire, and burn when
it reaches a temperature of 400-500C. The final product is wood ash. If
wood is heated while away from air, moisture is first driven off, and until
this is complete, the wood temperature remains at 100-110C. When the wood
is dry, its temperature rises to about 270C, it spontaneously decomposes,
and heat is emitted. This is the well-known reaction that takes place
during charcoal burning. The first distillate (condensation from the gases)
is almost entirely water and it is not until about the 4th hour that the
liquor slowly darkens and contains increasing amounts of acid. The crude
condensate produced from the distillation of wood is called Pyroligneous
Acid. The crude Pyroligneous Acid is then refined by fractional
distillation to separate a food grade version that is suitable for use in
health products.

*************more***************

Outline of technology
We developed the furnace to recover the bamboo vinegar and bamboo charcoal
because there is an abundant bamboo resource in Kitakyushu City.
This furnace is provided with a gas burner for completely combustion under
the theoretical amount or less of air. Waste gas, which is generated in the
combustion furnace and does not contain oxygen, of lower temperatures in
the range of 250-300deg.C is cooled and the bamboo vinegar is collected.
Next day, the bamboo placed in the another drying furnace is heated rapidly
at high temperature without air and dried by distillation.
Bamboo vinegar and bamboo charcoal, both quality being good, can be
produced by these furnace.
Our company can offer the technology to obtain bamboo charcoal and pure
bamboo vinegar.

Characteristic and effect (including the system chart)
The bamboo charcoal and bamboo vinegar are conventionally produced in the
kiln made of soil. The bamboo placed in the soil kiln is burned and the air
is intercepted when the fire turns completely and then fire is extinguished
(The natural method). Consequently, the one-cycle needs 5 to 7 days to
produce them.

Our production flow is very simple so that the operating time to produce a
bamboo vinegar and a bamboo charcoal will end in a day.

Specification
1. Recovery flow of bamboo vinegar

bamboo is cut and

placed in the furnace
-> heat at about 250deg.C -> smoky volatile product -> heat exchanger ->
bamboo vinegar

Use example of bamboo charcoal: fuel, activated carbon, water-treatment
agent, soil conditioner, etc.

2. Producing flow of bamboo charcoal

the bamboo after recovering the bamboo vinegar is placed in the furnace.
-> ignition and naturally leavment -> carbonization -> interception of
air -> bamboo charcoal

Example of usage of bamboo vinegar: an activated agent for agriculture, a
deodorization, a raw material for medicine, a food, etc.
3. Producing method of wood vinegar, bamboo vinegar, and bamboo charcoal.

Woods or cutted bamboos are placed in the first furnace, in which the
material is heated at 200deg.C for 4 hours to adjust the water content of
raw material.
After the temperature of furnace is decreased, the material in plastron
basket is moved to the next carbonization furnace which is set up in the
neighbor and then heated at 850-100deg.C for 4-5 hours. Thus obtained
charcoal is a similar product obtained from soil kiln.
4. Outline schematic drawing of the furnace

Recovery furnace of bamboo vinegar


3. A photograph of the recovery furnace of bamboo vinegar and producing
furnace of bamboo charcoal


http://e-trade.ktc.ksrp.or.jp/en/seeds/kitakyu/e_104.html

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

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Tue Oct 19 23:21:50 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:21:50 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Re What designed parameters are changed to
accomodate this?
Message-ID: <7e.5b232f10.2ea741de@aol.com>

 

> ....theorically speaking feeding a gasifier with varied wastestreams of
> feedstocks is not possible... from the very beginning, when designing gasifiers
> the feedstock to be used is characterized, has to be known: size, humidity,
> heating content...etc. ...
>
> regards.
>
> Oscar.
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041020/61566b56/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Tue Oct 19 23:25:35 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:25:35 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] RECOMMEND
http://www.RenewableEnergyAccess.com/assets/newsletter/
Message-ID: <1f6.1320a6e.2ea742bf@aol.com>

May I recommend to ALL
http://www.RenewableEnergyAccess.com/assets/newsletter/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041020/68202f23/attachment.html

From mlefcort at shaw.ca Tue Oct 19 23:26:59 2004
From: mlefcort at shaw.ca (Malcolm Lefcort)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:26:59 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Anyone designed made and currently has working
avariable fuel gassifier
In-Reply-To: <8a.1805ce14.2ea6caa6@aol.com>
Message-ID: <000001c4b65d$0dab9960$f21a5118@Malcolm>

Mr. Wheeler,

For what its worth, the Heuristic EnvirOcycler, a two stage combustor
developed to burn wet biomass, can burn any of the feedstocks you list, or
mixtures thereof, quite cleanly. You may have to put a baghouse on the
waste heat boiler stack for particulate and/or an SCR for high fuel nitrogen
wastes (manures). You can direct fire a waste heat boiler with the
EnvirOcycler's products of combustion and make power using a steam turbine
generator. Alternatively (and more efficiently) you can go the combined
cycle route and indirectly fire a gas turbine generator with the
EnvirOcycler's products of combustion and then generate additional power
via a Rankine cycle turbine generator using water or hot oil.

Readily gasifying the raw fuels you list is an almost impossible task.unless
you have mega bucks to spend. Then you can afford to make like the Swedes
do in downtown Stockholm; viz., you'll be able to pay for the drying and
pulverizing of your feedstocks. Once that has been done gasifying the dry,
fine powder that you end up with is a slam dunk.

Malcolm Lefcort

Heuristic Engineering Inc

Vancouver, BC

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of
LWheeler45 at aol.com
Sent: October 19, 2004 11:53 AM
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Subject: [Gasification] Anyone designed made and currently has working
avariable fuel gassifier

One of the major selling point on Gassifiers is the limited range of
feedstock that most but not all companies claim are viable for commercial
operations.

One feature in design is to make a trial run with designated Feedstocks
selecting only one to optimize combustion for. These Feedstocks are noted
as:

Sugar cane, bagasse, sweet sorghum, wood chips, rice husk, coal, manure,
straw stover, corn stover, sewer sludge. Any others?

Can anyone currently operating VALIDATED system be in the field reconfigured
to optimize combustion of a varied wastestream of feedstocks? One day wood
next day manure, next day rice husk etc.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041020/d93bb1b9/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Tue Oct 19 23:35:47 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:35:47 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] You will find this more than interesting
Message-ID: <1de.2c017ba0.2ea74523@aol.com>

http://cleantechventure.com/index.cfm?pageSRC=Agenda

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041020/55c14d34/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Tue Oct 19 23:45:05 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:45:05 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] What is system efficiency and what is the value and
composition of the syngas
Message-ID: <62.46c79890.2ea74751@aol.com>

Thank you for the quick answer.

All I am interested in at process site is to gassify waste materials and pipe
cooled gas to off site location for power heat steam etc. Sort of like a
transfer station
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041020/2aa81f39/attachment.html

From gregoire.jovicic at jovicic.com Wed Oct 20 02:25:49 2004
From: gregoire.jovicic at jovicic.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Gr=E9goire_JOVICIC?=)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:25:49 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Make wood vinegar from bagasse?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20041019222014.009c5ce0@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAjWHuzVeiQECyc+xYtT7dy8KAAAAQAAAAwoF+B3Neq0K5iwRYjzPcXAEAAAAA@jovicic.com>

What is the bamboo vinegar application ?

-----Message d'origine-----
De?: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] De la part de Peter
Singfield
Envoy??: mercredi 20 octobre 2004 06:20
??: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Objet?: [Gasification] Make wood vinegar from bagasse?

Half kidding -- but of interest to the pyrolysis crew??

The Making of Wood Vinegar

One chemical industry that was ubiquitous in earlier times (1920?s) was the
wood distillation industry. The principle product, after processing, was a
charcoal with low yields of chemical products. The wood used for
distillation was air dried for 6 to 18 months. Artificial drying methods
were later developed to shorten the drying time and better control the
moisture content. During distillation, wood is placed inside an oven and
heating started. When wood is heated above 270C, it begins a process of
decomposition called carbonization. If air is absent, the final product is
charcoal (since there is no oxygen present to react with the wood). If air,
which contains oxygen is present, the wood will catch fire, and burn when
it reaches a temperature of 400-500C. The final product is wood ash. If
wood is heated while away from air, moisture is first driven off, and until
this is complete, the wood temperature remains at 100-110C. When the wood
is dry, its temperature rises to about 270C, it spontaneously decomposes,
and heat is emitted. This is the well-known reaction that takes place
during charcoal burning. The first distillate (condensation from the gases)
is almost entirely water and it is not until about the 4th hour that the
liquor slowly darkens and contains increasing amounts of acid. The crude
condensate produced from the distillation of wood is called Pyroligneous
Acid. The crude Pyroligneous Acid is then refined by fractional
distillation to separate a food grade version that is suitable for use in
health products.

*************more***************

Outline of technology
We developed the furnace to recover the bamboo vinegar and bamboo charcoal
because there is an abundant bamboo resource in Kitakyushu City.
This furnace is provided with a gas burner for completely combustion under
the theoretical amount or less of air. Waste gas, which is generated in the
combustion furnace and does not contain oxygen, of lower temperatures in
the range of 250-300deg.C is cooled and the bamboo vinegar is collected.
Next day, the bamboo placed in the another drying furnace is heated rapidly
at high temperature without air and dried by distillation.
Bamboo vinegar and bamboo charcoal, both quality being good, can be
produced by these furnace.
Our company can offer the technology to obtain bamboo charcoal and pure
bamboo vinegar.

Characteristic and effect (including the system chart)
The bamboo charcoal and bamboo vinegar are conventionally produced in the
kiln made of soil. The bamboo placed in the soil kiln is burned and the air
is intercepted when the fire turns completely and then fire is extinguished
(The natural method). Consequently, the one-cycle needs 5 to 7 days to
produce them.

Our production flow is very simple so that the operating time to produce a
bamboo vinegar and a bamboo charcoal will end in a day.

Specification
1. Recovery flow of bamboo vinegar

bamboo is cut and

placed in the furnace
-> heat at about 250deg.C -> smoky volatile product -> heat exchanger ->
bamboo vinegar

Use example of bamboo charcoal: fuel, activated carbon, water-treatment
agent, soil conditioner, etc.

2. Producing flow of bamboo charcoal

the bamboo after recovering the bamboo vinegar is placed in the furnace.
-> ignition and naturally leavment -> carbonization -> interception of
air -> bamboo charcoal

Example of usage of bamboo vinegar: an activated agent for agriculture, a
deodorization, a raw material for medicine, a food, etc.
3. Producing method of wood vinegar, bamboo vinegar, and bamboo charcoal.

Woods or cutted bamboos are placed in the first furnace, in which the
material is heated at 200deg.C for 4 hours to adjust the water content of
raw material.
After the temperature of furnace is decreased, the material in plastron
basket is moved to the next carbonization furnace which is set up in the
neighbor and then heated at 850-100deg.C for 4-5 hours. Thus obtained
charcoal is a similar product obtained from soil kiln.
4. Outline schematic drawing of the furnace

Recovery furnace of bamboo vinegar


3. A photograph of the recovery furnace of bamboo vinegar and producing
furnace of bamboo charcoal


http://e-trade.ktc.ksrp.or.jp/en/seeds/kitakyu/e_104.html

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

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Wed Oct 20 10:19:26 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:19:26 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Ans to your comments off net and my report in draft
to the parties of interest
Message-ID: <6d.36022a95.2ea7dbfe@aol.com>

Showtime:
These are items of general interest so I will share with group.

Then I am going to present it to the guys with the interest to look further.

Executive Summery

1. Countless problems with government, regulations political hacks and
marketing to empty suits and "consultant engineers" w/o knowledge of technology.

(Welcome to my world!)

2. What a gassifier is not:
. It is not NEW technology
. It is not unproven technology
. It is not a viable commercial all consuming MSW disposal unit
. It is not an attractive economical alternative currently to a 100 MW and up
power plant and public utility.
. It is not OF AND BY ITSELF a viable means to provide liquid motor fuels for
IC transportation use.

3. Some in the industry can produce PE independent engineering validation for
almost all of their plants and ALL of their current designs. These are known
as success stories. Some clearly can produce 100 or more identically
performing units in a calendar year the rest cannot. Two exceptions noted.

4. Some in the mature industry have rather large commercial operational
systems of 300 to 600 TPD.

5.Naive Politically / Marketing wise as a group in USA and Canada, Mexico and
S America by virtue of publications, web sites of industry references in
trade magazines most if not nearly all knows NOTHING of PR or industry wide
promotion or funding alternatives or have found company with co related industries
such as bio ethanol, ethanol, syngas, hydrogen, and high efficiency 60% or
better electrical combined cycle low emissions power. Two exceptions Noted

6. Failures: There are many. Reasons there are many. At the core is one
recurring one... An industry trying to do something outside of their expertise and
system knowledge. Such as generate electrical power for a large commercial
grid, dispose of mixed waste streams of MSW with unknown toxics and combustion
characteristics, building one off custom and therefore untested and expensive
systems with zero clue as to the efficiencies of scale up and performance
outcomes and potential of toxic nature of waste produced.

Findings: With qualifications noted on attached confidential non disclosure
performance sheet.

Commercially Viable in Fla.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041020/bbae30bd/attachment.html

From snkm at btl.net Wed Oct 20 10:22:51 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:22:51 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Make wood vinegar from bagasse?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041020084702.00960b70@pop.btl.net>

At 09:25 AM 10/20/2004 +0200, Gr?goire JOVICIC wrote:
>What is the bamboo vinegar application ?

Vinegar converts well to methane by passive processing in a bio digester.

Charcoal -- the other product -- is a semi-portable fuel. As so well
demonstrated during WWII. With charcoal as fuel gasifiers become practical.

Pyrolysis is "active" processing however.

Quite sure: what can be done with bamboo can be done with bagasse.

I guess the thought here is to use nature to fuel condition as much as
possible in a reliable and passive manner. And at an efficient in seedy
manner.

Passive processing of biomass by methane digestion alone is far to slow --
and requires capital investment in very large digester construction to make
sufficient -- that makes it impractical for village levels.

Though wood vinegar is presently produced in a speedy manner using modern
equipments -- for many years -- thousands probably -- it was made in a
simpler manner.

"The bamboo charcoal and bamboo vinegar are conventionally produced in the
kiln made of soil. The bamboo placed in the soil kiln is burned and the air
is intercepted when the fire turns completely and then fire is extinguished
(The natural method). Consequently, the one-cycle needs 5 to 7 days to
produce them."

And:

"The wood used for distillation was air dried for 6 to 18 months."

So we are talking fuel conditioning for humidity along the lines of a
partial combustion gasifier -- however -- no worries about size
conditioning --

And the final active processing can be done at village level.

Further -- many charcoal makers in the world -- still today -- are already
operating in such manner.

>From what we see presented to date -- it is quite possible that the raw
"wood-vinegar" can be digested to a high quality biogas rich in methane --
passively -- in a compact bio digester.

So -- like the charcoal -- another semi portable fuel.

Some rough examples --

fully portable fuel examples: Tanks of butane -- gallons of gasoline --
diesel - -alcohol.

Semi portable: Charcoal -- cane juice -- vinegar

Non portable: biogas -- producer gas -- thermal heat.

Just as examples of broad classification niches.

Portable fuels excel for vehicles -- mechanized transportation.

Semi portable can also be applied for transportation -- but not as efficiently

Non portable are for stationary power plants -- if small and economical --
cooking stoves.

Passive fuel conditioning is where no activities are required for a fuel
producing or process

EG: Fermentation -- biogas digestion -- drying (naturally)

Though equipments are still required -- vats -- roof.

Active fuel conditioning includes harvesting -- crushing/chipping --
distillation -- gasification -- pyrolization -- operation of a thermal
plant -- etc.

Each classification can be further broken down to intensity.

As example -- harvesting sugar can manually with a machete and delivered
with out machinery compared to harvesting trees which require axes -- saws
-- chain saws and heavy trucks for transport.

Chipping is a far more intensive mechanical activity than crushing/pressing
to extract juices.

Looking at the last machine in a line -- in any flow diagram of biomass to
energy -- is a huge mistake often made.

With biomass -- Fuel conditioning to reach the final "machine" is where the
real problems lay.

One LWheeler will probably learn about the hard way.

And another reason that people like Gene of Hurst Boilers are still doing
good business selling thermal power plants!

Simplicity has it's advantages. Hurst power plant are simple -- but operate
with a steam quality to low to achieve good over all efficiencies.

However -- marry a Hurst Boiler to an ORMAT -- replace steam with thermal
oil -- no pressures -- one can realize 25% over all efficiencies rather
than 5% -- and achieve greater reliability and simplicity of operation.

At 25% over all efficiencies using straight thermal systems -- it is just
about impossible to justify gasifiers -- plasma arcs -- steam reformers --
etc.

The more complicated the system -- the more it depends on scale of sizing
to "theoretically" pay for itself.

Thus certain types of centralized processing require huge amounts of
biomass to be delivered. The larger the central power plant -- the greater
the distances -- and just the transport of biomass fuels becomes an energy
head-ache -- and one that the promoters of the power plant often forget to
mention.

In 3rd world the "view" is much clearer -- and one knows that delivery --
transport -- is a major problem.

So in good over all design -- it would appear better to decentralize power
production. Meaning much less power distribution losses from power plant to
end user -- and much less costs for transport of fuel to one centralized
station.

Still -- everyone is thinking big to huge --

A.D. Karve's proposition meets most of the requirements for 3rd world power
-- and thermal -- generation.

Small is beautiful -- but micro sized is better ---

 

Peter

>
>-----Message d'origine-----
>De?: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
>[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] De la part de Peter
>Singfield
>Envoy??: mercredi 20 octobre 2004 06:20
>??: gasification at listserv.repp.org
>Objet?: [Gasification] Make wood vinegar from bagasse?
>
>
>Half kidding -- but of interest to the pyrolysis crew??
>
>

From snkm at btl.net Wed Oct 20 12:50:39 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:50:39 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Anyone designed made and currently has
workingavariable fuel gassifier
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041020114924.009a4610@pop.btl.net>

"Alternatively (and more efficiently) you can go the combined cycle route
and indirectly fire a gas turbine generator with the EnvirOcycler?s
products of combustion and then generate additional power via a Rankine
cycle turbine generator using water or hot oil."

Another way to say "ORMAT" -- now where did you hear that before -- eh??

And if that pops off 25% electrical energy efficiency plus easy to access
thermal energy -- what you bothering with going the plumber's nightmare
route to gain a "hypothetical" extra 5% efficiency with a system far more
maintenance intensive -- will not live 10% as long either as a thermal ORC
will -- and still requires incredible fuel conditioning besides!!

Leonard -- you are heading straight down that same road every other
impresario has hit since the beginning -- good salary on a fat project
until everything goes bust!!

Are you not happy to know that you are so well confirmed -- mentally --
already -- in this short time -- to beating your brains out on this brick
wall!!

I expected better from you!!

But I know what motivates you.

I while back I was presenting some new information in regard to green
manure for agricultural practices to some Mennonite farmers here.

Their huge problem is the every increasing cost of modern fertilizers.

The specific technology I presented was developed in cuba -- where thanks
to the blockade -- they had not choice but find alternatives -- or starve.

The Mennonites grasped the concepts immediatly -- but here was their last
words on the matter.

We see the value -- but we checked with our bankers -- and they will only
lend for more fertilizer.

Et tu Leonard??

Here is my advice -- give it up -- brain bashing is not fun -- no matter
what salary they pay to do it!! It just is not worth it.

We have a number of members on this list that have already bashed their
brains -- another number still bashing theirs -- and now you -- a novice at
brain bashing -- just starting up!!

I could have a quote on your desk in 2 days times for any size thermal to
ORC biomass conversion unit you can dream off -- if I had real incentive --
like knowing it would be accepted.

But I guarantee the system your working under will not "ALLOW" you to go
that route -- no matter how much sense it makes -- any more than all these
mennonites here going bankrupt over the increasing cost of food production
-- due to increasing chemicals to farm costs (not just fertilizer -- but
insecticides -- herbicides) -- cause the banking system allows no leeway at
all.

Believe it was Tom Taylor in a posting not so long ago that mentioned
banking as the major problem to innovation (then there comes government
bureaucracy right behind)

Now -- from lecture to points:

"For what its worth, the Heuristic EnvirOcycler, a two stage combuster
developed to burn wet biomass, can burn any of the feedstocks you list, or
mixtures thereof, quite cleanly."

Ok -- that is as good as gasification gets for mixed raw biomasses -- gas
production for down the road thermal application.

Why?? Because then you have a much cleaner heat -- from burning gas --
rather than dirty direct combustion of biomasses.

Why?? so now you can go "fancy" -- like:

"and indirectly fire a gas turbine generator with the EnvirOcycler?s
products of combustion"

Or directly fire a super high quality steam boiler -- water tube -- state
of the art -- operating well above supercritical steam pressures and
temperatures -- that will get you 45% plus thermal to electric
efficiencies. Something you could never do with burning raw biomasses.

The best that has been done burning specific -- and excellent -- but still
"Raw" biomass was the Vermont Power project -- to quote:

Return-Path: <JIRVING104 at aol.com>
From: JIRVING104 at aol.com
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:56:54 EST
Subject: Re: Vermont Gasification Project
To: snkm at btl.net

Hi Peter, the efficiency of the Mcneil Station is 25% on a HHV basis. Steam
conditions are 1275 psi, 950 F. Boiler efficiency is 70% with wood at 50%
content. Wood moisture has veried from 39% to 50%, and averaged about 45%.
Thanks for the tips on Foster Wheeler. I visited a FW plant last year in
Finland which was a 10mwe district heating with a bubbling bed boiler that
was built for 1100$US/kwe. John

****************************************

And that would not work with a dirty biomass like Bagasse (ask content of
greater than 6% soon plates water tube boiler components interrupting
coolant effect and you end up with boiler explosion!)

But still -- for 1/3 or less the capital costs you can install the old
style -- well proven -- bagasse burning furnaces found in any sugar factory
operation.

These are large fire tube design -- and as such -- can pass through items
that would normally destroy a water tube boiler -- thus operate and live
forever plus one day burning bagasse -- or any other "raw" biomass from car
tires -- to MW -- to sewage sludge press cake.

The problem: though just as thermally efficient in transferring heat to
working fluid (water/steam) the design of these fire tube boilers limits
them to very low steam quality -- like saturated 360 PSI steam -- which you
would be lucky to recover even 3% as electrical power.

The solution is to change working fluids from water/steam (Pressure) to
thermal oil (zero pressure) and pipe that to an ORC (Like the ORMATS)

The ORMATS are hermetically sealed devices that need not be touched --
opened -- internally serviced for 30 plus years!! (As proven in geothermal
service!!)

And are fully self running -- require only one watchman per shift!!

The fire tube boilers are the easiest kind to service -- to change tubes as
required -- and very economically. Sugar factories rebuild them in this
manner once per year!!

Now -- increase the capital costs from 1/3 to 2/3's -- still 1/3 less than
what you are aiming for with a gasifier system -- and I promise to up that
thermal efficiency to over 40% -- by using proven state of the art
cascading ORCs.

This is all off the shelf stuff -- geothermal ORC power plants have been
spinning -- and in truly awesome sizes -- for well over 50 years now. You
have giga watts of such in the US alone right now -- quietly doing there work.

But instead of using geothermal heat energy -- we use old style bagasse
burning boilers heating a thermal oil. And as such can do much better at
supply heated working fluid at optimal temperatures for ultimate system
efficiencies in a most reliable manner!

But you bank will never let you do this -- so welcome to this club of head
bashing on wall crew!

Dream on till you self destruct!!

There is no more engineering common sense in modern industrial nation's
activates!

Just an endless supply of wheeler dealers (maybe the pun intended) bashing
head so hard brains never stop splattering!

This is what happens when societies of mankind get to "FAT" -- always!!

Necessity is the mother of invention -- and you guys really do not have any
necessities -- yet!

Leonard -- look at it this way -- with a huge supply of electricity --
cheap and unlimited electricity -- you will not have any trouble:

1: As it is produced using biomass wastes -- that problem is over

2: As it is being produced reliably -- at high over all efficiencies -- for
low capital costs -- it profits on electrical sales alone.

3: If you personally feel an uncontrollable impulse to make syngas -- you
have the electricity at hand to run your plasma arc torch and do so.

But it would be even less capital intensive -- more reliable -- less
maintenance and even higher efficiency to do the same in a super critical
water reactor -- using electric resistance heaters!!

And more "proven" as well!!

But you can't even consider that cause your "married" already top the
plasma arc guys!! As we say here Leonard -- Plesse -- give me a "break" --

You need to do a good "flow" and one not dictated by the bankers or back
room business deals.

Fat chance --eh??

You call for innovation but we all know your bankers will not allow it to
be implemented!! And that innovation can only be applied your "fixed"
devices and processes.

Maybe if you buddy up to Bill Gates??

As it stands -- another 200 milliopn of fat money from an over fat socieity
will go up in smole -- and the real work gets postponed some more.

Ergo -- my interest in making al ittle methane for my cook stove while the
bulshit artists of this world run it all into the ground -- and from the
ashes we might rise again.

at least I'll have an easy time still cooking my food oberving this
insantiy you all are trying to pass off as "advancing the human race to
greater hieghts and endevors"

When really it's pure reaching -- for any way to fill some back pocket. And
especially by sucking "TIT" -- government grant monies -- bank loans -- etc
-- etc -- etc.

We all lose before you even get started Len -- think on this --

Peter - Belize

 

At 09:26 PM 10/19/2004 -0700, Malcolm Lefcort wrote:
>>>>

Mr. Wheeler,

For what its worth, the Heuristic EnvirOcycler, a two stage combustor
developed to burn wet biomass, can burn any of the feedstocks you list, or
mixtures thereof, quite cleanly. You may have to put a baghouse on the
waste heat boiler stack for particulate and/or an SCR for high fuel
nitrogen wastes (manures). You can direct fire a waste heat boiler with
the EnvirOcycler?s products of combustion and make power using a steam
turbine generator. Alternatively (and more efficiently) you can go the
combined cycle route and indirectly fire a gas turbine generator with the
EnvirOcycler?s products of combustion and then generate additional power
via a Rankine cycle turbine generator using water or hot oil.

Readily gasifying the raw fuels you list is an almost impossible
task
unless you have mega bucks to spend. Then you can afford to make like
the Swedes do in downtown Stockholm; viz., you?ll be able to pay for the
drying and pulverizing of your feedstocks. Once that has been done
gasifying the dry, fine powder that you end up with is a slam dunk.

Malcolm Lefcort

Heuristic Engineering Inc

Vancouver, BC

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of
LWheeler45 at aol.com
Sent: October 19, 2004 11:53 AM
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Subject: [Gasification] Anyone designed made and currently has working
avariable fuel gassifier

One of the major selling point on Gassifiers is the limited range of
feedstock that most but not all companies claim are viable for commercial
operations.

One feature in design is to make a trial run with designated Feedstocks
selecting only one to optimize combustion for. These Feedstocks are noted as:

Sugar cane, bagasse, sweet sorghum, wood chips, rice husk, coal, manure,
straw stover, corn stover, sewer sludge. Any others?

Can anyone currently operating VALIDATED system be in the field
reconfigured to optimize combustion of a varied wastestream of feedstocks?
One day wood next day manure, next day rice husk etc.

_______________________________________________ Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

From snkm at btl.net Wed Oct 20 13:32:03 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:32:03 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Ans to your comments off net and my report
in draftto the parties of interest
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041020123202.0099c5c0@pop.btl.net>

At 11:19 AM 10/20/2004 EDT, LWheeler45 at aol.com wrote:
>>>>

OK -- how many 30 year plus old Bagasse burning furnaces do you want me to
show you??

OK -- -- how many 30 plus Geothermal power plants do you want to see??

Now -- how many engineers do you wish to talk to that can assure you that
hot fluid going to an ORC style power plant -- makes no difference how it
is heated??

Actually -- ORMAT already have such plants in operation -- granted -- not
using bagasse furnaces. But biomass burning and heating thermal oil going
to an ORC.

If you need a bench model to show your bankers -- by this ORMAT:

ORMAT Biomass Fueled Power Unit
FOR RURAL ELECTRIFICATION

The Biomass Fueled OEC is offered in either of two capacities: 4 and 6 kW

http://www.ormat.com/technology_8.htm

The Biomass Fueled OECcan use various agricultural residue types, such as:
coffee husks and pulp, rice husks, maize cobs, cacao husks, sugarcane tops,
wood (trimmings and chips), and others.

Fits well in the back of any pick-up truck -- so you can drive it around
and demonstrate.

More "stuff" at:

http://www.ormat.com/technology.htm

But I suspect:

It's not about getting your job done in the best manner possible -- but
making your marriage partners look prettier to your potential bankers!!

"1. Countless problems with government, regulations political hacks and
marketing to empty suits and "consultant engineers" w/o knowledge of
technology."

Yes -- but when something "real" comes along -- you go hide??

Admit it -- your addicted to the run-a-round!

Peter

Showtime:
These are items of general interest so I will share with group.

Then I am going to present it to the guys with the interest to look further.

Executive Summery

1. Countless problems with government, regulations political hacks and
marketing to empty suits and "consultant engineers" w/o knowledge of
technology.

(Welcome to my world!)

2. What a gassifier is not:
. It is not NEW technology
. It is not unproven technology
. It is not a viable commercial all consuming MSW disposal unit
. It is not an attractive economical alternative currently to a 100 MW and
up power plant and public utility.
. It is not OF AND BY ITSELF a viable means to provide liquid motor fuels
for IC transportation use.

3. Some in the industry can produce PE independent engineering validation
for almost all of their plants and ALL of their current designs. These are
known as success stories. Some clearly can produce 100 or more identically
performing units in a calendar year the rest cannot. Two exceptions noted.

4. Some in the mature industry have rather large commercial operational
systems of 300 to 600 TPD.

5.Naive Politically / Marketing wise as a group in USA and Canada, Mexico
and S America by virtue of publications, web sites of industry references
in trade magazines most if not nearly all knows NOTHING of PR or industry
wide promotion or funding alternatives or have found company with co
related industries such as bio ethanol, ethanol, syngas, hydrogen, and high
efficiency 60% or better electrical combined cycle low emissions power. Two
exceptions Noted

6. Failures: There are many. Reasons there are many. At the core is one
recurring one... An industry trying to do something outside of their
expertise and system knowledge. Such as generate electrical power for a
large commercial grid, dispose of mixed waste streams of MSW with unknown
toxics and combustion characteristics, building one off custom and
therefore untested and expensive systems with zero clue as to the
efficiencies of scale up and performance outcomes and potential of toxic
nature of waste produced.

Findings: With qualifications noted on attached confidential non disclosure
performance sheet.

Commercially Viable in Fla. _______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

******************appended********

ORMAT Biomass Fueled Power Unit
FOR RURAL ELECTRIFICATION
The ORMAT Biomass Fueled Power Unit is a new model from the ORMAT? Energy
Converter (OEC) product line designed to supply power to off-grid rural areas.

The Biomass Fueled OEC is based on the OEC technology, also known as the
CCVT (Closed Cycle Vapor Turbogenerator), of which over 3500 units have
been manufactured and supplied by ORMAT since 1965 to 63 countries, for use
as power source at unattended remote telecommunication applications. Many
of the OEC units have already achieved over 25 years of continuous
maintenance-free operation.

The Biomass Fueled OEC is offered in either of two capacities: 4 and 6 kW
meant to fulfill the large demand for small scale, distributed power units
in those rural areas where fuel costs are high and logistics of fuel
availability are difficult. Applications include: remote community
mini-grids, health clinics and schools, irrigation/water pumping, micro and
small scale enterprises, telecommunications, etc.

The Biomass Fueled OEC is a self contained, factory tested, fully automatic
power unit, easy to install and operate by local farmers. The unit is
virtually maintenance-free, requiring daily load of biomass and periodic
simple ash removal.

The Biomass Fueled OECcan use various agricultural residue types, such as:
coffee husks and pulp, rice husks, maize cobs, cacao husks, sugarcane tops,
wood (trimmings and chips), and others.

 

 

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Wed Oct 20 20:09:09 2004
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:09:09 +1300
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal Production
References: <15a.40a6e325.2e9eadf5@aol.com>
Message-ID: <007901c4b70a$a7e0cca0$c68f58db@GraemeWilliams>

----- Original Message -----
From: <LINVENT at aol.com>
To: <graeme at powerlink.co.nz>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 5:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal Production

Leland you responded:

>
> hopefully, a good gasifier will have very little carbon in the ash or else
it
> is a pyrolyzer and has poor thermal carbon conversion efficiency.
> Recirculating spent carbon after using it as a water treatment process
builds up an
> excess which has to be disposed of in some manner anyhow.
>
> Leland T. Taylor

Leland,
Sorry for a slow response to your comment, but if used to filter gasifier
condensate, the recirculation of spent carbon through the gasifier doesn't
create a problem. The contaminant is hydrocarbon, so it would just distil
again and join the gas stream. In a different situation, where-by the
activated char may contain toxic substances from a contaminated fuel supply,
I agree that there could be an accumulative effect and we need to know the
limitations of our differing systems.

Our char in Germany by the way was tested by the University of Freiberg as
part of a briquetted fuel trials in late 1995, and we will have more up to
date information on this char later from our Canadian project.
Regards,
Doug Williams.
Fluidyne Gasification.

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Wed Oct 20 22:01:24 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:01:24 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] FYI Looks like Fla is back in the running Oct 21
Message-ID: <157.42069932.2ea88084@aol.com>

GOVERNOR BUSH AND SECRETARY ABRAHAM TO ANNOUNCE

CLEAN ENERGY ADVANCEMENT

Governor Jeb Bush will be joined by US Department of Energy Secretary Spencer
Abraham in Orlando on Thursday, October 21st to announce a major advancement
in Florida?s clean energy future.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041020/46557eb4/attachment.html

From rstanley at legacyfound.org Wed Oct 20 23:15:11 2004
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 06:15:11 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] FYI Looks like Fla is back in the running Oct 21
In-Reply-To: <157.42069932.2ea88084@aol.com>
References: <157.42069932.2ea88084@aol.com>
Message-ID: <417737CF.6010506@legacyfound.org>

How convenient the announcement is,
now just before the election ! Wow, now I'm going to vote for him
too...er....

LWheeler45 at aol.com wrote:

>
>
> GOVERNOR BUSH AND SECRETARY ABRAHAM TO ANNOUNCE
>
> CLEAN ENERGY ADVANCEMENT
>
>
> Governor Jeb Bush will be joined by US Department of Energy Secretary
> Spencer Abraham in Orlando on Thursday, October 21st to announce a
> major advancement in Florida?s clean energy future.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041021/0b0d1383/attachment.html

From MMBTUPR at aol.com Thu Oct 21 07:31:05 2004
From: MMBTUPR at aol.com (MMBTUPR at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:31:05 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Prospects for clean coal technologies
Message-ID: <e2.429b0a6.2ea90609@aol.com>

to Gasification list from Lewis L.
Smith

We have suggested previously that the speed at which the use of biomass
energy in general [and biomass gasification in particular] must be expanded
and the mix of feedstocks and technologies which are likely to be used, depends
in good part on whether or not "clean [?] coal" technologies can become
environmentally acceptable and economically and technically viable within the next
decade. These coal technologies include [a] pressurized, fluidized-bed
combustion boilers [b] integrated coal gasification, combined cycle units and [c]
integrated coal gasification, fuel cell, combined cycle. In brief, the required
schedule of implementation for biomass depends to a significant degree on that
for coal.

Option [a] has already been commercialized in Europe, Japan and the USA;
option [b] in Europe and the USA. Option [c] is expected to become commercial
in Japan by 2009. However, in most locations, all are more expensive in terms
of both capital and operating cost than most traditional alternatives for the
generation of electricity.

However until now, no one has made any projections as to the rate at
which these technologies could be introduced into a real electric system and what
kind of subsidy might be required. The latest issue of the online newsletter
of the International Association for Energy Economics
[ < iaee.org > ] contains a summary of what appears to be the first such
study, "Economic aspects and policy options of clean coal technologies", based on
a detailed model of the Japanese energy market, with eight demand sectors,
thirteen feedstock markets and 82 processes ! The model covers the years 1999 to
2044, in five-year increments. Several cases are run with this model to
explore the introduction of the three coal technologies for the generation of
electricity in Japan.

The assume a carbon tax and energy tax that collectively will reduce
total CO2 emissions in Japan by 10% by 2044. Ironically the carbon tax bares most
heavily on the new technologies, as they use coal with the highest carbon
content ! The energy tax bares most heavily on the traditional technologies,
because they are less efficient. These taxes are imposed in graduated steps
through 2004. Finally total CO2 output by the electricity sector increases in all
cases, despite the taxes and increased efficiency because of the increase in
total generation.

However, revenues from the two taxes are used to close the cost gap
between the clean-coal technologies and traditional ones, In some cases, the
subsidy to the new technologies comes in the form of a reduction of 10% in its
capital cost per unit of capacity. This is enough to make them cost competitive
with traditional technologies.

The model is solved by the META-Net system developed by Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory [DOE] . This is a partial-equilibrium system which
allows for explicit price competition among technologies, constraints on emissions
and/or taxes on emissions.

Because of the summary nature of the article, it is not possible to say
much more of interest to our list. However, the article makes clear that there
is a good possibility for clean-coal technologies will be environmentally
acceptable and economically competitive in Japan by 2044. If something like this
turns out to be case for other countries and the urgency of doing something
about Global Warming does not increase significantly, I believe that this is a
time frame with which the biomass community can live with very comfortably.
However, for me, the jury is out until we have the results of the Canadian
research on which I reported previously.

Cordially.

End.


.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041021/917359a3/attachment.html

From hauserman at corpcomm.net Thu Oct 21 11:05:06 2004
From: hauserman at corpcomm.net (Bill Hauserman)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:05:06 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] FYI Looks like Fla is back in the running Oct 21
References: <157.42069932.2ea88084@aol.com> <417737CF.6010506@legacyfound.org>
Message-ID: <002e01c4b787$be15bc60$b87ffecf@Betsy>

Since Richard Stanley doesn't say anything adverse bout the content of the Florida clean energy future, or anthing else that JB and Abrams announced, I cannot judge what miught be wrong with it, I can only conclude that Stanley's rule of perception is something like: Since Bush (GW or Jeb) is a bad guy, how dare he anounce something that may be beneficial. Apparently it's considered terribly unethical of the Administration to do anthing possibly good for the country so soon before an election, rather than help Kerry win. WBH
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Stanley
To: LWheeler45 at aol.com
Cc: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] FYI Looks like Fla is back in the running Oct 21

How convenient the announcement is,
now just before the election ! Wow, now I'm going to vote for him too...er....

LWheeler45 at aol.com wrote:

 

GOVERNOR BUSH AND SECRETARY ABRAHAM TO ANNOUNCE

CLEAN ENERGY ADVANCEMENT

 

Governor Jeb Bush will be joined by US Department of Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in Orlando on Thursday, October 21st to announce a major advancement in Florida?s clean energy future.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

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

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041021/ddf4ba8a/attachment.html

From hauserman at corpcomm.net Thu Oct 21 11:06:59 2004
From: hauserman at corpcomm.net (Bill Hauserman)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:06:59 -0500
Subject: Fw: [Gasification] FYI Looks like Fla is back in the running Oct 21
Message-ID: <003b01c4b788$00a7d1d0$b87ffecf@Betsy>

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Hauserman
To: Richard Stanley ; LWheeler45 at aol.com
Cc: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] FYI Looks like Fla is back in the running Oct 21

Since Richard Stanley doesn't say anything adverse bout the content of the Florida clean energy future, or anthing else that JB and Abrams announced, I cannot judge what miught be wrong with it, I can only conclude that Stanley's rule of perception is something like: Since Bush (GW or Jeb) is a bad guy, how dare he anounce something that may be beneficial. Apparently it's considered terribly unethical of the Administration to do anthing possibly good for the country so soon before an election, rather than help Kerry win. WBH
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Stanley
To: LWheeler45 at aol.com
Cc: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] FYI Looks like Fla is back in the running Oct 21

How convenient the announcement is,
now just before the election ! Wow, now I'm going to vote for him too...er....

LWheeler45 at aol.com wrote:

 

GOVERNOR BUSH AND SECRETARY ABRAHAM TO ANNOUNCE

CLEAN ENERGY ADVANCEMENT

 

Governor Jeb Bush will be joined by US Department of Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in Orlando on Thursday, October 21st to announce a major advancement in Florida?s clean energy future.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

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

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041021/17e8e08e/attachment.html

From gene at powerenergy.com Thu Oct 21 13:15:39 2004
From: gene at powerenergy.com (Gene R. Jackson)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:15:39 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] FYI Looks like Fla is back in the running Oct 21
References: <157.42069932.2ea88084@aol.com> <417737CF.6010506@legacyfound.org>
<002e01c4b787$be15bc60$b87ffecf@Betsy>
Message-ID: <003901c4b799$f9b255f0$0b01a8c0@yourfsyly0jtwn>

No,

I'll vote for Bush - he is better for the country in the overall long run than the other john....s... thaks
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Hauserman
To: Richard Stanley ; LWheeler45 at aol.com
Cc: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] FYI Looks like Fla is back in the running Oct 21

Since Richard Stanley doesn't say anything adverse bout the content of the Florida clean energy future, or anthing else that JB and Abrams announced, I cannot judge what miught be wrong with it, I can only conclude that Stanley's rule of perception is something like: Since Bush (GW or Jeb) is a bad guy, how dare he anounce something that may be beneficial. Apparently it's considered terribly unethical of the Administration to do anthing possibly good for the country so soon before an election, rather than help Kerry win. WBH
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Stanley
To: LWheeler45 at aol.com
Cc: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] FYI Looks like Fla is back in the running Oct 21

How convenient the announcement is,
now just before the election ! Wow, now I'm going to vote for him too...er....

LWheeler45 at aol.com wrote:

 

GOVERNOR BUSH AND SECRETARY ABRAHAM TO ANNOUNCE

CLEAN ENERGY ADVANCEMENT

 

Governor Jeb Bush will be joined by US Department of Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in Orlando on Thursday, October 21st to announce a major advancement in Florida?s clean energy future.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

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

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

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

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041021/a701c76d/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Thu Oct 21 13:26:18 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:26:18 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] :
http://www.wastenews.com/headlines2.html?id=1098296995
Message-ID: <1fb.247469.2ea9594a@aol.com>

: http://www.wastenews.com/headlines2.html?id=1098296995 This should
interest all USA gassifier makers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041021/280d5880/attachment.html

From rstanley at legacyfound.org Thu Oct 21 15:10:47 2004
From: rstanley at legacyfound.org (Richard Stanley)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:10:47 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] FYI Looks like Fla is back in the running Oct 21
In-Reply-To: <003901c4b799$f9b255f0$0b01a8c0@yourfsyly0jtwn>
References: <157.42069932.2ea88084@aol.com> <417737CF.6010506@legacyfound.org>
<002e01c4b787$be15bc60$b87ffecf@Betsy>
<003901c4b799$f9b255f0$0b01a8c0@yourfsyly0jtwn>
Message-ID: <417817C7.7040000@legacyfound.org>

Whoha fellas !
Lets not slip into politics or this list will come apart. I'll
apologise for my earlier foray into same but of course retain my own
opinions about the election. Those of you who want to debate politics, I
can offer all kinds of lists and background info, as can of course, you.
Question is: Do we really want to go there in this list. Personally, I
do not think its a good idea.
Richard

Gene R. Jackson wrote:

> No,
>
> I'll vote for Bush - he is better for the country in the overall
> long run than the other john....s... thaks
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bill Hauserman <mailto:hauserman at corpcomm.net>
> To: Richard Stanley <mailto:rstanley at legacyfound.org> ;
> LWheeler45 at aol.com <mailto:LWheeler45 at aol.com>
> Cc: gasification at listserv.repp.org
> <mailto:gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 10:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] FYI Looks like Fla is back in the
> running Oct 21
>
> Since Richard Stanley doesn't say anything adverse bout the
> content of the Florida clean energy future, or anthing else that
> JB and Abrams announced, I cannot judge what miught be wrong with
> it, I can only conclude that Stanley's rule of perception is
> something like: Since Bush (GW or Jeb) is a bad guy, how dare he
> anounce something that may be beneficial. Apparently it's
> considered terribly unethical of the Administration to do anthing
> possibly good for the country so soon before an election, rather
> than help Kerry
> win.
> WBH
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Stanley <mailto:rstanley at legacyfound.org>
> To: LWheeler45 at aol.com <mailto:LWheeler45 at aol.com>
> Cc: gasification at listserv.repp.org
> <mailto:gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 11:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] FYI Looks like Fla is back in the
> running Oct 21
>
> How convenient the announcement is,
> now just before the election ! Wow, now I'm going to vote for
> him too...er....
>
> LWheeler45 at aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> GOVERNOR BUSH AND SECRETARY ABRAHAM TO ANNOUNCE
>>
>> CLEAN ENERGY ADVANCEMENT
>>
>>
>> Governor Jeb Bush will be joined by US Department of Energy
>> Secretary Spencer Abraham in Orlando on Thursday, October
>> 21st to announce a major advancement in Florida?s clean
>> energy future.
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Gasification mailing list
>>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041021/0a061151/attachment.html

From jsmeenk at iastate.edu Fri Oct 22 16:38:23 2004
From: jsmeenk at iastate.edu (Jerod Smeenk)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:38:23 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Re: [Stoves] Activated Charcoal Production
In-Reply-To: <006401c4b076$3f23b230$6501a8c0@OFFICE3>
References: <101220041128.4645.416BBFCC0004F3FF0000122522007507840B0A0A9D0D03019B@comcast.net>
<006401c4b076$3f23b230$6501a8c0@OFFICE3>
Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20041022150919.01f764b0@jsmeenk.mail.iastate.edu>

Tom Miles,

We (Iowa State University) submitted char for TCLP analysis. The char was
produced by fluid bed gasification of waste seed corn. The seed corn was
treated with a fungicide. The results for all compounds, including
benzene, were all below the action level. Let me know if you would like a
copy of the results.

Jerod

 

At 11:11 AM 10/12/2004, Tom Miles wrote:
>Tom,
>
>I agree that water treatment would be an excellent local use of char from
>gasification or gasifying stoves. There is a suspicion, however, that char
>from gasification contains toxic compounds, especially benzene, and
>require special water treatment. The common measure in the US is the
>Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). TCLP limit for benzene
>is 0.5 mg/L. Procedures are described in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix II or
>in EPA's publication, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW-486.
>
>Where is there toxicity data for biomass chars from gasification or
>combustion?
>
>I asked the gasification list earlier if anyone had any TCLP data for char
>from gasification and got no response.

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

 

From psanders at ilstu.edu Fri Oct 22 16:51:25 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:51:25 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Oil instead of water
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20041020084702.00960b70@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041022163906.0267b100@mail.ilstu.edu>

Stovers,

This topic stems from something Peter wrote, so I quote him below (much
snipped):

At 09:22 AM 10/20/04 -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:

>Simplicity has it's advantages. Hurst power plant are simple -- but operate
>with a steam quality to low to achieve good over all efficiencies.
>
>However -- marry a Hurst Boiler to an ORMAT -- replace steam with thermal
>oil -- no pressures -- one can realize 25% over all efficiencies rather
>than 5% -- and achieve greater reliability and simplicity of operation.

Please educate me, but aim for a practical "product". The issue is:

Is it possible and feasible to substitute some form of oil (vegetable or
mineral or either?) into the heat exchange system (instead of heating water
that boils at 100 C and creates dangerous pressures), and have benefits of
capturing the heat for useful purposes without too many extra costs or
problems/dangers?

Useful purposes include cooking, room heating, heat transfer to slightly
further locations, drying of something, creation of electricity via
turbines/engines, etc.

Peter also wrote in the same message:
>Small is beautiful -- but micro sized is better ---
Let that be part of the guidelines in this discussion.

Note: All of our stoves create heat. This is a question about how we can
make better use of it.

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 at 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 snkm at btl.net Fri Oct 22 19:29:27 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:29:27 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Re: Oil instead of water
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041022182632.009b1e40@pop.btl.net>

Hi Paul;

>Please educate me, but aim for a practical "product". The issue is:
>
>Is it possible and feasible to substitute some form of oil (vegetable or
>mineral or either?) into the heat exchange system (instead of heating water
>that boils at 100 C and creates dangerous pressures), and have benefits of
>capturing the heat for useful purposes without too many extra costs or
>problems/dangers?

For house heating -- etc -- hot water circulation -- say 160 F -- is perfect.

For cooking -- thermal oil is used already -- as in deep frying.

Geothermal power plants work very well at 450F -- and rather than go
through the expense and numerous approval processes for using pressurized
steam -- using a thermal oil heated to 450 F cuts a lot of corners.

but thermal oil of that nature are not "cheap" -- and you must circulate a
lot more of that to transfer the same heat requirements that you would with
hot water -- pressurized water -- or steam.

Still -- a circulation system increase of four to 6 factors is not such a
major cost -- especially as compared to using steam under those same
circumstances.

And as there is no pressures involved -- it is a lot safer.

In the past -- for my experiments in super critical steam -- I used a
liquid metal bath -- specifically -- zinc die cast alloy #3

At 1000 to 1200 F -- nothing can beat it for heat transfer efficiencies --
you need not circulate it -- just immerse a coil into the molten bath --
inject fluid you wish to vaporize -- and you get plenty of if very fast.
Water is the fluid I was using then.

The advantage of this is a very stable temperature control -- so you can
play around with extreme steam quality without worrying about a hot spot
occurring on a section of tubing -- the metal heating to high -- swelling
-- and bursting like a balloon.

Liquid metal baths are extremely viable for superheating.

Flame on a tube with super heated steam in it (a very rarified atmosphere
for heat absorption is an engineers nightmare to design and control at
temperatures around 1200 F.

As I could not effort the very specialized tubes -- of exotic alloys --
plus heat/fame control is a nightmare at that point -- I went the liquid
metal bath route.

In the past -- they also use molten salt baths -- in the 350 to 600 F range.

Early torpedoes where propelled in such manner. Look it up.

You also have a heat battery effect -- as when liquids change state --
their is a latent heat of fusion factor.

So solidifying metal or salt baths realized a huge amount of heat released.

Zinc die cast alloy number 3 melted at around 750 F -- if I remember right.

So if you filled a thermos with a few pounds of that in liquid state you
would have quite a pocket warmer for chilly days --

One solidified -- and heat dissipated -- you simply heat it to melting
again -- heat battery is recharged.

There are specialize metal alloys that melt at below the boiling
temperature of water --

And of course -- mercury is liquid at room temps.

In the past -- mercury boilers were used in some major power plants. Binary
working fluids -- the second fluid being steam.

Today you could go three stages -- the last being an ORC.

Let me look up one example of a Mercury boiler --

Binary-Vapor cycles:

The critical state point of steam is3206.2 psi at a temperature of 705.4 F.
Several plants have been built to use fluid with higher boiling temperature
superimposed on the regular steam cycle, forming a binary vapor cycle. The
mercury vapor-steam cycle provides one of the most efficient means of
generating power from fuel.

OK -- an example plant:

The Kearny station of Public Service Electric and Gas Corporation -- N. J.
-- operated a mercury binary cycle power plant.

OK -- this in the early 1930's now!!

The Kearny plant delivers:

A 20,000 kw mercury boiler/turbine unit then delivers steam (from second
stage) to a 33,000 kw turbine for a total of 53,000 kw for the combines
mercury-steam unit.

The heat rate for this combination averaged 9175 btu per kwh (net) output.

3414 btu = one kwh.

3414/9175 = 37.2% efficiency.

Steam coming out the back of the mercury vapor condenser was 400 psi --
"saturated"

So temperature was 444.59 F

Ideal temperature for top efficiencies for an ORC -- but not ideal steam
quality for a steam cycle power plant.

So -- if you had that same mercury turbine running binary cycle with a
refrigerant in and ORC -- you would get probably get better than 45% over
all efficiencies.

Using that same 1932 combustion power plant --

Anyway -- I use a slang word for all the above -- "Topping" -- as in a
Topping turbine.

You could also "Top" the high heat using a externally heated gas turbine --
then recovering the wast heat from that using an ORC system -- and again --
45% or better over all plant efficiencies. Gas turbines work out a lot
cheaper than super critical steam boilers and turbines (which also easily
get 45% plus) -- and look maw -- no steam pressure anywhere!!

Thermal heat exhangers to heat air for expansion in Gas turbine -- then a
thermal boiler heating picking up heat to thermal oil to circulate to ORC
-- from exhaust of gas turbine and furnace flu stack.

And you do not need humungous scale of economics to do this either! But you
certainly do for super critical water steam power plants!

Modern super critcal steam turbines do the topping and lower end extraction
all in one straight through line -- by multiple stages -- in the same long
turbine unit.

Peter

 

At 04:51 PM 10/22/2004 -0500, Paul S. Anderson wrote:
>Stovers,
>
>This topic stems from something Peter wrote, so I quote him below (much
>snipped):
>
>At 09:22 AM 10/20/04 -0600, Peter Singfield wrote:
>
>>Simplicity has it's advantages. Hurst power plant are simple -- but operate
>>with a steam quality to low to achieve good over all efficiencies.
>>
>>However -- marry a Hurst Boiler to an ORMAT -- replace steam with thermal
>>oil -- no pressures -- one can realize 25% over all efficiencies rather
>>than 5% -- and achieve greater reliability and simplicity of operation.
>
>Please educate me, but aim for a practical "product". The issue is:
>
>Is it possible and feasible to substitute some form of oil (vegetable or
>mineral or either?) into the heat exchange system (instead of heating water
>that boils at 100 C and creates dangerous pressures), and have benefits of
>capturing the heat for useful purposes without too many extra costs or
>problems/dangers?
>
>Useful purposes include cooking, room heating, heat transfer to slightly
>further locations, drying of something, creation of electricity via
>turbines/engines, etc.
>
>Peter also wrote in the same message:
>>Small is beautiful -- but micro sized is better ---
>Let that be part of the guidelines in this discussion.
>
>Note: All of our stoves create heat. This is a question about how we can
>make better use of it.
>
>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 at 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 LWheeler45 at aol.com Fri Oct 22 20:20:27 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 21:20:27 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] New system between Pyrolisis and Plasma does the
work of both cost less
Message-ID: <84.36950cf8.2eab0bdb@aol.com>

Today after signing a confidential non disclosure agreement I reviewed the
validated specifications on a commercial in use model of a DC plasma TYPE Arc
gassifier that handles all waste streams, meets EPA and state standards of
destruction of biohazards that will consume all that is put into it like a plasma
arc system but looks like and cost the same or less than a gassifier without
these features.

This system makes syngas, steam and heat like a nuke boiler or Westinghouse
Plasma Arc system and the cost/efficiency of mass to energy conversion is
greater than any I have seen with plasma or a gasifiers.

The system is simple welded sheet stock rectangle about approx. 8' long 5 'on
side multiple DC torches arrayed in the sides are ceramic cones with carbide
electrodes operational in a Nitrogen/Argon gas. The torches last forever and
cost only $12.00 each to replace. It will fit on a flatbed or on skids in
modules. Computer controlled. Covered by 6 patents. Maintenance, Guaranteed,
finance available.

Yes, I were impressed. And It can be mass produced like a liberty ship. Fast
and cheap off the shelf parts bolt together assy.

I am looking over my agency, lease and license agreements tonight. Forget
what I said about Ford this one is Kaiser Liberty Ship stuff.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041022/f0fd7cc4/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Fri Oct 22 20:29:44 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 21:29:44 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] at www.SoyGrowers.com/newsroom/news.htm. Recommend
Message-ID: <12d.4df62461.2eab0e08@aol.com>

At www.SoyGrowers.com/newsroom/news.htm. I recommend gassifier producers
become registered as E mail release members.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041022/ab7e2dfb/attachment.html

From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Fri Oct 22 21:09:40 2004
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:09:40 -0300
Subject: [Gasification] New system between Pyrolisis and Plasma does
thework of both cost less
References: <84.36950cf8.2eab0bdb@aol.com>
Message-ID: <015001c4b8a6$bd137f30$519a0a40@kevin>

Dear Leonard

How does a DC Plasma arc gasifier differ from an arc furnace into which the
waste streams would be dumped?

I worked on submerged arc furnaces once... capacities from 30 MW to 75 MW...
for smelting ilmenite.

What kinds of feeds would the plasma furnace handle?

I am curious about the power requirements and energy requirements... how
many kw-hr would be required per pound of waste gasified? What is the total
power draw of the units?

Sounds like an interesting process for sure, but with electricity being an
expensive form of energy, I would be curious how much input electric power
is required per million BTU of output energy.

Have you seen a valid mass and energy balance for the process?

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm
----- Original Message -----
From: <LWheeler45 at aol.com>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 10:20 PM
Subject: [Gasification] New system between Pyrolisis and Plasma does thework
of both cost less

> Today after signing a confidential non disclosure agreement I reviewed the
> validated specifications on a commercial in use model of a DC plasma TYPE
Arc
> gassifier that handles all waste streams, meets EPA and state standards of
> destruction of biohazards that will consume all that is put into it like a
plasma
> arc system but looks like and cost the same or less than a gassifier
without
> these features.
>
> This system makes syngas, steam and heat like a nuke boiler or
Westinghouse
> Plasma Arc system and the cost/efficiency of mass to energy conversion is
> greater than any I have seen with plasma or a gasifiers.
>
> The system is simple welded sheet stock rectangle about approx. 8' long 5
'on
> side multiple DC torches arrayed in the sides are ceramic cones with
carbide
> electrodes operational in a Nitrogen/Argon gas. The torches last forever
and
> cost only $12.00 each to replace. It will fit on a flatbed or on skids in
> modules. Computer controlled. Covered by 6 patents. Maintenance,
Guaranteed,
> finance available.
>
> Yes, I were impressed. And It can be mass produced like a liberty ship.
Fast
> and cheap off the shelf parts bolt together assy.
>
> I am looking over my agency, lease and license agreements tonight. Forget
> what I said about Ford this one is Kaiser Liberty Ship stuff.
>

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

> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Sat Oct 23 12:26:27 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:26:27 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Send me all your questions off net and I will get
them ans by the Co
Message-ID: <88.17a83092.2eabee43@aol.com>

Send me all your questions off net and I will get them ans by the Co. . This
system is not the traditional Plasma Arc furnace. It uses lot less power,
torches are tung carbide and consist of a ceramic insulator and welding rod type
tip which is the expendable.

According to Co test and design specifications there is ZERO Gas made that is
not consumed on site, they have no use for it like I do. All that is left are
bits of stainless steel and elements that are EPA certified Inert. There are
little efforts to heat sink or capture the abundant heat generated and the 300
degree 12 PSI steam created is not even really a part of the operational cost
structure like I want it to be.
Send me your questions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041023/fa757a2f/attachment.html

From snkm at btl.net Sat Oct 23 16:19:18 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:19:18 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] New system between Pyrolysis and Plasma
doesthework of both cost less
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041023144335.009b3ac0@pop.btl.net>

OK -- Leonard is missing a huge "point" in terms of "reality"

He is obsessed with obtaining syngas to further convert to portable fuels
-- or even fertilizer.

Now Leonard -- let me introduce you to "real" world.

Let's start with all the power plant in the US now using natural gas to
generate electricity.

Now -- if we generate electricity using biomass -- we can honestly say we
are freeing up natural gas reserves to make portable fuels and fertilizers
-- right??

the technology to do such with natural gas is already well established. And
excellent plants of top efficiencies already exist and operate.

Portable fuel -- where does butane and propane come from?? anyone??

Fertilizers and most all other agro chemicals -- of what are these made??

Now -- Leonard is willing to go to extremely low over all efficiencies to
convert biomass into syngas to replace the need of using natural gas for
all of the above.

Now Leonard -- a little lesson in regard to what Kevin is trying to tell you.

There is only one true measure of efficiency -- energy out -- over energy in!

So -- you have a plant running at 25% over all efficiencies -- hmm -- let's
use an example of a biomass "COMBUSTION" plant that operated in Vermont for
many years. And is as such a "Given"

"Hi Peter, the efficiency of the Mcneil Station is 25% on a HHV basis. Steam
conditions are 1275 psi, 950 F. Boiler efficiency is 70% with wood at 50%
content. Wood moisture has veried from 39% to 50%, and averaged about 45%.

John"

That is over all efficiency of conversion -- from gross value of all
biomass supplied at one end -- to net power to the grid at the other.

You are not supplying any such calculations at all with your model example.
Zip -- zero -- nadda.

But just by looking over what you are suggesting --

I doubt you will get 5% over all efficiencies -- and still have a product
that has to be utilized to make energy -- if such use is -- as example --
propelling a potential transport vehicle -- you are lucky to retrieve 35%
of your gross fuel value as motive power.

Oh ya -- biomass is just there -- you get paid to get rid of it -- so who
cares!!

You should!! Cause if you took all that same biomass and produced
electrical power at 25% efficiencies you would be replacing 5 times the
amount of natural gas as the direction you presently pursue!!

And for a lot less complications!!

That you stay so blind to the big picture dooms any efforts you attempt.
Tough mind you -- there is no end to what you can con modern americans into
these days -- the bottom line is the result is still highly non productive.

It is this mentality that is in process of changing america from a world
leader -- to probably -- the newest and largest Banana state on earth!!

Certainly -- engineers in China -- Japan -- and probably all of Europe
(ignore england -- the American puppy state) consider the over all picture
as presented above.

You can't win with this venture Leonard -- sure -- you can con a good
living for a while -- and the recent past history of US "innovation" is
full of just such schemes -- but your not advancing anything at all.

If you have an application to use plasma Arc technology to safely convert
toxic wastes to a helpful product -- sure -- but suggest you make the
electrical power for such using a biomass conversion system that get's 25%
of better.

And your simply not going to ever manage to do that using plasma arc
technology!

Another solution -- make a deal with an existing power utility that is
using natural gas as fuel.

Trade them power for natural gas. Supply them that power by using biomass
in a productive manner -- as described above --

Then process that natural gas so traded into the products you want so
badly. You Still come out way ahead of the game -- with process proven to
work --

If you can't understand the basic concepts Leonard -- take my advice and
change missions!!

The US is no longer so rich it can squander resources on such foolish plans
just so some quick profit for a very few can be had.

"New system between Pyrolysis and Plasma doesthework of both cost less"

Oh -- please -- give us a "BREAK"!!

If your going to make such statement -- back them up with solid math and
data -- we are all not like your ruler -- taking everything based on God
whispering in our collective ears!!

In real world -- and real innovation -- conversion of biomass to electric
energy -- over lal efficiencies -- can certainly be achieved at greater
than 40% -- that would free up 8 times more natural gas per pound of
biomass than your planning on doing.

We are far from out of natural gass -- but we are pigging out on it to much
and for the wrong reasons.

Can other people on this list see this "picture" -- or no??

Peter -- Belize

At 11:09 PM 10/22/2004 -0300, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>Dear Leonard
>
>How does a DC Plasma arc gasifier differ from an arc furnace into which the
>waste streams would be dumped?
>
>I worked on submerged arc furnaces once... capacities from 30 MW to 75 MW...
>for smelting ilmenite.
>
>What kinds of feeds would the plasma furnace handle?
>
>I am curious about the power requirements and energy requirements... how
>many kw-hr would be required per pound of waste gasified? What is the total
>power draw of the units?
>
>
>Sounds like an interesting process for sure, but with electricity being an
>expensive form of energy, I would be curious how much input electric power
>is required per million BTU of output energy.
>
>Have you seen a valid mass and energy balance for the process?
>
>Kindest regards,
>
>Kevin Chisholm
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <LWheeler45 at aol.com>
>To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
>Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 10:20 PM
>Subject: [Gasification] New system between Pyrolisis and Plasma does thework
>of both cost less
>
>
>> Today after signing a confidential non disclosure agreement I reviewed the
>> validated specifications on a commercial in use model of a DC plasma TYPE
>Arc
>> gassifier that handles all waste streams, meets EPA and state standards of
>> destruction of biohazards that will consume all that is put into it like a
>plasma
>> arc system but looks like and cost the same or less than a gassifier
>without
>> these features.
>>
>> This system makes syngas, steam and heat like a nuke boiler or
>Westinghouse
>> Plasma Arc system and the cost/efficiency of mass to energy conversion is
>> greater than any I have seen with plasma or a gasifiers.
>>
>> The system is simple welded sheet stock rectangle about approx. 8' long 5
>'on
>> side multiple DC torches arrayed in the sides are ceramic cones with
>carbide
>> electrodes operational in a Nitrogen/Argon gas. The torches last forever
>and
>> cost only $12.00 each to replace. It will fit on a flatbed or on skids in
>> modules. Computer controlled. Covered by 6 patents. Maintenance,
>Guaranteed,
>> finance available.
>>
>> Yes, I were impressed. And It can be mass produced like a liberty ship.
>Fast
>> and cheap off the shelf parts bolt together assy.
>>
>> I am looking over my agency, lease and license agreements tonight. Forget
>> what I said about Ford this one is Kaiser Liberty Ship stuff.
>>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gasification mailing list
>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Sat Oct 23 20:39:44 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:39:44 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] DC Plasma Arc system it is not anything from the past
Message-ID: <1aa.2a3726ef.2eac61e0@aol.com>

Off net some have sent me great questions on outputs and imputs and technical
info. The company will respond to me and I will send you your info when I get
it.

Some have suggested this is some old technology.
It is. Plasma has been around a while.

The differences in this DC system and the ones you have been discussing with
me is 6 patents held by this co that had over 35 engineers in a private funded
RD operation for a few years getting it worked out. The inventor is a genus
at making off the shelf stuff work in custom applications.

I have some confidential tech info which I am able to compare with this
system in terms of output efficiency and waste streams. It is a nuke gasifier.

No system any type (two exceptions noted) has come across my desk that can be
made assy line with off the shelf parts.

No system any type one exception noted but not validated in scale up can run
nearly any combustible fuel any mix any order of introduction.

No system any type I have been shown except this one has EPA FDEP Medical Bio
Waste certification and permitting.

No system including Westinghouse Plasma, Startech or Gasifier has a cost per
unit as low as this one for the high performance demonstrated.

This is the only commercially emissions validated production system that I
have found in the last 6 months of really looking that I could make in my back
yard with off the shelf components bolted together in modular assy. It weighs a
few tons so I would need a helper to put it together. It is according to the
specs provided me the liberty ship of high output waste/energy systems I have
been presented to date.

And even this outfit experiences the troubles of the Plasma and gassifier
industry in
1. Little PR/No Lobbyst/No Political Support
2. Finance issues.
3. Manufacturing snags and custom work cost
4. Acceptance of technology. etc.

If we ever meet at the BK steakhouse when I finally give up on this as a way
to pay bills and cost. You will know me when instead of saying Supersize it? I
exclaim Gassify it!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041023/0193b867/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Sun Oct 24 01:09:13 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 02:09:13 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Send me your questions on new DC Low V plasma
gassifier system I spoke about
Message-ID: <12c.4f012575.2eaca109@aol.com>

Off net and I will address all to the company Mon when I am meeting with
them.

This private Fla company is looking for joint ventures with allied interest
like gassifiers, turbine and gen set makers, and ethanol makers and is
considering lic agreements to make and distribute etc. Any interested parties wishing
to see further detail will need to send me E mail their Address and Fx number
and sign non disclosure agreement with co.

If you have a need for high efficiency process heat or syngas using any waste
stream wood cow manure straw, corn, corn stover, sugarcane, etc. You want to
review this technical material which requires a confidentiality agreement. I
had to sign it too.

I made this offer to some in this group off net, now it is for everyone. Fair
that way.
Read what I have reviewed and form you own conclusions based upon the best
evidence.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041024/3ad28d57/attachment.html

From LINVENT at aol.com Sun Oct 24 04:12:23 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 05:12:23 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] New system between Pyrolysis and Plasmadoesthework
of both cost less
Message-ID: <1BB16983.6B577BE8.00168ACC@aol.com>

Dear Peter,
The US Supreme Court has not overturned the laws of physics, gravity, or thermodynamics. Economics in in critical condition on a ventilator.
Your pointing out the complex issues of "life cycle" economics is indeed true. By the way, as far as I know, there is only one remaining fertilizer (ammonia based production) plant operating on natural gas in this country.
--
Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
7100-F 2nd St. NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107
Phone: 505-761-5633, fax: 505-341-0424 Web:thermogenics.com

 

From list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk Sun Oct 24 05:16:58 2004
From: list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk (list at sylva.icuklive.co.uk)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 11:16:58 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] New system between Pyrolysis and Plasmadoesthework
of both cost less
In-Reply-To: <1BB16983.6B577BE8.00168ACC@aol.com>
References: <1BB16983.6B577BE8.00168ACC@aol.com>
Message-ID: <b30nn0heipjv1cp7vck415v8vm39b7io5b@4ax.com>

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 05:12:23 -0400, LINVENT at aol.com wrote:

>Your pointing out the complex issues of "life cycle" economics is indeed true. By the way, as far as I know, there is only one remaining fertilizer (ammonia based production) plant operating on natural gas in this country.

Is this because the production has moved to a wellhead overseas or
that it is now made in a different way, the farming community has
always persuaded me this use of gas that would otherwise be flared was
"a good thing" as it effectively enabled the plants to better utilise
the solar energy falling on them.

AJH

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Sun Oct 24 14:14:46 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:14:46 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Thanks for your comments You too Peter
Message-ID: <e2.485d6fb.2ead5926@aol.com>

The purpose of a discussion group is to discuss ideas to address problems of
interest and concern with informed people and some not so informed.

To date
Only one has requested a confidential non disclosure agreement so absent a
review of the certified test results I am looking at you all are expressing as
fact an uninformed opinion. You must have political ambitions!

Let me make this more simple for a few of you to grasp.

Issue: Discussion:
Three gassifier technologies to change bio mass into another form to use:
Resultant products:
1.Heat for process energy,
2.Steam ,
3. Syngas at about 300 BTU
Design Requirements.
1. Low capital investment,
2. No-brainer maintenance
3 No aquifer water use
4. No toxic emissions
5. No smoke
6. No smells
7. Use surrounding renewable cheap non polluting bio fuel stock. wood sewer
sludge, sugar can waste cow manure MSW

Solutions offered:

Gassifier, old standby technology used world wide excellent high efficiency
heat source low pollution, few moving parts, no brainer maintenance, no water
use. In smaller sizes relatively cheap.

Westinghouse/Hitichai Plasma Gassifier : Old technology new efficiencies,
advanced maintenance skills, no water needed for pollution control, expensive to
build, needs economics of scale dictate large units. Uses virtually anything
as fuel eats scrap cars by the dozens leaves no unclaimed or non sellable
residue.

DC Plasma low voltage High Amp" backyard plasma arc gassifier".
Every feature of the traditional gassifier excellent high efficiency heat
source, No or very low pollution, simple moving parts, near no brainer
maintenance, no water use. In smaller sizes to 1000 lbs an hour relatively cheap. In
mass production REALLY REALLY cheap. Off the shelf parts and certified outcomes
no spikes in output by changing Feedstocks mid process. Passed by EPA for bio
hazards disposal. 10 years in production

In simpler terms:

Gassifier a pipe with heat controlled burning specific feedstock design
Plasma Furnace A smelter with high intensity arc destruction anything
DC low voltage a pipe with a dozen arc welder rods stuck in side. Nearly
anything consumed.

There have been a bunch of folks in renewables such as bio ethanol plasma and
Gassifiers tell me what they can do. Five have examples. Three offered to let
me see operational units Two submitted competent business proposals with
delivery dates and turnkey systems. A bunch wanted time to study the problem.
Ultimately, One out of all made it to second review at the decision maker level.

References:
My leading authority on this total energy model is the CEO of British
Petroleum. He is doing gas not oil drilling or coal processing. He also is doing
hydrogen which you can make from gas. His check for a billion dollars would not
bounce at my bank. And they can write a few a year.

My second leading authority on this model for renewable energy is the
California ethanol studies of 1999 and 2004 and the transcribed testimony of R. James
Woolsey former CIA director 1993/95 who can be located in web searches and
who co authored "The New Petroleum" A 1995 policy position supported by Sen
Lugar who was head of the US senate committee and from a corn producing state.
Coincidentally the Ex Director in 1995 bought the bio ethanol process developed
at the U of F. lock stock and barrel. His check won't bounce either but it has
fewer zeros.

My third leading authority is a group that submitted a proposal to the
Congress in contrast to the Cheney Energy Plan of 2001. Which addressed huge central
power plants, larger power grids, nuclear power and a 17 billion dollar
starting price gas pipeline to transport natural gas from AK. The CEO of BP is on
record as saying the gas recovered would not justify the cost and he developed
N. Slope Alaskan Oil. This group of lightweights consisted of several low
life Presidents of major Companies, Major Universities, Engineers, US State DEP
CIA, NSA, DOD Admirals Generals and etc.,Lots
of impressive resumes with accomplishments in global energy policy.

They studied the problems and suggested distributed power, renewables and
local employment opportunities. A gassifier or plasma torch or Low V, DC Plasma
is a perfect fit to their plans and proposed policy.

Finally, the golden rules: He with the gold rules.

I met lots of folks in alternative energy allegedly with the elusive gold.
Few could provide it without bouncing the check. Hundreds of millions of dollars
in deals blew up due to financial cash flow and cost over runs. This is a
shared experience with members of this group. The $300,000,000 Palm Beach
Gassifier almost put a County into bankruptcy.

Only ONE gassifier company submitted a certified boiler plate proposal that I
could get traditional financing for maybe. This is not a good sign.

Based upon my business experiences and those some have shared with me I am
now nearly entirely private sector interest which I recommend to all. Small
projects with people who balance budgets and have good credit history and who need
viable solutions for heat, steam and related process activities. It is an
untapped global market desperate for help with rising energy cost. And their
checks do not bounce.

Lov to all
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041024/00a92a7c/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Sun Oct 24 14:41:28 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:41:28 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Thank you for your professional opinion which is
based upon?.
Message-ID: <bb.486ab982.2ead5f68@aol.com>

?????? Professional Engineers with whom I have worked over the years always
based their professional opinions on measurements and independent test results,
peer review articles not their opinions. I still do.
How do you do it Art?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041024/97e293a7/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Sun Oct 24 20:29:28 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:29:28 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] RE your semi soft but blunt and stern comments off
net
Message-ID: <1d6.2e52db27.2eadb0f8@aol.com>

Never let anyone ever say that those who are members of this group have
evidenced any hesitation in speaking their minds. Fortunately, I survived the
Klingon Right of Passage Ceremony recently along with 4 hurricanes and a torn up
roof so I was somewhat prepared for the electrifying thrill of another such life
threatening experience.
Luv u all too.
Leonard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041024/ed97aa54/attachment.html

From Carefreeland at aol.com Sun Oct 24 22:30:43 2004
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 23:30:43 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] RE your semi soft but blunt and stern comments off
net
Message-ID: <1a8.2a048d5c.2eadcd63@aol.com>

In a message dated 10/24/04 10:03:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
LWheeler45 at aol.com writes:

DD Daniel Dimiduk replies.
>
> Never let anyone ever say that those who are members of this group have
> evidenced any hesitation in speaking their minds. Fortunately, I survived the
> Klingon Right of Passage Ceremony recently along with 4 hurricanes and a torn up
> roof so I was somewhat prepared for the electrifying thrill of another such
> life threatening experience.
> Luv u all too.
> Leonard
>
>
DD There is something to be said for one who tries to break through the old
established patterns of business in this country. Leonard, your effort is
noteworthy. As a micro business owner for 25 years, I am constantly reminded of
the missing rungs offered on the ladder of success. This is not just unique
to this business, but for the most part, a problem throughout modern industry.
DD The sad part of it all, is that rarely one does break through the
bulletproof glass ceiling. The reward on the other side is most often an offer to be
bought out cheap or forced out of business by powers much greater than ones
own resources. The sad truth is that historically, most independent inventors
die broke as their inventions make investors rich. This is about what is wrong
with America today.
DD I personally believe that as an inventor, the only answer is to set ones
goals low but achievable. Sometimes the weeds in the garden that survive the
gardener, are the ones that hide the longest under the desirable plants. If one
has ever tried to pull up a dandelion, only to see it grow back again-you
understand the strategy.
DD As far as a strategy for Florida's debris? Try publicly documenting in
detail, the massive energy waste and costs that go with the obvious criminal
lack of forward long term planning. Then use this as political ammunition, to
set up long term funding for a State sponsored Biomass development organization.

DD What the Biomass Energy industry needs is patient Capital, with no strings
attached except documented slow forward progress. A waver or relaxation of
environmental and other laws on small but profitable projects, for an extended
set period, would help too. Anything short of that is a license to fail
publicly. But that is what the fossil fuel industry wants to see anyhow. Just
remember how they started out.
Good Luck,
Daniel Dimiduk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041025/2e7b95c4/attachment.html

From LINVENT at aol.com Mon Oct 25 04:18:31 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 05:18:31 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] RE your semi soft but blunt and stern comments
offnet
Message-ID: <7EDB619B.5F3BAE20.00168ACC@aol.com>

what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Strong enough? I see Darth Vader on the horizon.
--
Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
7100-F 2nd St. NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107
Phone: 505-761-5633, fax: 505-341-0424 Web:thermogenics.com

 

From bht at actrix.gen.nz Mon Oct 25 05:33:37 2004
From: bht at actrix.gen.nz (Bernard)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:33:37 +1300
Subject: [Gasification] What type for very small gasifier or stove
Message-ID: <ujlpn05913ds4l0t2bjge9sch1s7fvtl20@4ax.com>

Hi,

I have followed and searched this list with great pleasure. Thanks to
those of you who answered questions patiently to people like me.

My application is warm air generation of only 40C with power between
0.5 and 3kW.

The device should use biomass e.g. small wood chips or blocks.
It should be possible run it unattended for weeks while it is
automatically fed, possibly with some minimal automated cleaning
operations e.g. rattling the grate.

While reading the many comments, I learned that the downdraft
stratified gasifier would be a good candidate. I thought so because
its open top and unrestricted fuel flow would make it simple to
construct and simple to operate.

I have some questions:

With this small power, comparable with Dr. Tom Reed's Inverted Down
Draft "TURBO WOOD-GAS STOVE", would the reactor vessel diameter be the
same, e.g. 100mm?

Would it make sense to restrict the fuel flow with a fire tube /
throat tube / reduction tube?
I don't fully understand its function, maybe that it helps to avoid
air channels and mixed up- and down-draft operation?

I would prefer to not have a throat tube because it could interfere
with the fuel flow at this small size.

Is the inverted down draft gasifier the right choice? I thought so
because in comparison, an updraft stove might be difficult to feed and
I don't want to create and manage charcoal.

I don't mind some complexity in controlling it electronically, as long
as it is otherwise reliable and simple.

Dr. Tom Reed's Inverted Down Draft "TURBO WOOD-GAS STOVE" really
inspired me because it is so small and efficient. A stainless steel
reactor tube with the flame at the bottom and a larger tube around it
would make it easy to extract the desired warm air between the pipes
and the unit would be very compact.

Or would this cooling of the reactor reduce gasification efficiency?

Any comments and ideas are highly appreciated.

Many thanks,

Bernard

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Sun Oct 24 20:24:57 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:24:57 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Static Pressure (Draw) in Downdraft Units
Message-ID: <003601c4ba31$710d7e10$1900a8c0@a31server>

Good Day All !

Something unusual is going on with my most current downdraft gasifier(s),
As most of you know, I have a few "test" units, as well as two "final"
units, that are currently in operation (one or the other).

Anyhow, I've had a change in the SP (Static Pressure) of not one, but both
of the units!

Both units would normally run around the 0.8 to 1.3 area of "inches of
water" in last years operation, what I'm seeing this year is a constant 2.0
to 2.5 inches of water. The source of feedstock is the same, the entire
"upstream & downstream" sections are the same, I have no idea of why there
has been a change. Examination of internal components gives no clues. All
piping & such was thoroughly cleaned before this seasons startup.

Anyone got any "it might be this ?" comments ??

Anyone got any other numbers of "normal operation" on their units? (For
comparison)

 

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

 

From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Mon Oct 25 08:55:06 2004
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:55:06 -0300
Subject: [Gasification] Static Pressure (Draw) in Downdraft Units
References: <003601c4ba31$710d7e10$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <003b01c4ba9a$b885c180$f49a0a40@kevin>

Dear Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: "a31ford" <a31ford at inetlink.ca>
To: "A Gasification List (E-mail)" <GASIFICATION at LISTSERV.REPP.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 10:24 PM
Subject: [Gasification] Static Pressure (Draw) in Downdraft Units

...del...
>

> Anyone got any "it might be this ?" comments ??
>
Do you have a screen analysis of the fuel you used last year, and a screen
analysis of the fuel you used this year?

Kevin

 

From santo at poczta.fm Mon Oct 25 09:21:20 2004
From: santo at poczta.fm (Krzysztof Lis)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:21:20 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] wood gas storage
Message-ID: <297608769.20041025162120@poczta.fm>

Dear List Readers and Writers!

I gathered more than 100 MB of wood-gas-production books and articles
on my hard drive, but couldn't get any specific info on storing wood
gas. In one article (Alternatives to fossil fueled engines/generators,
http://www.green-trust.org/woodgas.pdf ) I found a drawing of a simple
self-adjusting storage tank. But in some other source I read that it
is not possible to store the producer gas, since the termochemical
reactions which made the CO from CO2 will then act in reverse, trans-
forming the CO into the CO2 again (we wouldn't like that...). This is
the same reason that we need to cool the gas quickly before we put it
into the engine.

So...what is your opinion? Does any of you have any experience in this
field? I'll be very grateful for your answers.

--
Best regards,
Krzysztof Lis (Warszawa / Poland)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Startuj z INTERIA.PL!!! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1837

 

From tombreed at comcast.net Mon Oct 25 09:30:59 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (tombreed at comcast.net)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:30:59 +0000
Subject: [Gasification] Carbohydrate Conversion Routes
Message-ID: <102520041430.28444.417D0E0B0003FA6100006F1C22007614380B0A0A9D0D03019B@comcast.net>

Dear Art, ADK; Peter and All:

Forgot to put a SUBJECT on this...

TOM

It is important to know details (the trees) but also important to step back and look at the forest sometimes.

Oil, petroleum, ... is approximately CH2, hence the name Hydro-Carbon. Great fuels, but going going ... gone forces to look at Mother Nature's energy systems and she avoids hydrocarbons because they are non biodegradable. Animal fats and vegetable oils have almost the same energy density but can be unravelled when used up.

Biomass, paper, starches, celluloses and sugars are approximately C-H2O, hence the name Carbon-Hydrate. It is useful to examine the conversions of CH2O to energy

1) Dehydration (pyrolysis) removes the H2O and leaves charcoal, well known for 300,000 years
CH2O ==> C + H2O
2) Catalytic reforming
CH2O ==> CO + H2
gives synthesis gas from which we can make alcohols, ammonia and Fischer Tropsch hydrocarbons.
3) Anaerobic digestion, disproportionation
2 CH2O ==> CO2 + CH4
is a simultaneous oxidation and reduction and is accomplished by digestion.
4) Aerobic digestion
CH2O + O2 ==> CO2 + H2O
merely wastes the energy.

Nice to have all these choices.

Tom Reed BEF

the two phase system of fermentation looks very nice on paper, and is also
good for getting methane from paper, but in practice, one loses a lot of
calories in the aerobic phase. A very well known research institute in India
installed a two phase biogas plant to take care of the household waste
generated by people living in their campus. A large part of the waste
consists of leftover starchy food (bread, rice, beans, potatos, noodles
etc.) and a
relatively small part of the waste was from vegetables and paper (we sell
waste
paper in India).The vegetable waste and paper were cellulosic.
The waste was first allowed to decompose aerobically and
the leachates from this digester were fed into the anaerobic digesger.
In this case, the starchy part of the waste, that should have
gone straight into the anaerobic digester, was lost in the process of
aerobic decomposition. In India, they have made a fetish out of the C/N
ratio
and therefore biogas experts are afraid of loading the system with too much
carbohydrate. The biogas experts, at least
in India, consider 30 as the ideal C/N ratio. This is the C/N ratio of
cattle dung.
I have operated my biogas system using cereal flour, which has
90% starch and 10% protein, with oilcake having almost equal quantities of
starch and protein, and with fruit pulp and sugarcane juice, which are very
poor in
protein content. The biogas plants were operated for months on end.
In all these cases I got almost the theoretically calculated methane
quantity.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Art Krenzel <phoenix98604 at earthlink.net>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>; <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>; Peter
Singfield <snkm at btl.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Gas-er-up!! Data listings -- process flow --

> Peter,
>
> You have taken off with the zeal of an Evangelist with this biogas
project!
> You did a great job gathering the necessary information for you bio
process.
>
> You said:
> >Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that digestion is a
> >biological process.
>
> >The "anaerobic" bacteria responsible for digestion can't survive with
even
> >the slightest trace of oxygen. So, because of the oxygen in the manure
> >mixture fed to the digester, there is a long period after loading before
> >actual digestion takes place. During this initial "aerobic" period,
traces
> >of oxygen are used up by oxygen-loving bacteria, and large amounts of
> >carbon dioxide (C02) are released.
>
> Actually, in the latest biogas technology, the anaerobic process is broken
> into two separate steps. The first step, acetate formation by organic
> acids, is somewhat tolerant of the presence of small amounts of oxygen.
The
> second stage, methanation, the presence of any oxygen means sudden and
> instant death to the methagens.
>
> Just Google TWO PHASE ANAEROBIC DIGESTION for the latest information.
>
>
> >Biologically, then, successful digestion depends upon achieving and (for
> >continuous-load digesters) maintaining a balance between those bacteria
> >which produce organic acids and those bacteria which produce methane gas
> >from the organic acids.
>
> Again, the newer production anaerobic processes are hybrids. They have
> daily batch tanks for the first stage (hydrolyis and acetate formation)
and
> pulse feeding of the second stage (methane formation). The net effect is
> that we have a continuous process that can handle surge loading on the
feed
> side and a near constant output of biogas.
>
> Peter, I still think you should make beer. Think of it - now we could
have
> a reason for our Evangelistic rants! :-) We could sell the bad batches
of
> beer as vinegar and have two markets.
>
> I built and operated a microbrewery during one of my earlier lives and it
> was a pleasure - especially at break time. :-)
>
> Art Krenzel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041025/6c73c22d/attachment.html

From tombreed at comcast.net Mon Oct 25 09:27:25 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (tombreed at comcast.net)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:27:25 +0000
Subject: [Gasification] (no subject)
Message-ID: <102520041427.11671.417D0D4A0008BBC100002D9722007340760B0A0A9D0D03019B@comcast.net>

Dear Art, ADK; Peter and All:

It is important to know details (the trees) but also important to step back and look at the forest sometimes.

Oil, petroleum, ... is approximately CH2, hence the name Hydro-Carbon. Great fuels, but going going ... gone forces to look at Mother Nature's energy systems and she avoids hydrocarbons because they are non biodegradable. Animal fats and vegetable oils have almost the same energy density but can be unravelled when used up.

Biomass, paper, starches, celluloses and sugars are approximately C-H2O, hence the name Carbon-Hydrate. It is useful to examine the conversions of CH2O to energy

1) Dehydration (pyrolysis) removes the H2O and leaves charcoal, well known for 300,000 years
CH2O ==> C + H2O
2) Catalytic reforming
CH2O ==> CO + H2
gives synthesis gas from which we can make alcohols, ammonia and Fischer Tropsch hydrocarbons.
3) Anaerobic digestion, disproportionation
2 CH2O ==> CO2 + CH4
is a simultaneous oxidation and reduction and is accomplished by digestion.
4) Aerobic digestion
CH2O + O2 ==> CO2 + H2O
merely wastes the energy.

Nice to have all these choices.

Tom Reed BEF

the two phase system of fermentation looks very nice on paper, and is also
good for getting methane from paper, but in practice, one loses a lot of
calories in the aerobic phase. A very well known research institute in India
installed a two phase biogas plant to take care of the household waste
generated by people living in their campus. A large part of the waste
consists of leftover starchy food (bread, rice, beans, potatos, noodles
etc.) and a
relatively small part of the waste was from vegetables and paper (we sell
waste
paper in India).The vegetable waste and paper were cellulosic.
The waste was first allowed to decompose aerobically and
the leachates from this digester were fed into the anaerobic digesger.
In this case, the starchy part of the waste, that should have
gone straight into the anaerobic digester, was lost in the process of
aerobic decomposition. In India, they have made a fetish out of the C/N
ratio
and therefore biogas experts are afraid of loading the system with too much
carbohydrate. The biogas experts, at least
in India, consider 30 as the ideal C/N ratio. This is the C/N ratio of
cattle dung.
I have operated my biogas system using cereal flour, which has
90% starch and 10% protein, with oilcake having almost equal quantities of
starch and protein, and with fruit pulp and sugarcane juice, which are very
poor in
protein content. The biogas plants were operated for months on end.
In all these cases I got almost the theoretically calculated methane
quantity.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Art Krenzel <phoenix98604 at earthlink.net>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>; <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>; Peter
Singfield <snkm at btl.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Gas-er-up!! Data listings -- process flow --

> Peter,
>
> You have taken off with the zeal of an Evangelist with this biogas
project!
> You did a great job gathering the necessary information for you bio
process.
>
> You said:
> >Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that digestion is a
> >biological process.
>
> >The "anaerobic" bacteria responsible for digestion can't survive with
even
> >the slightest trace of oxygen. So, because of the oxygen in the manure
> >mixture fed to the digester, there is a long period after loading before
> >actual digestion takes place. During this initial "aerobic" period,
traces
> >of oxygen are used up by oxygen-loving bacteria, and large amounts of
> >carbon dioxide (C02) are released.
>
> Actually, in the latest biogas technology, the anaerobic process is broken
> into two separate steps. The first step, acetate formation by organic
> acids, is somewhat tolerant of the presence of small amounts of oxygen.
The
> second stage, methanation, the presence of any oxygen means sudden and
> instant death to the methagens.
>
> Just Google TWO PHASE ANAEROBIC DIGESTION for the latest information.
>
>
> >Biologically, then, successful digestion depends upon achieving and (for
> >continuous-load digesters) maintaining a balance between those bacteria
> >which produce organic acids and those bacteria which produce methane gas
> >from the organic acids.
>
> Again, the newer production anaerobic processes are hybrids. They have
> daily batch tanks for the first stage (hydrolyis and acetate formation)
and
> pulse feeding of the second stage (methane formation). The net effect is
> that we have a continuous process that can handle surge loading on the
feed
> side and a near constant output of biogas.
>
> Peter, I still think you should make beer. Think of it - now we could
have
> a reason for our Evangelistic rants! :-) We could sell the bad batches
of
> beer as vinegar and have two markets.
>
> I built and operated a microbrewery during one of my earlier lives and it
> was a pleasure - especially at break time. :-)
>
> Art Krenzel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041025/fa6c7cf5/attachment.html

From tombreed at comcast.net Mon Oct 25 09:30:38 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (tombreed at comcast.net)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:30:38 +0000
Subject: [Gasification] Carbohydrate Conversion Routes
Message-ID: <102520041430.2901.417D0E0D000268ED00000B5522007348300B0A0A9D0D03019B@comcast.net>

Dear Art, ADK; Peter and All:

Forgot to put a SUBJECT on this...

TOM

It is important to know details (the trees) but also important to step back and look at the forest sometimes.

Oil, petroleum, ... is approximately CH2, hence the name Hydro-Carbon. Great fuels, but going going ... gone forces to look at Mother Nature's energy systems and she avoids hydrocarbons because they are non biodegradable. Animal fats and vegetable oils have almost the same energy density but can be unravelled when used up.

Biomass, paper, starches, celluloses and sugars are approximately C-H2O, hence the name Carbon-Hydrate. It is useful to examine the conversions of CH2O to energy

1) Dehydration (pyrolysis) removes the H2O and leaves charcoal, well known for 300,000 years
CH2O ==> C + H2O
2) Catalytic reforming
CH2O ==> CO + H2
gives synthesis gas from which we can make alcohols, ammonia and Fischer Tropsch hydrocarbons.
3) Anaerobic digestion, disproportionation
2 CH2O ==> CO2 + CH4
is a simultaneous oxidation and reduction and is accomplished by digestion.
4) Aerobic digestion
CH2O + O2 ==> CO2 + H2O
merely wastes the energy.

Nice to have all these choices.

Tom Reed BEF

the two phase system of fermentation looks very nice on paper, and is also
good for getting methane from paper, but in practice, one loses a lot of
calories in the aerobic phase. A very well known research institute in India
installed a two phase biogas plant to take care of the household waste
generated by people living in their campus. A large part of the waste
consists of leftover starchy food (bread, rice, beans, potatos, noodles
etc.) and a
relatively small part of the waste was from vegetables and paper (we sell
waste
paper in India).The vegetable waste and paper were cellulosic.
The waste was first allowed to decompose aerobically and
the leachates from this digester were fed into the anaerobic digesger.
In this case, the starchy part of the waste, that should have
gone straight into the anaerobic digester, was lost in the process of
aerobic decomposition. In India, they have made a fetish out of the C/N
ratio
and therefore biogas experts are afraid of loading the system with too much
carbohydrate. The biogas experts, at least
in India, consider 30 as the ideal C/N ratio. This is the C/N ratio of
cattle dung.
I have operated my biogas system using cereal flour, which has
90% starch and 10% protein, with oilcake having almost equal quantities of
starch and protein, and with fruit pulp and sugarcane juice, which are very
poor in
protein content. The biogas plants were operated for months on end.
In all these cases I got almost the theoretically calculated methane
quantity.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Art Krenzel <phoenix98604 at earthlink.net>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>; <STOVES at listserv.repp.org>; Peter
Singfield <snkm at btl.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Gas-er-up!! Data listings -- process flow --

> Peter,
>
> You have taken off with the zeal of an Evangelist with this biogas
project!
> You did a great job gathering the necessary information for you bio
process.
>
> You said:
> >Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that digestion is a
> >biological process.
>
> >The "anaerobic" bacteria responsible for digestion can't survive with
even
> >the slightest trace of oxygen. So, because of the oxygen in the manure
> >mixture fed to the digester, there is a long period after loading before
> >actual digestion takes place. During this initial "aerobic" period,
traces
> >of oxygen are used up by oxygen-loving bacteria, and large amounts of
> >carbon dioxide (C02) are released.
>
> Actually, in the latest biogas technology, the anaerobic process is broken
> into two separate steps. The first step, acetate formation by organic
> acids, is somewhat tolerant of the presence of small amounts of oxygen.
The
> second stage, methanation, the presence of any oxygen means sudden and
> instant death to the methagens.
>
> Just Google TWO PHASE ANAEROBIC DIGESTION for the latest information.
>
>
> >Biologically, then, successful digestion depends upon achieving and (for
> >continuous-load digesters) maintaining a balance between those bacteria
> >which produce organic acids and those bacteria which produce methane gas
> >from the organic acids.
>
> Again, the newer production anaerobic processes are hybrids. They have
> daily batch tanks for the first stage (hydrolyis and acetate formation)
and
> pulse feeding of the second stage (methane formation). The net effect is
> that we have a continuous process that can handle surge loading on the
feed
> side and a near constant output of biogas.
>
> Peter, I still think you should make beer. Think of it - now we could
have
> a reason for our Evangelistic rants! :-) We could sell the bad batches
of
> beer as vinegar and have two markets.
>
> I built and operated a microbrewery during one of my earlier lives and it
> was a pleasure - especially at break time. :-)
>
> Art Krenzel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves

 

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041025/a86b093a/attachment.html

From snkm at btl.net Mon Oct 25 10:03:10 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:03:10 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] RE your semi soft but blunt and stern
commentsoffnet
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041025090115.009b6440@pop.btl.net>

I have this feeling that nothing "productive" can be -- will be --
accomplished until political stability returns the US. That will probably
take at least 6 months- - if your optimistic -- pessimists are saying --
never again!

I could well turn out that the last major export of the United States of
america will be it's better innovators -- all leaving to pursue their
compulsions under more favored climates.

At present the US is kind of a dark hole for anything that is not directly
military research oriented.

And certainly -- economically -- has blown it's wad for some years yet to
come.

A few adjustments need be implemented -- a much higher cost for petroleum
based energy sources -- a great drive to conserve energy due to the first
part.

Then we will see alternative energy schemes stand a chance.

Until such adjustments are made -- mega projects for biomass energy are
rather doomed to sit on collective shelves -- wasting a lot of good minds
in the process -- destroying many other (frustration is the cancer of
innovation)

This entire area of human development will be limited to small and micro
sized projects -- such as Greg is presently doing.

There will be opportunities at the small to micro levels if present
technology can support economy of such.

It probably is just a replay of what drove this same industry for biomass
gasification during WWII - -which advanced this art so greatly -- before
oil became available cheap again and drove it all underground.

I believe everyone on this list knows this to be true -- some to a greater
extent than others.

So Leonard -- not a good time to push mega deals.

And beggars can never be choosers ---

As Tom pointed out -- huge amounts of cheap coal left -- and all those tar
sands still sitting there -- plus no one really knows the extent of natural
gas deposits under the far North West Territories of Canada.

In regards to syngas production by plasma arc -- if practical -- it will be
used for natural gas -- coal -- and even oil sands -- first!

Speaking of bitumen alone -- Venezuela is sitting on huge supplies --
selling it as an emulsion.

Search: Orimulsion

Nickel on a dollar energy -- so perfectly suited to a mega project level
Plasma Arc reforming mega project.

Leonard -- you should study present state of the art reformation of these
style energy sources before you inadvertently invent another wheel -- see
if their is real value to replacing conventional thermal methology with
plasma arcs.

Gasification will always be alive and well in 3rd world countries with not
to many other choices -- being so energy deprived -- such as India.

But I smell an economic situation developing in the US where investment has
to be directed to "immediatly" productive activities -- especially in
energy -- or the entire house of cards blows away.

Actually -- it looks like the house of card will blow down no matter what
-- but that only further aggravates going for more cheap energy now -- and
worrying about conservation of energy later.

Burn your candles at both ends now -- worry about buying new candles later
-- after the sun starts shining again.

And last -- certainly at this time -- no one is going to make any serious
new moves until the US get's over it's political problems. And it's
economic insanities at least partially stabilized.

During these preriods -- historically -- it is all about maintaining what
already exists in the most economical manner -- and never about installing
new -- anything.

Maintenence contracts -- not construction contracts -- is where business
economic survival will be best.

Peter

At 05:18 AM 10/25/2004 -0400, LINVENT at aol.com wrote:
>
>what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Strong enough? I see Darth Vader
on the horizon.
>--
>Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
>President
>Thermogenics Inc.
>7100-F 2nd St. NW
>Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107
>Phone: 505-761-5633, fax: 505-341-0424 Web:thermogenics.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

From LINVENT at aol.com Mon Oct 25 11:12:05 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:12:05 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] RE your semi soft but blunt and stern comments off
net
Message-ID: <1e2.2d2abb50.2eae7fd5@aol.com>

Tesla died broke. Other inventors and foresighted people throughout history
have likewise seen their dreams go with them. The ones who are able to convince
capital to work with them are the successful ones. This is a unique
personality indeed. The promise of being able to rise to the American Dream heights is
not guaranteed at all.

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 santo at poczta.fm Mon Oct 25 11:45:05 2004
From: santo at poczta.fm (Krzysztof Lis)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:45:05 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Re: Woodgas storage
In-Reply-To: <BAY17-F35kjgJKVApwO0001ca58@hotmail.com>
References: <BAY17-F35kjgJKVApwO0001ca58@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <8410586781.20041025184505@poczta.fm>

Dear Jonathan,

Thanks for such a precise and long answer to my question. I must point
your attention to the fact that it wasn't sent to the mailing list but
directly to me (unfortunately this happens automatically when you
press 'reply' in your mail reading program). I don't know if it is
what you wanted, so I'm writing about it. :)

> Can you forward me your sources of the material you have downloaded
> into your hard drive? I am in the same process of archiving this
> information.

I'm sorry, but except for the one I placed in my question, I don't ha-
ve any source URLs of the files I got. I simply scrolled through al-
most every file / web page found on google with keywords "wood gas",
"holzgas", "producer gas", etc.

--
Best regards,
Krzysztof Lis / Poland

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Startuj z INTERIA.PL!!! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1837

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Mon Oct 25 12:37:11 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:37:11 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Amen to that!. Look at the current gassifier/
renewable energy market
Message-ID: <1ee.2cb87663.2eae93c7@aol.com>

 

> The ones who are able to convince capital to work with them are the
> successful ones. This is a unique personality indeed. The promise of being able to
> rise to the American Dream heights is not guaranteed at all.

Amen to that! Look at the gassifier/renewable energy market like this.
Probably someone like Andy Carnagie

"Around the turn of the 20th century, a bar of steel was worth about $5.00.
Yet, when forged into horseshoes, it was worth $10.00 When made into needles,
it's value was $350.00; when used to make small pocketknife blades, it's
worth was $32,000.00; and when made into springs for watches, it's value increased
to $250,000.00." auth unknown

Sounds familiar: value of process heat, value of bio ethanol value of syn gas
value of steam value of distilled water from polluted sources, value of toxic
waste disposal??? Factor in value of carbon and emission credits tax inc
entives etc.

 

>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041025/128b13a4/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Mon Oct 25 12:44:31 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:44:31 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] choices? Can anyone tell me why Ethanol is not made
at site of use?
Message-ID: <146.36de6bf1.2eae957f@aol.com>

Considering the learned observation of our member on the options to oil by
chemistry. I have a few questions I am still seeking an answer for:

1. What is the reason that the corn and sugar farmers have for not processing
their crops at the coop to gas full of C and H sending that resultant gas by
pipeline to a point of re combination near where there is a point of
consumption like Calif Texas and Fla? This is the DOE vision 21 energy model.

2. What is the reason for no interstate pipe delivery of Syngas or denatured
ethanol?
\Leonard Eustis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041025/3022b678/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Mon Oct 25 13:11:35 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:11:35 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] A bunch of guys and girls with working bio energy
projects alined
Message-ID: <15a.4202f781.2eae9bd7@aol.com>

That are several really well funded and commercially working USA projects
that have heat and energy needs and waste streams that some of us have been
talking to.
That is not Darth V coming to claim his son Tom!
That is Mr. Progress coming to claim the uninformed and inefficient of last
century. Apostle Peter of the old ways.

Lov u 2
LW
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041025/9827316e/attachment.html

From Carefreeland at aol.com Mon Oct 25 13:44:47 2004
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:44:47 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Harvesting Biomass with Biomass energy.
Message-ID: <9e.17d33221.2eaea39f@aol.com>

In a message dated 10/23/04 8:27:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Carefreeland
writes:

DD Coments: I tried to send this to gasification and stoves, but it bounced
as a blind copy. If you bear with my political opinions, I belive the concepts
are good for all concerned with Bioenergy.
>
>
> Greetings friends,
> I am happy to announce what may be another first, in our incremental
> babysteps forward, for the practical commercial use of Bioenergy. I have
> initiated the use of Soybean derived BD20 Biodiesel in my 773turbo Bobcat skid
> steer loader. The Bobcat, when a 15" diameter treeshear is attached, is being
> pressed into a small but growing service. I am doing woodlot thinning and tree
> clearing.
> Just yesterday I used the BD20 mix in the Bobcat with loader bucket,
> for doing a small amount of gravel lane maintenance. I was super impressed
> with the performance improvement of the 46hp Kabota turbo-diesel in my
> precision machine. The mix runs noticeably smoother, burns cleaner, and produces
> noticeably higher top end power output. As soon as tomorrow, I may harvest the
> first tree using a BD20 fueled, automated tree harvester.
> My new woodlot clearing business is particularly targeting woodlots
> which need precision thinned for new shaded lawns and landscapes. My particular
> Bobcat treeshear combination is perfect for doing the least damage to the
> surrounding environment. I can select unwanted mid-sized trees and scrub and
> carefully remove them. In this end of the business, every extra horsepower that
> can be produced while not adding weight or size to the machine, intensifies
> effectiveness. Smooth control of often overstraining hydraulics is essential,
> even for safety.
> The fumes and soot from standard diesel fuel are particularly damaging
> to plants in sensitive close quarters of a newly renovated wooded landscape.
> I have witnessed serious plant damage many times from car and truck exhaust
> around parking lots. It is always worst when visible soot is present. One of
> the sales points for Soy Biodiesel users has always been the cleaner exhaust
> accumulation while cleaning semi-enclosed barns. A farmer raising calf's
> reported that his calf's no longer left the barn while he was mucking stalls. My
> machine was burning so clean it didn't bother me at all to smell a little
> exhaust.
> My use for the harvested Biomass, is initially to heat my greenhouse,
> my home, and then out buildings. Then I am selling off excess wood as prime
> selected hardwood firewood. I burn the lower grade softwood, and buggy or
> rotted wood myself. There is a need industrywide for clean quick disposal of bug
> and disease infested plant material. My future plans include someday adding
> a small charcoal producing business, experimenting with closed retort,
> metallurgic char.
> We in the renewable fuel business's are often lacking positive news. I
> am a plant grower first, and a consumer of Biofuel secondly. I can see
> clearly from my point of view, an ever expanding supply of harvestable material.
> Much of it now still being wasted. Plants are growing more rapidly and in
> places they haven't before. Throw away all of those papers predicting limits of
> future supply. The plants have only begun to harvest the available solar
> energy.
> The mid-Autumn rains are gently soaking the brightly colored, falling
> leaves here in Southern Ohio. While everybody else is wrapping up the warm
> season, we growers are busy planning the next one. As the weather chills, I
> may again find time to comment and experiment and comment on the supply side
> of Biomass energy.
> In the near future, the people of my State of OHIO, USA, have been
> given a key roll in choosing the future path of our country, even to some extent
> the world. We are one of the top three voting swing states. For the
> renewable energy issue, Presidential Candidate John Kerry has it hands down.
> I shouted a voice straining YEA!! at a recent political rally. John
> Kerry, with first astronaut Ohioan John Glenn by his side, had announced his
> commitment to support renewables. The audience of over ten thousand Daytonians,
> echoed my sentiments as they quickly remembered what they paid for fuel that
> week. I am sure it sounded like John Kerry had hit a home run in the new
> Dayton Dragons minor league baseball park.
> Myself, I feel I just had an easy walk to first base as I started my
> own new Biofuel ballgame. I'm playing against the entrenched fossil fuel
> providers. We all know that love of the game beats a high salary and experience in
> the long run. How about those Boston Red Sox? Stay tuned.
> Sincerely,
> Daniel Dimiduk
> Owner: Carefree landscape Maintenance Co.
> Founder: Shangri- La Research and Development Co.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041025/ed4a9d72/attachment.html
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Carefreeland at aol.com
Subject: Harvesting Biomass with Biomass energy.
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 20:27:44 EDT
Size: 10620
Url: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041025/ed4a9d72/attachment.mht

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Mon Oct 25 14:55:02 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:55:02 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] I don't quite understand this... if the torches are
24 VDC torches, ANS
Message-ID: <29.64bd6bf6.2eaeb416@aol.com>

>
> >>
>> I don't quite understand this... if the torches are 24 VDC torches, does
>> the
>> 24 to 140 volts refer to the AC side of the rectifier? Something is funny
>> here..
>>
>>
>> The voltage is allowed to vary as voltage is arc length, 24 to 140 volts
>> depends on the actual arc length, the amperage is controlled to regulate the
>> energy input, 50 to 100 amps. Normal processing is 80 volts at 75 amps.
>>
>> 24 volts x 50 amps = 1220 watts; 140 volts x 100 amps = 14000 watts.
>>
>> Does the 130 kwh refer to the energy input per pound of waste destroyed, or
>> per 1000 pound batch of waste destroyed?
>>
>>
>> 130 KWH is the actual operating average power used at *XXXXXXXXX One hour
>> waste varies between 250 and 600 pounds per hour. (Sorry LW needs security)
>>
>> Med waste has loads of chlorine in the offgas. It would present an
>> interested "chlorinated chemical soup" problem.
>>
>> How do they deal with the chlorine problem?
>>
>> The separator tank is a wet scrubber by design, we neutralize the acid
>> generated with Sodium Hydroxide or Calcium Carbonate in the eductor system.
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041025/6c561313/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Mon Oct 25 14:57:28 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:57:28 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] ANS 2 Stop thinking combustion,
the plasma reduction process does not rely
Message-ID: <12a.4eeb93a6.2eaeb4a8@aol.com>

Subj: Re: Please verify and ans these questions ASAP
Date: 10/25/04 3:37:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Stop thinking combustion, the plasma reduction process does not rely on the
heat of the plasma to do the work, the electron discharge does 90% of the work
to break down the long chain molecule. The process releases heat as the
molecule's bonds are broken. The off gas only coat the piping at the cool area of
the system, next to the separator tank water eductors. If you do not oxidize
the off gas (syn gas) the separator tank will generate about 50# or Carbon for
each 100# or waste processed.

> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 12:04 PM
> Subject: Please verify and ans these questions ASAP
>
>
> 100 kw= 340,000 btu. To heat up 1000#/hr of dry material to 1000?F=200,000
> btu. 8000 ?F=1.6mm btu. The carbon remaining in the ash is a determining
> factor in the actual temperature and residence time, and conversion efficiency.
> Incomplete conversion would result in higher carbon in the ash. Output gas
> temperature is also part of the mass/energy balance issue calculations. It is
> probably not used to preheat the incoming fuel or gases. Are there any gases
> used in the process and what is their consumption rate?
> The interesting thing about vaporizing the materials is that they coat
> everything in the container and would require cleaning periodically. This happens
> in vacuum systems and other vaporizing systems. Metals vaporized would be
> particularly difficult to remove. If the actual operation is as you say, it is
> indeed a good system for small and possibly even larger operations.
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041025/12d848f5/attachment.html

From graeme at powerlink.co.nz Mon Oct 25 15:04:16 2004
From: graeme at powerlink.co.nz (Graeme Williams)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:04:16 +1300
Subject: [Gasification] Static Pressure (Draw) in Downdraft Units
References: <003601c4ba31$710d7e10$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <001701c4bacd$e41bb6a0$db8f58db@GraemeWilliams>

Hi Greg,
You did tell me during the Gasification Workshop in Gimli that you had made
a new system of char support. If this is the differance from last year,then
it may be a whisker low and it needs lifting to slightly shorten the
reduction zone. The support may also be to restrictive of the gas flow, so a
greater clearance is another option. Usually any increase in pressure drop
is due to the increase in char density, and that then relates to chip size
or type of wood.

When you have a change like this, you should be able to observe other
differances, such as, temperature of the output gas, colour of the bed as
observed through the air nozzle, and condensate quality from your gas
cooling.. As a passing thought, the colder temperatures will change the
behaviour of the oxidation zone, where-by reactions are faster. You may have
been previously right on the boundary of change where the slightest
variation can put you in Tiger country.
Hope this helps,
Regards,
Doug Williams,
Fluidyne Gasification.

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Mon Oct 25 15:15:00 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:15:00 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Re your off net comments Thank you
Message-ID: <127.4e01f8cb.2eaeb8c4@aol.com>

Thank you gasifiers.

We are all on the same page of that book of life's opportunities and
disappointments.

And economic models. Good luck to you too.

Leonard Wheeler
Eustis, Fla
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041025/8464a602/attachment.html

From psanders at ilstu.edu Mon Oct 25 16:05:48 2004
From: psanders at ilstu.edu (Paul S. Anderson)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:05:48 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] What type for very small gasifier or stove
In-Reply-To: <ujlpn05913ds4l0t2bjge9sch1s7fvtl20@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20041025154959.02331dc0@mail.ilstu.edu>

Bernard,

I work with the VERY small gasifiers, including Tom Reed's IDD unit. The
IDD and my own gasifiers are BATCH fed and do not meet your criteria for
long unattended operation.

The closest thing I know to small and continuous is the "Dasifier" (that
is spelled correctly) made by Mr. Agua Das. Go
to http://www.woodgas.com/DASIFIER.doc

I am not sure the Dasifier will do the job you want, but it is worth a look.

Paul

At 11:33 PM 10/25/04 +1300, Bernard wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I have followed and searched this list with great pleasure. Thanks to
>those of you who answered questions patiently to people like me.
>
>My application is warm air generation of only 40C with power between
>0.5 and 3kW.
>
>The device should use biomass e.g. small wood chips or blocks.
>It should be possible run it unattended for weeks while it is
>automatically fed, possibly with some minimal automated cleaning
>operations e.g. rattling the grate.
>
>While reading the many comments, I learned that the downdraft
>stratified gasifier would be a good candidate. I thought so because
>its open top and unrestricted fuel flow would make it simple to
>construct and simple to operate.
>
>I have some questions:
>
>With this small power, comparable with Dr. Tom Reed's Inverted Down
>Draft "TURBO WOOD-GAS STOVE", would the reactor vessel diameter be the
>same, e.g. 100mm?
>
>Would it make sense to restrict the fuel flow with a fire tube /
>throat tube / reduction tube?
>I don't fully understand its function, maybe that it helps to avoid
>air channels and mixed up- and down-draft operation?
>
>I would prefer to not have a throat tube because it could interfere
>with the fuel flow at this small size.
>
>Is the inverted down draft gasifier the right choice? I thought so
>because in comparison, an updraft stove might be difficult to feed and
>I don't want to create and manage charcoal.
>
>I don't mind some complexity in controlling it electronically, as long
>as it is otherwise reliable and simple.
>
>Dr. Tom Reed's Inverted Down Draft "TURBO WOOD-GAS STOVE" really
>inspired me because it is so small and efficient. A stainless steel
>reactor tube with the flame at the bottom and a larger tube around it
>would make it easy to extract the desired warm air between the pipes
>and the unit would be very compact.
>
>Or would this cooling of the reactor reduce gasification efficiency?
>
>Any comments and ideas are highly appreciated.
>
>Many thanks,
>
>Bernard
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

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 at 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 arnt at c2i.net Mon Oct 25 17:33:20 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:33:20 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Static Pressure (Draw) in Downdraft Units
In-Reply-To: <003601c4ba31$710d7e10$1900a8c0@a31server>
References: <003601c4ba31$710d7e10$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <20041026003320.0029b3a3.arnt@c2i.net>

In Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:24:57 -0500, a31ford wrote in message
<003601c4ba31$710d7e10$1900a8c0 at a31server>:

>
> Good Day All !
>
> Something unusual is going on with my most current downdraft
> gasifier(s),
> As most of you know, I have a few "test" units, as well as two "final"
> units, that are currently in operation (one or the other).
>
> Anyhow, I've had a change in the SP (Static Pressure) of not one, but
> both of the units!
>
> Both units would normally run around the 0.8 to 1.3 area of "inches of
> water" in last years operation, what I'm seeing this year is a
> constant 2.0 to 2.5 inches of water. The source of feedstock is the
> same, the entire"upstream & downstream" sections are the same, I have
> no idea of why there has been a change. Examination of internal
> components gives no clues. All piping & such was thoroughly cleaned
> before this seasons startup.
>
> Anyone got any "it might be this ?" comments ??

..corrosion? Would roughen up the internal surfaces of your piping
causing more flow drag and pressure loss.

> Anyone got any other numbers of "normal operation" on their units?
> (For comparison)
--
..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 LWheeler45 at aol.com Mon Oct 25 18:37:47 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:37:47 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Discussion point Small Applications of DC Low Vlt
Plasma Gassification
Message-ID: <1f3.18d8cb7.2eaee84b@aol.com>

Thanks you for your off net comments.

Here are your ANS which I will share with the group.

Yes, I am looking at lots of small projects. Such as powering an entire
shopping center, a small village or rural city, an isolated Copper Smelter,
Aluminum smelter like is in Port A Prince Haiti closed down, Concrete plant, citrus
juice plants, Welding shop, water purification. Desalt plant, oil extraction
by steam injection also destroying unusable waste. A fuel bio ethanol
production facility for a local police Dept.

Individual houses and office buildings.

With some little playing this commercial system design it can be made smaller
than 400 lb. per hr of almost any kind a waste. I want a small one for my
backyard and domestic energy needs. Heat Cool water and electrical power. Perhaps
one of those capstone micro turbines or one of the larger from Allied Signal.

A patented feature ... the heat sink mixers allows for process heat and steam
for several hours in between firings like a well insulated water heater on
steroids. Those with HVAC understanding would certainly appreciate the millions
of BTU available for hot water heating from a commercial building's waste
would be quite a savings. What is heating oil at now 1.50 gal?

Good questions.

Albest LW
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041025/6e44027c/attachment.html

From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Mon Oct 25 19:43:55 2004
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:43:55 -0300
Subject: [Gasification] I don't quite understand this... if the torches
are24 VDC torches, ANS
References: <29.64bd6bf6.2eaeb416@aol.com>
Message-ID: <008a01c4baf5$61487970$379a0a40@kevin>

Dear Leonard
----- Original Message -----
From: <LWheeler45 at aol.com>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 4:55 PM
Subject: [Gasification] I don't quite understand this... if the torches
are24 VDC torches, ANS

>
> >
> > >>
> >> I don't quite understand this... if the torches are 24 VDC torches,
does
> >> the
> >> 24 to 140 volts refer to the AC side of the rectifier? Something is
funny
> >> here..
> >>
> >>
> >> The voltage is allowed to vary as voltage is arc length, 24 to 140
volts
> >> depends on the actual arc length, the amperage is controlled to
regulate the
> >> energy input, 50 to 100 amps. Normal processing is 80 volts at 75
amps.

If somebody took an electric welder, and used a carbon rod and a graphite
crucible, how would this differ from the so-called "plasma furnace?" A
welder's arc is a display of plasma in action.

> >>
> >> 24 volts x 50 amps = 1220 watts; 140 volts x 100 amps = 14000 watts.
> >>
> >> Does the 130 kwh refer to the energy input per pound of waste
destroyed, or
> >> per 1000 pound batch of waste destroyed?
> >>
> >>
> >> 130 KWH is the actual operating average power used at *XXXXXXXXX One
hour
> >> waste varies between 250 and 600 pounds per hour. (Sorry LW needs
security)

This does not hang together... at lowest power, 24 V x 50 Amps, the power is
1220 watts = 1.22 KW. Maximum power of 14,000 watts = 14 KW. The 130 KWH is
actually an energy term... 130 kw-hr. If there was a typo and it should have
been 130 KW power, then the number is out by a factor of about 10. The most
power it could deliver would be about 13 KW, not 130.
> >>
> >> Med waste has loads of chlorine in the offgas. It would present an
> >> interested "chlorinated chemical soup" problem.
> >>
> >> How do they deal with the chlorine problem?
> >>
> >> The separator tank is a wet scrubber by design, we neutralize the acid
> >> generated with Sodium Hydroxide or Calcium Carbonate in the eductor
system.

There are two very different problems here... 1: Neutralization of Acid, and
2: Capture of chlorine and chlorine compounds. Sodium hydroxide and Calcium
chloride will work very well for neutralization of Hydrochloric acid, to
produce common salt and calcium chloride. However, they will NOT neutralize
Chlorine; they may, for example, produce NaOCl plus NaCl and CaOCl2 plus
CaCl2 kinds of compounds.

However, the major problem may be capture and containment of chlorinated
hydrocarbon products.

I presume the water ejector is used to quench the pyrolysis gas, and to
provide a bit of pressure to recycle the quenched gas back to the arc
torches.

Such a "plasma furnace", consisting of a graphite crucible and a carbon rod
is very simple to make for test purposes. I once built one doe testing the
smelting characteristics of various ilmenite and carbon mixtures.

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm
> >>
> >
> >
>

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

> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

 

From jerry5335 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 19:53:56 2004
From: jerry5335 at yahoo.com (jerry dycus)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gasification] choices? Can anyone tell me why Ethanol is not
made at site of use?
In-Reply-To: <146.36de6bf1.2eae957f@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20041026005356.91171.qmail@web41007.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi Leonard and All,
--- LWheeler45 at aol.com wrote:

> Considering the learned observation of our member on
> the options to oil by
> chemistry. I have a few questions I am still seeking
> an answer for:
>
> 1. What is the reason that the corn and sugar
> farmers have for not processing
> their crops at the coop to gas full of C and H
> sending that resultant gas by
> pipeline to a point of re combination near where
> there is a point of
> consumption like Calif Texas and Fla? This is the
> DOE vision 21 energy model.

For short distances it may be cool but for long
distances it's low density mean large, high pressure
pipes would be needed 2 to 3 times the size of NG for
the same energy.
Also H2 tends to make steel the pipes are made of
weak, not good for a 3,000psi pipe carrying H2!!! Also
H2 LEAKS!!! thru steel pipes so losses could be large
for long pipes. H2 is not easy to hold so best to
change it as soon as possible into something else.
Best is for Syn Gas plants within 50 miles to
process it into liquid fuels to be used locally thus
cutting transport expenses both ways, keeping jobs
locally.
This could really be big in Fla to create jobs,
fuel as there is so much excess waste biomass even
without hurricanes. As you know we have to work full
time to keep it at bay from taking over the whole
state!!!
Also refining syn gas is a lot easier, cleaner
than refining crude.
I'd process the corn, sugar crops into ethanol
then animal feed, corn oil, ect and gasify the
stalks, other biomass into syn gas. Then return the
ashes to feed the land.
But mostly it's the fact that there are no syn gas
markets right now as there are no conversion plants
locally. Kind of the chicken and the egg thing.
>
> 2. What is the reason for no interstate pipe
> delivery of Syngas or denatured
> ethanol?
On ethanol they say it's water uptake but I don't
see how.
I used to unload oil tankers in Port Tampa and the
ships all have sealed tanks and inert gas filling
them on unloading which is usually diesel exhaust but
could easily be changed to N2 or dehydrate the
exhaust. The shoreside tanks would have to be modified
to exclude moisture but that's not hard either and
done for yrs.
We unload about 9,000,000 gals per 1/2 tanker and
lose less than a quart of it mostly as vapor when
switching hoses.
Nor do I see how it would happen in pipelines
either as they are very closed systems.
I'd bet it's misinfomation put out by oil
companies' PR firms. They are afraid of Ethanol taking
their markets big time.
The best way to use ethanol is in a 90% ethanol,
10% water mixture as it takes must less energy to
produce it than 100% ethanol. And no worries about
moisture uptake!
In a dedicated engine of 13-1 compression ratio it
is very eff making up most for it's lower BTU content
compared to gasoline. But those engine are not here
either though easy, cheap to make.
Any go cart engine builder can convert small
engines for it as they convert them for methanol all
the time.
HTH's,
jerry dycus

> \Leonard Eustis
> > _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

From snkm at btl.net Mon Oct 25 20:29:02 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:29:02 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] choices? Can anyone tell me why Ethanol is
not madeat site of use?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041025190411.00959e50@pop.btl.net>

I believe it has to do with "subsidies" -- known in this part of the planet
as corporate wlfare payments.

In short -- if you tried any of these deals outside the US and tried to
sell it back to the US -- erg -- by level playing field standards -- you
lose your shirt!

Ask Brazil and the ethanol producers there.

Your in country operation is hight subsidized --

But by the looks of things -- that kind of corporate welfare might no
longer be affordable to a post election USA.

In real terms -- and using present prices -- the corn and sugar farmers
would go broke in no time making gas or ethanol.

Peter

At 01:44 PM 10/25/2004 EDT, LWheeler45 at aol.com wrote:
>>>>
Considering the learned observation of our member on the options to oil by
chemistry. I have a few questions I am still seeking an answer for:

1. What is the reason that the corn and sugar farmers have for not
processing their crops at the coop to gas full of C and H sending that
resultant gas by pipeline to a point of re combination near where there is
a point of consumption like Calif Texas and Fla? This is the DOE vision 21
energy model.

2. What is the reason for no interstate pipe delivery of Syngas or
denatured ethanol?
\Leonard Eustis _______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Mon Oct 25 21:36:48 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:36:48 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Good questions. However This is a fully certified
EPA FDEP Bio hazard system
Message-ID: <111.3b511fad.2eaf1240@aol.com>

Unlike your comparison that you made ....This is a fully commercially
certified EPA FDEP Medical Bio hazard disposal system

This is not a model, a pilot, or a test. This is a production commercially
validated unit. With independent certified outputs all meeting EPA and FDEP
requirements for the destruction of medical waste. That is all wastestreams liquid
gas and solids.

The power is as I recall the ANS given me is the TOTAL power to run the
system including several pumps.

Good questions deserve good answers. I'll Get them for you.

Leonard

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041025/eb46a2a6/attachment.html

From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Mon Oct 25 22:42:33 2004
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:42:33 -0300
Subject: [Gasification] Re: Good questions. However This is a fully
certified EPA FDEP Bio hazard system
References: <111.3b511fad.2eaf1240@aol.com>
Message-ID: <00fa01c4bb0e$04eb4400$379a0a40@kevin>

Dear Leonard
----- Original Message -----
From: <LWheeler45 at aol.com>
To: <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
Cc: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 11:36 PM
Subject: Good questions. However This is a fully certified EPA FDEP Bio
hazard system

> Unlike your comparison that you made ....This is a fully commercially
> certified EPA FDEP Medical Bio hazard disposal system.
>
> This is not a model, a pilot, or a test. This is a production commercially
> validated unit. With independent certified outputs all meeting EPA and
FDEP
> requirements for the destruction of medical waste. That is all
wastestreams liquid
> gas and solids.

I certainly do not know your process details, and I am certainly not trying
to shoot down your project. You asked for question and comment, and I
provided it based on what you were able to release. I was under the original
impression that the system was intended to produce a synthesis gas feedstock
from medical waste, and I would think that my comments about chlorine being
a problem deserving of consideration would be valid in that context.
However, if the prime function is destruction of medical waste, with the off
gasses being burned to completion, then the treatment of the combusted gas
as you suggest may very well enable stripping of all the chlorine into a
safe sink.
>
> The power is as I recall the ANS given me is the TOTAL power to run the
> system including several pumps.
>
> Good questions deserve good answers. I'll Get them for you.

I can appreciate that you are working with a proprietary process, and a
secrecy agreement. However, it would be nice to know the total dry waste
input per hour, and the total electric power input per hour. Perhaps the
volt and amp figures you quoted were for one arc torch, and perhaps the
system employs 10 such torches; if that was the case, then things would tie
together much better.

The other thing that could be clarified is if the working unit with EPA
Approval is producing a fully oxidized gas, or if it is producing a cleaned
fuel or synthesis gas.

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Mon Oct 25 23:18:33 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:18:33 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Don't ever hesitate to shoot me tough questions. I
asked for it.
Message-ID: <1a6.2a39a35e.2eaf2a19@aol.com>

Problems that I have observed on site and present the opportunity I wish to
explore:

This system is producing ZERO electrical power it sucks all 130kw w 440
3/phase for motors power from the grid for pumps and drive motors for the *
rotational internal baffles and heat sinks.*Patented Item.
It produces more steam than the hospital can use this is about a 150 bed
hospital.
It produces unbelievable amounts of hydrogen rich syn gas that is recycled
and consumed wastefully in the process.

The system I saw has about 16 or 20 tungsten carbide arc torches and it is
designed to handle about 400 to 600 lbs per hr easily. The improved lg. model
has about 26.

It is a compact very high efficiency boiler for what ever application needs
process heat, stream, distilled water, syngas or? Using virtually any burnable
material. They threw a shredded wood pallet into it and it did not hiccup. It
turned a coffee can of material into vapor in less than 8 sec.

>From my days and conversations with Westinghouse and Startech plasma the
items that this baby has that no other system can match is
performance/price/environmentally friendly/ commercially validated.

Nothing I have been made aware of since 2002 comes close to the performance
on any type of material Feedstocks. Gassifiers are efficient and cheaper but
are feed stock sensitive. Plasma HV is a real Mega wattage hog. And those
torches ain't cheap either. Plasma construction entails some real heavy duty
engineering to conduct the heat away and clean the gas and prices are in the multi
million range at minimum. It does not scale down economically as a process.

They are not too comfy on a semi either Startech had a 10 TPD on a flatbed.

This design which is a cross between Rube Goldberg looking and Henry Ford I
construction has some real possibilities to get smaller and has been considered
by US NAVY for shipboard use. It deals with the pitching seas really well.
What is impressive to me is what you could possibly do with a small one say
truck size and then A really small one... It would add a new meaning to
distributed power.

DOE has never really looked at it. It is not power it is a medical waste
disposal system.

The inventor has Henry Ford's genius for making things out of common parts.

LW
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041026/0c9844cb/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Mon Oct 25 23:54:25 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:54:25 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] visit http://www.farmenergy.org
Message-ID: <76.445a0f43.2eaf3281@aol.com>

visit http://www.farmenergy.org

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041026/d5a57f18/attachment.html

From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Tue Oct 26 00:04:34 2004
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 02:04:34 -0300
Subject: [Gasification] Re: Don't ever hesitate to shoot me tough questions.
I asked for it.
References: <1a6.2a39a35e.2eaf2a19@aol.com>
Message-ID: <011a01c4bb19$4bf1c990$379a0a40@kevin>

Dear Leonard
----- Original Message -----
From: <LWheeler45 at aol.com>
To: <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
Cc: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 1:18 AM
Subject: Don't ever hesitate to shoot me tough questions. I asked for it.

> Problems that I have observed on site and present the opportunity I wish
to
> explore:
>
> This system is producing ZERO electrical power it sucks all 130kw w 440
> 3/phase for motors power from the grid for pumps and drive motors for the
*
> rotational internal baffles and heat sinks.*Patented Item.

It is hard to generate power economically at a small scale. If the process
needs such special internal baffles and heat sinks, it may not be able to
produce steeam of a quality that would permit efficient power plant
operation.

> It produces more steam than the hospital can use this is about a 150 bed
> hospital.
> It produces unbelievable amounts of hydrogen rich syn gas that is recycled
> and consumed wastefully in the process.
>
Can the process be adjusted to vary the thermal energy generation to be more
in balance with the site specific needs? Perhaps they have to burn the gas
to enable chlorine capture?

> The system I saw has about 16 or 20 tungsten carbide arc torches and it is
> designed to handle about 400 to 600 lbs per hr easily. The improved lg.
model
> has about 26.

OK... this is falling more into place. Do they need that much heat
generation? Can they use recuperation in some fashion to minimize the need
for input of energy they cannot use?
>
> It is a compact very high efficiency boiler for what ever application
needs
> process heat, stream, distilled water, syngas or? Using virtually any
burnable
> material. They threw a shredded wood pallet into it and it did not hiccup.
It
> turned a coffee can of material into vapor in less than 8 sec.
>
If tehy do it right, they should be able to melt or oxidize the sharps so
that they can be easily handled subsequently. Providing energy of an
intensity greater than necessary is thermally wasteful. There would likely
be significant opportunity for energy cost reduction.

> From my days and conversations with Westinghouse and Startech plasma the
> items that this baby has that no other system can match is
> performance/price/environmentally friendly/ commercially validated.

It looks like it can do a number of things, and probably some of the things
it can do are done better than others.
>
> Nothing I have been made aware of since 2002 comes close to the
performance
> on any type of material Feedstocks. Gassifiers are efficient and cheaper
but
> are feed stock sensitive. Plasma HV is a real Mega wattage hog. And those
> torches ain't cheap either. Plasma construction entails some real heavy
duty
> engineering to conduct the heat away and clean the gas and prices are in
the multi
> million range at minimum. It does not scale down economically as a
process.
>
> They are not too comfy on a semi either Startech had a 10 TPD on a
flatbed.

It looks like the system consumes about 130 kw to process say 500 pounds
per hour. This is about 520 kw-hr per ton. Say $52 per ton energy cost. Do
you know what tehy can get per ton of med waste that is consumed?
>
> This design which is a cross between Rube Goldberg looking and Henry Ford
I
> construction has some real possibilities to get smaller and has been
considered
> by US NAVY for shipboard use. It deals with the pitching seas really well.
> What is impressive to me is what you could possibly do with a small one
say
> truck size and then A really small one... It would add a new meaning to
> distributed power.
>
> DOE has never really looked at it. It is not power it is a medical waste
> disposal system.

OK... as a medical waste disposal system, there might be better ways to
dispose of the medical waste. However, if the off-gases can be in the
non-oxidized state, for use in another process, then that opens up a
different set of opportunities. If operated in this manner, then the present
DOE Approval as a medical waste destruction system may be invalidated.
>
> The inventor has Henry Ford's genius for making things out of common
parts.
>
That is great. He might be on to something really good. Perhaps he may do
even better by reconfiguring it for additional specific purposes.

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm

> LW
>

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Tue Oct 26 01:10:25 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 02:10:25 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] subsidy of process. Corporate Welfare
Message-ID: <ce.5abaf6c4.2eaf4451@aol.com>

 

You are correct it is not a level field. the reports I have read indicate
$170.00 a barrel is the federal subsidy on oil. However in the interest of
Ethanol Farmers and ADM a new farm bill gave a few mill to the farmers and
renewable energy folks. I sent the list our website.

There is a membrane system that Alcoa developed and Startech now has lic for
call the star cell. Converts syn gas to fuel cell grade hydrogen. 30CFM from
one small unit.

I am wondering if anyone has any experience with storage of plasma/or steam
made 300 BTU syngas. Never occurred to me that it could revert to another form.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041026/c22bea57/attachment.html

From VHarris001 at aol.com Tue Oct 26 01:22:58 2004
From: VHarris001 at aol.com (VHarris001 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 02:22:58 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] wood gas storage
Message-ID: <1e9.2cfadb6f.2eaf4742@aol.com>

For storage of relatively small quantities of producer gas, you can use an
ag-bag over a small body of water, as discussed on this list some time ago by
Dale Costich. Here is a link with a few of the discussion threads:

http://www.google.com/search?q=gasification+agbag+OR+%22ag+bag%22+storage+cost
ich&hl=en&lr=lang_en&filter=0

V Harris

In a message dated 2004-10-25 10:29:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
santo at poczta.fm writes:

> Dear List Readers and Writers!
>
> I gathered more than 100 MB of wood-gas-production books and articles
> on my hard drive, but couldn't get any specific info on storing wood
> gas. In one article (Alternatives to fossil fueled engines/generators,
> http://www.green-trust.org/woodgas.pdf ) I found a drawing of a simple
> self-adjusting storage tank. But in some other source I read that it
> is not possible to store the producer gas, since the termochemical
> reactions which made the CO from CO2 will then act in reverse, trans-
> forming the CO into the CO2 again (we wouldn't like that...). This is
> the same reason that we need to cool the gas quickly before we put it
> into the engine.
>
> So...what is your opinion? Does any of you have any experience in this
> field? I'll be very grateful for your answers.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041026/70289587/attachment.html

From LINVENT at aol.com Tue Oct 26 02:51:41 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 03:51:41 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] Discussion point Small Applications of DC Low
VltPlasma Gassification
Message-ID: <371AF832.38CE766B.00168ACC@aol.com>

Dear Gas Listers: Does this guy sound like someone we had pounding away at us several months ago who has since vanished? Lots of projects, conversation and the energy was from listening to lots of dreams.

--
Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
7100-F 2nd St. NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107
Phone: 505-761-5633, fax: 505-341-0424 Web:thermogenics.com

 

From jerry5335 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 07:28:11 2004
From: jerry5335 at yahoo.com (jerry dycus)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 05:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gasification] Liquid fuels from biomass in Fla and wood gas storage
In-Reply-To: <1e9.2cfadb6f.2eaf4742@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20041026122811.94978.qmail@web41009.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi V and All,
For a stove a good way is a couple of water bed
matresses. Then putting a sheet of plywood of 1/2-3/4"
gives you about the 1/2 pound pressure needed for most
gas stoves to work.
These can be used to start a gen while the
gasifier comes online using exhaust heat to gasify
with.
The bags allow the gas to clean, cool itself and
collect acetone, methanol, naptha, ect that comes out
of the gas when cooled. These can be obtained by
distilling to seperate them from the water and each
other by evap temps.
Cyclone type gas cleaners can remove this too and
you can distill it's waste liquids the same way.
About 1/2 the energy is in these liquids and to me
one of the best ways to get liquid fuels, solvents for
the home energy maker.
Before oil it was a big energy source and was a
big industry in Fla until the 40's.
I'd love to have more info on this industry and
it's products, processes.
jerry dycus
--- VHarris001 at aol.com wrote:

> For storage of relatively small quantities of
> producer gas, you can use an
> ag-bag over a small body of water, as discussed on
> this list some time ago by
> Dale Costich. Here is a link with a few of the
> discussion threads:
>
> V Harris
>
>
> In a message dated 2004-10-25 10:29:35 AM Eastern
> Daylight Time,
> santo at poczta.fm writes:
>
>
> > Dear List Readers and Writers!
> >
> > I gathered more than 100 MB of
> wood-gas-production books and articles
> > on my hard drive, but couldn't get any specific
> info on storing wood
> > gas. In one article (Alternatives to fossil fueled
> engines/generators,
> > http://www.green-trust.org/woodgas.pdf ) I found a
> drawing of a simple
> > self-adjusting storage tank. But in some other
> source I read that it
> > is not possible to store the producer gas,
> since the termochemical
> > reactions which made the CO from CO2 will then
> act in reverse, trans-
> > forming the CO into the CO2 again (we wouldn't
> like that...). This is
> > the same reason that we need to cool the gas
> quickly before we put it
> > into the engine.
> >
> > So...what is your opinion? Does any of you have
> any experience in this
> > field? I'll be very grateful for your answers.

 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

From brunoM1 at telenet.be Tue Oct 26 08:28:42 2004
From: brunoM1 at telenet.be (Bruno M.)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:28:42 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] visit http://www.farmenergy.org
In-Reply-To: <76.445a0f43.2eaf3281@aol.com>
References: <76.445a0f43.2eaf3281@aol.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20041026141850.02980020@in.telenet.be>

Hi Leonard,

It's about the Section 9006 Grant program.

Nice tip,
but why not make it a clickable hyperlink ?
Like this: www.farmenergy.org

Another tip, can you post in plain text please
like most folks here do
( and is a mandatory rule on many list servers )
than you postings are easier to read,
because mostly they come in an unreadable very small print.
And since they are mostly worthwhile to read, ... ;-)

tia
Bruno Meersman
=============================
At 05:54 26/10/2004, Leonard wrote:
>visit http://www.farmenergy.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
====================================================

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Tue Oct 26 10:30:24 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:30:24 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] ans and more to come.
Message-ID: <1ec.2c11e29a.2eafc790@aol.com>

 

Question:
I don't quite understand this ... if the torches are 24 VDC torches,
does the 24 to 140 volts refer to the AC side of the rectifier? Something is
funny here..
> >>
> >>
The voltage is allowed to vary as voltage is arc length, 24 to 140
volts depends on the actual arc length, the amperage is controlled to
regulate the energy input, 50 to 100 amps. Normal processing is 80 volts at
75
amps.

Question: NEW
If somebody took an electric welder, and used a carbon rod and a graphite
crucible, how would this differ from the so-called "plasma furnace?" A
welder's arc is a display of plasma in action.

> Carbon arc is a form of plasma and is used to cut metal in atmosphere, this
> seems to be a statement not a question?
> Carbon arcs burn to create the heat to do the work, I believe the burn temp
> is less that 6000F.
>
> Question: NEW
> 24 volts x 50 amps = 1220 watts; 140 volts x 100 amps = 14000 watts.
> Does the 130 kwh refer to the energy input per pound of waste
> destroyed, or per 1000 pound batch of waste destroyed?
> > >>
> 130 KWH is the actual operating average power used at *XXXXXXXXX One
> hour waste varies between 250 and 600 pounds per hour. (Sorry LW needs
> security)
> Question: NEW
> This does not hang together... at lowest power, 24 V x 50 Amps, the power is
> 1220 watts = 1.22 KW. Maximum power of 14,000 watts = 14 KW. The 130 KWH is
> actually an energy term... 130 kW-HR. If there was a typo and it should have
> been 130 KW power, then the number is out by a factor of about 10. The most
> power it could deliver would be about 13 KW, not 130.
>

> The figures are for one torch, there are 16 to 28 torches used in the
> process and support pumps, comperssors, and motors.
>
>
> > >>
> Med waste has loads of chlorine in the offgas. It would present an
> interested "chlorinated chemical soup" problem.
> How do they deal with the chlorine problem?
>
> The separator tank is a wet scrubber by design, we neutralize the acid
> generated with Sodium Hydroxide or Calcium Carbonate in the eductor
> system.
>
> Question:NEW This is what they really want to know......cause they have not
> got the answer
>
> There are two very different problems here...
> 1: Neutralization of Acid, and
> 2: Capture of chlorine and chlorine compounds. Sodium hydroxide and Calcium
> chloride will work very well for neutralization of Hydrochloric acid, to
> produce common salt and calcium chloride. However, they will NOT neutralize
> Chlorine; they may, for example, produce NaOCl plus NaCl and CaOCl2 plus
> CaCl2 kinds of compounds.
>
> However, the major problem may be capture and containment of chlorinated
> hydrocarbon products.
>
> I presume the water ejector is used to quench the pyrolysis gas, and to
> provide a bit of pressure to recycle the quenched gas back to the arc
> torches.
>
>
> Chlorine has not been a problem, I believe we get some Cl2 in the water
> discharge and some Cl trapped in the solid carbon black, I will pull the gas,
> water, and solids test to see what compounds we get.
>
>
> Such a "plasma furnace", consisting of a graphite crucible and a carbon rod
> is very simple to make for test purposes. I once built one doe testing the
> smelting characteristics of various ilmenite and carbon mixtures.
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041026/25758576/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Tue Oct 26 11:07:42 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:07:42 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Your questions and your ans there is more coming
Message-ID: <e3.4b9f278.2eafd04e@aol.com>

 

Question:
I don't quite understand this... if the torches are 24 VDC torches,
does the 24 to 140 volts refer to the AC side of the rectifier? Something is
funny here..
> >>
> >>
The voltage is allowed to vary as voltage is arc length, 24 to 140
volts depends on the actual arc length, the amperage is controlled to
regulate the energy input, 50 to 100 amps. Normal processing is 80 volts at
75
amps.

Question: NEW
If somebody took an electric welder, and used a carbon rod and a graphite
crucible, how would this differ from the so-called "plasma furnace?" A
welder's arc is a display of plasma in action.

> Carbon arc is a form of plasma and is used to cut metal in atmosphere, this
> seems to be a statement not a question?
> Carbon arcs burn to create the heat to do the work, I believe the burn temp
> is less that 6000F.
>
> Question: NEW
> 24 volts x 50 amps = 1220 watts; 140 volts x 100 amps = 14000 watts.
> Does the 130 kwh refer to the energy input per pound of waste
> destroyed, or per 1000 pound batch of waste destroyed?
> > >>
> 130 KWH is the actual operating average power used at *XXXXXXXXX One
> hour waste varies between 250 and 600 pounds per hour. (Sorry LW needs
> security)
> Question: NEW
> This does not hang together... at lowest power, 24 V x 50 Amps, the power is
> 1220 watts = 1.22 KW. Maximum power of 14,000 watts = 14 KW. The 130 KWH is
> actually an energy term... 130 kw-hr. If there was a typo and it should have
> been 130 KW power, then the number is out by a factor of about 10. The most
> power it could deliver would be about 13 KW, not 130.
>

> The figures are for one torch, there are 16 to 28 torches used in the
> process and support pumps, compressors, and motors.
>
>
> > >>
> Med waste has loads of chlorine in the offgas. It would present an
> interested "chlorinated chemical soup" problem.
> How do they deal with the chlorine problem?
>
> The separator tank is a wet scrubber by design, we neutralize the acid
> generated with Sodium Hydroxide or Calcium Carbonate in the eductor
> system.
>
> Question:NEW This is what they really want to know......cause they have not
> got the answer
>
> There are two very different problems here...
> 1: Neutralization of Acid, and
> 2: Capture of chlorine and chlorine compounds. Sodium hydroxide and Calcium
> chloride will work very well for neutralization of Hydrochloric acid, to
> produce common salt and calcium chloride. However, they will NOT neutralize
> Chlorine; they may, for example, produce NaOCl plus NaCl and CaOCl2 plus
> CaCl2 kinds of compounds.
>
> However, the major problem may be capture and containment of chlorinated
> hydrocarbon products.
>
> I presume the water ejector is used to quench the pyrolysis gas, and to
> provide a bit of pressure to recycle the quenched gas back to the arc
> torches.
>
>
> Chlorine has not been a problem, I beleive we get some Cl2 in the water
> discharge and some Cl trapped in the solid carbon black, I will pull the gas,
> water, and solids test to see what compounds we get.
>
>
> Such a "plasma furnace", consisting of a graphite crucible and a carbon rod
> is very simple to make for test purposes. I once built one doe testing the
> smelting characteristics of various ilmenite and carbon mixtures.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041026/0d251fe5/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Tue Oct 26 11:22:14 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:22:14 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Dear Gas listers My personal Qualified Reply
Message-ID: <2b.64ed700e.2eafd3b6@aol.com>

RE:Dear Gas Listers:

Does this Tom, Dick or Harry guy sound like someone we had pounding away at
us several months even days ago who has since vanished leaving us with partly
paid for projects and a claim number in bankruptcy court?

You know the type!

Lots of engineering non certified projects, no validated energy conversation
data or independent test data and the energy was from listening to lots of his
own dreams. ....Instead of a micro turbine or IC GEN set and a whole
gassifier system which meets EPA standards for Emissions for toxic and medical waste
disposal. System even meets standards of US Military

I met this guy and his kin over the last 18 months, Wanted 30 to 200 million
to build a system to process MSW into syngas and electrical energy. Did not
have even ONE operational system working at scale proposed. There were none in
the industry world wide. Been in the process of making systems for 20 years.
Just could not find any still operating.

Not one Independent lab test on emissions under any country's standards and
NOT ONE investment banker he knew that would finance the deal. Zero as built
projects plans with verified outcomes.

His D and B rating was the anchor on the scale and his checkbook account and
debit card was only able to buy gum at Walmart one stick at a time.

And one even misquoted Nitche bah Humbug! Lov Leonard

 

 

Dear Gas Listers: Does this guy sound like someone we had pounding away at us
several months ago who has since vanished? Lots of projects, conversation and
the energy was from listening to lots of dreams.

--
Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
7100-F 2nd St. NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107
Phone: 505-761-5633, fax: 505-341-0424 Web:thermogenics.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041026/2f55027b/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Tue Oct 26 11:50:55 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:50:55 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Questions Market for multi feedstock gassifier
system that fits on flatbed.
Message-ID: <db.180fa02e.2eafda6f@aol.com>

and meets USA and World emissions standards including all greenhouse gasses
as verified by independent test. and cost under $1,000,000 a unit.

Walmart, Publix, Winn Dixie, All Drug Co., e waste generators, Lowes, Home
Depot all make suitable waste streams, have interest in cutting energy cost and
trash disposal cost, have good credit and most importantly, all will return my
calls.

Oh I still buy my gum by the pack with CASH. ( : )

Luv to my doubting Thomases
Leonard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041026/0630095f/attachment.html

From LINVENT at aol.com Tue Oct 26 12:37:22 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:37:22 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Re: Dear Gas listers My personal Qualified Reply
Message-ID: <96.188e3dd3.2eafe552@aol.com>

In a message dated 10/26/04 9:22:14 AM, LWheeler45 writes:

<< RE:Dear Gas Listers:

Does this Tom, Dick or Harry guy sound like someone we had pounding away at
us several months even days ago who has since vanished leaving us with partly
paid for projects and a claim number in bankruptcy court?

You know the type!

Lots of engineering non certified projects, no validated energy conversation
data or independent test data and the energy was from listening to lots of his
own dreams. ....Instead of a micro turbine or IC GEN set and a whole
gassifier system which meets EPA standards for Emissions for toxic and medical waste
disposal. System even meets standards of US Military

I met this guy and his kin over the last 18 months, Wanted 30 to 200 million
to build a system to process MSW into syngas and electrical energy. Did not
have even ONE operational system working at scale proposed. There were none in
the industry world wide. Been in the process of making systems for 20 years.
Just could not find any still operating.

Not one Independent lab test on emissions under any country's standards and
NOT ONE investment banker he knew that would finance the deal. Zero as built
projects plans with verified outcomes.

His D and B rating was the anchor on the scale and his checkbook account and
debit card was only able to buy gum at Walmart one stick at a time.

And one even misquoted Nitche bah Humbug! Lov Leonard >>

Dear Leonard,
It appears as though the plasma torch you are touting is a carbon generator.
With 50% of the incoming fuel converted to carbon, it easily explains why the
energy input results in such a low conversion rate. Electrons do not do the
work spontaneously because of their presence in the fields. They require energy
to impart to the solids and this is derived from the input energy. 130 KW
input will boil a lot of water and make some hydrogen, but carbon is not
vaporizable by itself. It requires other compounds to gasify, water, oxygen or other
compounds to be converted from the solid to gaseous form, CO, CH4 or CO2.
What you are saying is that the carbon contained in the fuel is blasted out of
the nozzles and coats whatever is nearby. This is not a high conversion
efficiency, period.
With so much carbon being generated, what is done with it? Recycled back
to make more gas? If this is the case, then the actual throughput rate is much
less. It could be put through a regular gasifier and converted into usable
gases!!! Now, we have a regular gasifier and a plasma system, so why not just
use a larger gasifier to do the first job?
EPA does not certify equipment. In many instances, it does not even see a
permit because that is taken by the local jurisdiction. Even is you had a
permit from EPA, try to get it accepted in SCAQMD. Medical waste certification
requires a certain temperature for a certain period of time to sterilize the
material. This probably is not achieved by this system because the residence time
is too short.
Most of the deleted e-mails I receive from the list are from you. Can't
you put your thoughts into one coherent e-mail/day? I wish I had the energy to
put out so much stuff.

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 LWheeler45 at aol.com Tue Oct 26 12:55:14 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:55:14 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Ans on Carbon and waste
Message-ID: <8b.1895afbf.2eafe982@aol.com>

NASA and some others checked out this carbon produced. It has some really
unique properties.

In made in sufficient amounts all is being sought for purchase by a laser
printer co.

I am not using it for medical waste. I have not looked at all the data on
medical. I don't care
It meets all emissions standards in Fla and at least one other state. I am
going to close. loop the gas and use the steam and gen set just enough to power
it. and hope sell a few hundred at mass produced prices.

Really undercut commercial waste tipping cost by on site disposal and buy a
case of gum ( : )

Thanks for the compliment Tom. You are pretty well informed...

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041026/9eaa664c/attachment.html

From dglickd at pipeline.com Tue Oct 26 13:22:23 2004
From: dglickd at pipeline.com (Dick Glick)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:22:23 -0400
Subject: [Bioenergy] Re: [Gasification] Florida Debris Disposal
References: <9a.13ad68f0.2e694988@aol.com>
<001601c49176$c72b7920$657ba8c0@a8a05015>
Message-ID: <023301c4bb88$bdb4b6e0$0200a8c0@cframcomp>

Hello All --

The City of Tallahassee -- an area of less than 100 square miles -- collects yard waste -- logs pieces up to 4 inches in diameter and sections up to 4 feet in length -- and all stuff smaller. These materials are left on the roadside of the collector's property and transferred with the aid of mechanical front loader -- into 39 cubic yard trucks -- and moved to a landfill on the average probably less than 7 miles. Including all expenses expected for such operation -- this type of collection costs -- less the landfill disposal fee per ton -- $114/per ton of collected material. This for a total of slightly less than 14,000 tons per year.

And if you had to pay any US workers to collect "hurricane waste" and cut it for convenient movement -- we could suppose that the worker cost would be included in the above assuming that this cost would be equivalent to that for truck personnel cost. With this somewhat improbably assumption -- the above cost would not have to be adjusted. Fuel costs represent about 1/3 of the above cost per ton -- so if that the above could be reduced by 1/4 assuming shorter routes -- the above might become closer to $86 per ton.

And this is per nominally wet ton. How then could this "hurricane biomass" be economically converted, by any means, to energy?

Sorry this has taken some time to collect -- but the City was at the end of its budget year.

Best, Dick

----- Original Message -----
From: John Flottvik
To: Carefreeland at aol.com ; VHarris001 at aol.com ; gasification at listserv.repp.org ; bioenergy at crest.org
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 1:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Bioenergy] Re: [Gasification] Florida Debris Disposal

Dear List

Regarding the unfortunate Florida Debris. This should not be called "debris disposal'. It should be called debris conversion into
renewable energy as this mess of lemons can very easily be made into lemonade using portable pyrolysis technologies.

Regards
John Flottvik
JF BioEnergy Inc
www.jfbioenergy.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041026/0932e945/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Tue Oct 26 14:13:32 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:13:32 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] I hate to be the bearer of bad news.
Message-ID: <fe.4c4da67.2eaffbdc@aol.com>

I am a former Fla State Disaster Engineer. IG Audit Team/Troubleshooter.

I was in charge of the FEMA FLA debris grant audits and payments for all of
Broward Co. Just me a grants manager and the FEMA IG and one FEMA inspector.

Personally I wrote the close out grants for Ft Laud, Laud by the Sea and 2/3
of City of Miami.

Told you I am a survivor of Klingon Right of Passage did I not?

Based upon my recent conversations with folks in the field that I know.

A truck driver with a CDL A gets 1000 a day
A watcher gets 25.00 per hour
a scheduler get 50.00 to 65.00 hr
and a disposer gets 20.00 and up per yard. There are 450,000 yards locally

Not one stick, twig or leaf is used for anything but a burn pile or landfill
filler.

I personally called Tallahassee and submitted several proposals which I was
willing to secure funds for at ZERO cost to state and I got a personal thank
you from the Gov. whom I know personally as I do many in Disaster management.

I was a member of the Lake Co Landfill Oversight Committee. A Politically
appointed position. Told them all about it to. Zero. A corpse has more of a
pulse.

AS Tom observed I have lots of energy.

My one real character flaw don't ignore well.

Let me assure you your thoughts and arguments have been preached by this
preacher every opportunity to those low life dim witted empty suited backsliding
heathen energy wasters.

I sense a weakening in their will. Just a few days ago.... God not you again?

Perhaps I should be called Rev as so many of the heathen energy waster flock
are calling on God just at my phone calls?

For those who doubt this run my name search in AP archives

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041026/ac014d07/attachment.html

From jerry5335 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 12:27:49 2004
From: jerry5335 at yahoo.com (jerry dycus)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 10:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gasification] Corn sugar from stalk is 16 % by weight
In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20041026141850.02980020@in.telenet.be>
Message-ID: <20041026172749.56300.qmail@web41002.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi All,
While reading Natural History mag 2-04 there
was an article about the cultivation of corn, maize.
It seem that for it's first 6500 yrs it was grown for
it's stalk sugar content like sugar cane to make
beer!!
Only later did the cobs grow big enough, be
good enough to eat.
It said modern corn stalks have about 16% sugar
by weight!
So add another product to growing corn for
energy.
From 1 plant you get oil from the seed, ethanol
from the seed and stalk, animal feed from the leftover
mash, gasifier fuel from the leftover stalk, cobs and
ashes for minerals to put back on the field.
jerry dycus

 

 

 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Tue Oct 26 14:15:49 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:15:49 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] www.FloridaEnergyOffice.org. Just got this one
Message-ID: <83.18ebb9c5.2eaffc65@aol.com>

www.FloridaEnergyOffice.org. Must read on our renewable fleet
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041026/194620df/attachment.html

From cree at dowco.com Tue Oct 26 14:19:35 2004
From: cree at dowco.com (John Olsen)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:19:35 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Corn sugar from stalk is 16 % by weight
In-Reply-To: <20041026172749.56300.qmail@web41002.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BLEFLNMHNDFEMMIJPGFIAEJNDCAA.cree@dowco.com>

Jerry
I understand that in the U.S.A., Ethanol is mostly made from corn.
(here in Canada it's made from Wheat)
The stalks where the most valuable chemicals are stored
seems to be the forgotten area.
regards
John Olsen

 

 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 10/25/2004

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 10/25/2004

 

From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Tue Oct 26 15:41:33 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:41:33 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Corn sugar from stalk is 16 % by weight
References: <20041026172749.56300.qmail@web41002.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <013501c4bb9c$2f0cb230$63bdf204@7k6rv21>

Jerry,

And we grow all these things (which are energy negative) using fossil fuels.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "jerry dycus" <jerry5335 at yahoo.com>
To: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:27 AM
Subject: [Gasification] Corn sugar from stalk is 16 % by weight

>
> Hi All,
> While reading Natural History mag 2-04 there
> was an article about the cultivation of corn, maize.
> It seem that for it's first 6500 yrs it was grown for
> it's stalk sugar content like sugar cane to make
> beer!!
> Only later did the cobs grow big enough, be
> good enough to eat.
> It said modern corn stalks have about 16% sugar
> by weight!
> So add another product to growing corn for
> energy.
> From 1 plant you get oil from the seed, ethanol
> from the seed and stalk, animal feed from the leftover
> mash, gasifier fuel from the leftover stalk, cobs and
> ashes for minerals to put back on the field.
> jerry dycus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
> http://messenger.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

 

From snkm at btl.net Tue Oct 26 16:55:41 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:55:41 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Corn sugar from stalk is 16 % by weight
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041026155522.00940bb0@pop.btl.net>

At 01:41 PM 10/26/2004 -0700, Art Krenzel wrote:
>Jerry,
>
>And we grow all these things (which are energy negative) using fossil fuels.
>
>Art Krenzel, P.E.
>PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES
>10505 NE 285TH Street
>Battle Ground, WA 98604
>360-666-1883 voice
>phoenix98604 at earthlink.net
>

Thanks for saving me have to post that "minor" little fact of agricultural
life in the US.

In my extensive hard drive archives I have a folder just on energy costs of
raising food crops in "modern" US of A --

It is simply unbelievable -- and certainly unsustainable!!

Ergo my quip about "subsidized" -- my advice -- don't start counting your
ethanol as fuel replacement just yet!!

Nat Gas closed at $9.38 mm btu today -- and it looks about to race right
over $10!!

I have files stating that agro chemicals are directly related to price of
Nat Gas as that is where most of it comes from!!

"Green Revolution" is the code name of a global effort pushed by the US and
totally endorsed by the United Nations to encourage (with force if
required) all nations to get with that program.

Namely -- meeting the ever present shortage of food supply by increasing
chemicals in agriculture.

As Rat can tell you -- and so can I -- but it is no a subject for this list
-- there is no need to go this route!!

Certainly -- it works well for making humongous profits for a handful of
multi-nationals that are controlling it all -- and certainly -- it is a
much easier life for farmers -- much less labor force required to --

course -- that is another Oxymoron -- here it be -- greater and greater
amounts of unemployment in productive infrastructure occupations -- and
america obsessed with labor saving in agriculture!!

Not to mention what these same chemicals are doing to the world's ecosystem
-- from a massive increase in disease in people consuming such foods -- to
total pollution of waters -- lands -- and even the air!!

Increase in diseases -- not just cancers (though certainly is a part) but
all kind of metabolic conditions are sky-rocketing -- like Diabetes.

Your are what you eat never had a truer meaning!!

So what was the prices of Nat Gas 2 years ago -- 1/5 of now -- or so??

You people living in these rich and fat and mentally lazy lands of the
North -- what -- some very rude awakenings to occur in your lives shortly.

and yes -- we here on the outside fulling understand your "ways -- like:

Full speed ahead -- damn the torpedoes.

Better dead than Red (or anything that interrupts Robber Baron Capitalism
should be fought to the point of no "returning" from)

Or like your bumper stickers put it:

You'll have to pry my cold dead fingers off the steering wheel before I
stop driving an SUV.

Well -- I now keep whistling this old tune:

The bigger they are -- the harder they fall!!

You all better learn about agriculture as it is presently "practiced"
before you go whistling ethanol!!

Believe it is something like 8 gallons of crude to grow one bushel of corn
these days. Tractor building costs -- tractor operational costs -- tires
for tractor -- chemicals to grow corn -- energy from oil to irrigate plants
-- delivery to market -- packaging. Remember -- Americans -- as example --
do not eat much corn -- they feed it to animals -- then eat those. So 15
pound of corn -- one pound of pig meat -- then more energy costs -- raising
pig -- butchering pig -- keeping meat cold -- packaging)

I'd love to stand corrected on that figure!! But a few real sharp engineers
on this list might be having a light or two popping on right about now.

What your all forgetting is in a totally energy dependent culture -- like
all your modern industrialized nations are -- energy shortage equates to
food insecurity.

Anyone that can even consider using food plants for fuel energy during a
food insecurity situation probably should be shot -- and probably will be
shot!!

That should also then fit the requisite conditions to stopping idiots from
driving SUV's as well.

But hey -- in real terms -- we all (all as in us living outside of your
machinery) know where this is heading -- one huge super nuclear holocaust!!

Any fuel derived from "food" that is energy intensive to grow -- and
producing much less energy out than in!! -- and in a society where a
looming food crisis situation is developing -- well -- I'll let you all
figure out words to describe that kind of suicidal foolishness.

Ya can't even stop your energy gluttony -- now you want to make energy fuels??

Snake eating it's own tail comes to mind!!

The world would be better off -- much more so -- if you took your nuclear
bombs and made atomic power plants fueled by these -- but that is no longer
politically acceptable --

Still -- the biggest laugh of all is when people suggest making fuel from
food crops is going to save the global oil shortage crisis -- my -- my -- my.

Peter -- in very little Belize! (Where we mostly get out winds From South
of Africa -- so bombs away -- eh??)

 

From snkm at btl.net Tue Oct 26 18:35:40 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:35:40 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Eating Oil
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041026165736.009ad370@pop.btl.net>

Hey guys -- wakey-wakey up time -- eh??

OK -- I'm sending to articles about "Eating Crude" -- they are long.

Not dead on topic about gasification either -- but something everyone in
the gasifier business should educate themselves a little in regards to.

Remember that Gasifier project where the man converts his tractor to
running on a gasifier -- well -- that would be but just the beginning!!

Certainly -- the fallacy that people in industrialized nations can raise
food crops -- as done at present -- to replace crude -- needs to be studied!!

Two articles -- but there are many more --

Peter -- In Belize!

***********************************

This article focuses on the UK -- not America.

America is not the problem -- really -- just one of the suckered-in places.

High-lighting:

"The vulnerability of our food system to sudden changes was demonstrated
during the fuel protests in 2000. A sharp increase in the price of oil or a
disruption in oil supplies would present a far more serious threat to food
security. Food production and distribution, as they are organized today,
would not be able to function."

This article is dated -- and in real terms now -- what he describes has
just happened!!

"NOT BE ABLE TO FUNCTION!!"

Wait for this election to be over -- then we'll see reality poke it's head up!

Certainly -- there will be no more talk about using food crops for energy
fuels!

*************************************************

http://resurgence.gn.apc.org/issues/jones216.htm

Agriculture : Andy Jones

EATING OIL

Food supply in a changing climate.

from Resurgence issue 216

EVERY TIME WE eat, we are all essentially 'eating oil'. Virtually all of
the processes in the modern food system are dependent upon this finite
resource. Moreover, at a time when we should be making massive cuts in
emissions of greenhouse gases in order to reduce the threat posed by
climate change, food supply chains are becoming more transport-intensive.
This results in increasing emissions to the point at which the food system
is a significant contributor to global warming.

One indicator of the unsustainability of the contemporary food system is
the ratio of energy outputs - the energy content of a food product
(calories) - to the energy inputs. The latter is all the energy consumed in
producing, processing, packaging and distributing that product. The energy
ratio (energy out/energy in) in agriculture has decreased from being close
to 100 for traditional pre-industrial societies to less than 1 for most of
the food products supplied to consumers in industrialised countries, as
energy inputs, mainly in the form of fossil fuels, have gradually increased.

In modern high input fruit and vegetable cultivation, the output/ input
ratio is between 2 and 0.1 (i.e. one calorie of food energy output requires
up to ten calories of energy input). For intensive beef production the
ratio is between 0.1 and 0.03, and may reach extreme values of 0.002 for
winter greenhouse vegetables. All of these ratios refer to the energy
consumed up to the farm gate and exclude processing, packaging and
distribution.

However, transport energy consumption is also significant, and if included
in these ratios would mean that the ratio would decrease further. For
example, when iceberg lettuce is imported to the uk from the usa by plane,
127 calories of energy (aviation fuel) are needed to transport 1 calorie of
lettuce across the Atlantic. If the energy consumed during lettuce
cultivation, packaging, refrigeration, distribution in the UK and shopping
by car were included, the energy needed would be even higher. Similarly,
ninety-seven calories of transport energy are needed to import one calorie
of asparagus by plane from Chile, and sixty-six units of energy are
consumed when flying one unit of carrot energy from South Africa.

The energy inefficiency of the food system can be highlighted by
'unravelling' supply chains for everyday food products. For example,
researchers at the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology have
analysed the processes involved in the manufacture of a bottle of tomato
ketchup. The study considered the production of inputs to agriculture,
tomato cultivation and conversion to tomato paste in Italy, the processing
and packaging of the paste and other ingredients into tomato ketchup in
Sweden, and the retail and storage of the final product. All this involved
more than fifty-two transport and process stages.

The aseptic bags used to package the tomato paste were produced in the
Netherlands and transported to Italy to be filled, placed in steel barrels,
then moved to Sweden. The five-layered red bottles were either produced in
the uk or Sweden with materials from Japan, Italy, Belgium, the usa and
Denmark. The screw-cap of the bottle and the plug were produced in Denmark
and transported to Sweden. Cardboard boxes which were used to distribute
the final product, and labels, glue and ink were not included in this
analysis.

Other transport stages associated with the production and supply of
fertilisers, pesticides, processing equipment, sugar, vinegar, spices and
salt and farm machinery were also excluded. Many of these are probably
imported and involve long-distance international transportation. Finally,
the product is likely to be purchased during a shopping trip taken by car.

Trade-related transportation has been estimated to account for one eighth
of world oil consumption and is expected to increase by 70% between 1992
and 2004, from 29 to 49 trillion tonne-kilometres. If this occurs, the
carbon dioxide emissions resulting from international trade will increase
from approximately 1.45 billion tonnes in 1992 to 2.45 billion tonnes in
2004. Transport associated with the food system is a significant part of
this story. One study has estimated that uk imports of food products and
animal feed involved transportation by sea, air and road amounting to over
83 billion tonne-kilometres. This required 1.6 billion litres of fuel and,
based on a conservative figure of 50 grammes of carbon dioxide per
tonne-kilometre, resulted in 4.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.

Food miles within the uk are also increasing, and almost all foodstuffs are
moved around the country by truck rather than by other, less
environmentally damaging modes, such as rail or barge. The amount of food
moved around the uk increased by 16% between 1978 and 1999, and the
distance this food travelled rose by 50%. It has been estimated that the
co2 emissions attributable to producing, processing, packaging and
distributing the food consumed by a family of four are about eight tonnes a
year.

It is not that this transportation is critical or necessary. In many cases
countries import and export similar quantities of the same food products.
For example, in 1997 126 million litres of liquid milk were imported into
the uk and at the same time 270 million litres of milk were exported from
the UK.

Is organic any different? The organic system is more energy-efficient to
the farm gate. One of the benefits of organic production is that energy
consumption and, therefore, fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions, are less than that in conventional systems. The improved energy
efficiency in organic systems is largely due to lower (or zero) fertiliser
and pesticide inputs. In the case of milk production it has been found that
organic systems are almost five times more energy-efficient on a per-animal
basis and three and a half times more energy-efficient in terms of unit
output (the energy required to produce a litre of milk).

So far, so good, but once past the farm gate things begin to go wrong.
Britain imports over three-quarters of its organic produce, and despite
consumer demand, only two per cent of its land is organically farmed. As
the market has grown it has been met by imports.

THE CONTEMPORARY FOOD system is inherently unsustainable. Indicators of
social, environmental and economic performance, such as food security,
greenhouse-gas emissions, food miles, lower farm incomes and biodiversity
loss highlight this fact.

This process could be reversed by re-establishing local and regional food
supply and substituting 'near for far' in production and distribution
systems. This would reduce both the demand for and the environmental
burdens associated with transportation. The proximity principle is a
straightforward concept in which products are sourced as near as possible
to the consumer. When applied to food supply, local food systems in the
form of home-delivery box schemes, farmers' markets and shops selling local
produce would replace imported and centrally distributed foodstuffs.

Taking uk food supply and trade at present, there is great potential to
apply the proximity principle. Apart from products such as bananas, coffee
and tea, many of the foodstuffs that are imported at present could be
produced in Britain. Many meat products, cereals, dairy products and
cooking oils are, or could be, available here throughout the year. So could
fruit and vegetables. The land currently used to produce food that is
exported could be used to increase uk food self-sufficiency.

There is growing evidence of the potential of local food systems to reduce
the transport-related environmental impacts associated with food supply. In
the case of organic produce, a survey of retailers compared local and
global sourcing of produce marketed in different outlets between June and
August 2001. Products were chosen that were available in the uk during
these months but are at present imported by the multiple retailers. These
included spring onions imported by plane from Mexico, potatoes imported by
road from Sicily, and onions imported by ship from New Zealand. It was
found that local sourcing through a farmers' market, for example, would
reduce the greenhouse-gas emissions associated with distribution by a
factor of 650 in the case of a farmers' market and more for box schemes and
farm-shop sales.

The value of UK food, feed and drink imports in 1999 was over ?17 billion.
A reduction in food imports would not only be of benefit to the UK economy
as a whole but could also be a major driver in rural regeneration as farm
incomes would increase substantially.

There are essentially three mechanisms through which the food system could
relocalise. These are:

a) Voluntary approaches by farmers, the food industry and consumers

Although many retailers now have a local sourcing policy and targets for
the percentage of food products sourced within the locality or region, the
targets that have been set are low. Asda, for example, aims to source two
per cent of food products locally. Even when supermarkets promote produce
as being local or regional, the food will probably have been transported a
considerable distance as a result of using regional distribution centres
and centralised processing. The economies of scale and centralised
distribution systems of the multiple retailers are not easily suited to
dealing with small-scale producers and direct deliveries to stores by local
farmers and processors. More can be done, especially if the economic
framework changes and there is more pressure from consumers. However, many
concerned consumers do not have the information with which they could make
an informed choice. Information could be improved through some form of
label that indicated the distance accumulated and the transport-related
environmental impact. Colour coding could also be applied. The organic
certifier Bio-Swiss already distinguishes between imported and national
produce on its labels.

Farm assurance schemes and organic certification bodies could introduce the
proximity principle into certification. The options for reducing
post-farm-gate transport by providing incentives through reduced
certification costs should now be considered.

Many restaurants, hotels and public houses now source ingredients locally.
This is often seen as a direct way to support local farmers and also
indicates the freshness and seasonality of the food on the menu. The
National Trust now has a policy of supplying its restaurants with local
food. This is a welcome move that could become more widespread.

b) Increases in environmental taxes

Another way to reduce the damaging effects of food miles is to increase the
costs of transportation so that the environmental damage (such as air
pollution and greenhouse-gas emissions) is accounted for. In Switzerland, a
Heavy Vehicle Fee (HVF) was introduced in January 2001. The HVF charges
heavy goods vehicles (over 3.5 tonnes) based on their gross weight,
kilometres driven and emissions.

In 1994, in the UK, The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution
recommended that fuel duty be increased every year so as to double the
price of fuel, relative to the prices of other goods, by 2005, which would
require a 9% annual increase in fuel duty. Successive UK governments
adopted increases in fuel duty until the fuel protests in 2000, following
which the fuel duty escalator was dropped.

It is assumed that increases in the costs of road transport will encourage
a shift to more environmentally benign modes of transport such as rail
freight, and public transport and home delivery in the case of shopping
trips that are currently made by car. In theory, if transport costs
continue to increase there will be a point at which existing distribution
systems become uneconomic and alternative distribution systems that are
more localised become a viable alternative. The most obvious gap in the
economic framework is the failure to tax aviation fuel.

At present most of these taxation measures are seen as being politically
unacceptable. Yet the introduction of some kind of fiscal or taxation
policy is likely to be required if sustainable food supply is to become a
reality. However, local food schemes will need to be developed at the same
time, or preferably beforehand, in order to provide an attractive and
viable alternative to transport-intensive food supply chains.

c) Policy and fiscal support for local foods

Developing a sustainable food system should be a key policy objective for
central government, local government and regional development agencies. For
instance, the initiative recently announced to provide "one piece of fruit
per schoolchild" offers an ideal opportunity for the government to show its
commitment to the development of a local food system. Ambitious targets
could be set to meet this increased demand in fresh fruit locally.

Funds available at local, regional, national and European level should be
directed to support the development of sustainable local and regional
food-distribution systems. Specifically, there should be an increase in
siphoning off cap (Common Agricultural Policy) production subsidies into
support for sustainable farming and regional food economies. Regional
Development Agencies could also play an important role in developing
regional food systems through grant allocation, technical support and
marketing advice. All regional development plans should include local food
economy targets.

Direct support for the expansion of local food systems could come in the
form of targets set for the procurement of local food by schools, hospitals
and publicly-run catering facilities. The targets could be modest to begin
with, which would allow local food producers to adapt to the new
circumstances. Another mechanism that could be used is inducement through
the tax system, so that the rates paid by businesses such as hotels,
restaurants and caterers would be reduced if a certain percentage of their
food were supplied locally or regionally. The introduction of practical and
classroom-based education about food, farming and sustainable development
in the National Curriculum would also help to raise awareness and
understanding.

A FOOD SYSTEM is not sustainable if it relies almost completely on one
finite energy source - namely fossil fuel - that causes enormous levels of
pollution during its production, distribution and use. Although food
supplies in wealthy countries such as the UK appear to be secure, and
choice, in terms of thousands of food products being available at
supermarkets, seems limitless, this is an illusion.

The vulnerability of our food system to sudden changes was demonstrated
during the fuel protests in 2000. A sharp increase in the price of oil or a
disruption in oil supplies would present a far more serious threat to food
security. Food production and distribution, as they are organised today,
would not be able to function. Considering the situation in the Middle
East, where most oil originates and reserves lie, governments cannot
continue to ignore the dangers associated with our addiction to crude oil.
To live in a sustainable and secure world this dependency must end.

The food system is now a significant contributor to climate change.
Reducing the carbon dioxide emissions from food production, processing and
distribution by minimising the distance between producer and consumer
should be a critical part of any strategy to mitigate global warming.

The priority must be the development of local and regional food systems,
preferably organically based, in which a large percentage of demand is met
within the locality or region. This approach, combined with fair trade,
will ensure secure food supplies, minimise fossil fuel consumption and
reduce the vulnerability associated with a dependency on food exports and
imports. Policies must now be implemented to achieve this goal even if
previous agreements have to be rewritten. o

Extracts from a report, Eating Oil: Food Supply in a Changing Climate,
priced ?12 from Elm Farm Research Centre on 01488 658298. vanessa.g at efrc.com

Andy Jones worked at Sustain in 2001 as project officer on the Food and
Fuel project. He is now based at the Stockholm Environment Institute at the
University of York.

from Resurgence issue 216Subscribe to Resurgence

 

From snkm at btl.net Tue Oct 26 18:35:45 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:35:45 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] The Oil We Eat
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041026173525.009b0100@pop.btl.net>

Second part -- and the very last you'll hear from me on this subject --

But I have a humongous paper presented by the Natural Gas industry to
president GWB from three years ago on this very subject -- which -- of
course -- was then totally ignored.

That paper goes into complete detail -- by far -- than these two mass media
pieces.

Anyway -- time to come out of the woods -- from looking at trees -- cross
that field -- climb that mountain -- and see the forest!

Test question:

What is?? "primary productivity"

A catchy turn of words:

Farming is the process of ripping that niche open again and again. It is
an annual artificial catastrophe, and it requires the equivalent of three
or four tons of TNT per acre for a modern American farm. Iowa's fields
require the energy of 4,000 Nagasaki bombs every year.

Peter (whistle blower) in Belize

******************************

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

Title: THE OIL WE EAT , By: Manning, Richard, Harper's Magazine,
0017789X, Feb2004, Vol. 308, Issue 1845
Database: MAS Ultra - School Edition

***************snipped********************

It is an extremely well written article and a very good read -- advise you
all do -- just for some "perspective -- like seeing forest -- instead of
individual "tree".

But far to long to post -- so just some "meat" --

***************snipped**************************

It appears, however, that the corn cycle is about to
come full circle. If a bipartisan coalition of farm-state lawmakers has
their way--and it appears they will--we will soon buy gasoline containing
twice as much fuel alcohol as it does now. Fuel alcohol already ranks
second as a use for processed corn in the United States, just behind corn
sweeteners. According to one set of calculations, we spend more calories
of fossil-fuel energy making ethanol than we gain from it. The Department
of Agriculture says the ratio is closer to a gallon and a quart of ethanol
for every gallon of fossil fuel we invest.

(My note here -- even with boosting the compression ratio to increase
efficiency when burning ethanol -- you are not ever going to do better "gas
milage" than 1 gallon of pure ethanol = 2/3 of a gallon of gasoline!! So it
is a negative factor -- and as the man goes on to point out -- at great
environmental costs!!)

The USDA calls this a bargain,
because gasohol is a "clean fuel." This claim to cleanness is in dispute
at the tailpipe level, and it certainly ignores the dead zone in the Gulf
of Mexico, pesticide pollution, and the haze of global gases gathering
over every farm field. Nor does this claim cover clean conscience; some
still might be unsettled knowing that our SUVs' demands for fuel compete
with the poor's demand for grain.

***********and******************

 

This is the end result of a
factory-farm system that appears as a living, continental-scale monument
to Rube Goldberg, a black-mass remake of the loaves-and-fishes miracle.
Prairie's productivity is lost for grain, grain's productivity is lost in
livestock, livestock's protein is lost to human fat--all federally
subsidized for about $15 billion a year, two thirds of which goes directly
to only two crops, corn and wheat.

*************************

So Steve -- make fuel from corn and sugar cane and happy days are here
again -- eh??

And folks -- do read the entire article -- you'll understand much better
why people like myself figure we have no options bu to watch you great
industrialized natuion -- practicing the Green Revolution -- nuke
yourselves over food!

**************************

Definition of "Green Revolution"

The precolonial famines of Europe raised the question: What would happen
when the planet's supply of arable land ran out? We have a clear answer.
In about 1960 expansion hit its limits and the supply of unfarmed, arable
lands came to an end. There was nothing left to plow. What happened was
grain yields tripled.

The accepted term for this strange turn of events is the green revolution,
though it would be more properly labeled the amber revolution, because it
applied exclusively to grain--wheat, rice, and corn. Plant breeders
tinkered with the architecture of these three grains so that they could be
hypercharged with irrigation water and chemical fertilizers, especially
nitrogen. This innovation meshed nicely with the increased "efficiency" of
the industrialized factory-farm system. With the possible exception of the
domestication of wheat, the green revolution is the worst thing that has
ever happened to the planet.

For openers, it disrupted long-standing patterns of rural life worldwide,
moving a lot of no-longer-needed people off the land and into the world's
most severe poverty. The experience in population control in the
developing world is by now clear: It is not that people make more people
so much as it is that they make more poor people. In the forty-year period
beginning about 1960, the world's population doubled, adding virtually the
entire increase of 3 billion to the world's poorest classes, the most
fecund classes. The way in which the green revolution raised that grain
contributed hugely to the population boom, and it is the weight of the
population that leaves humanity in its present untenable position.

Discussion of these, the most poor, however, is largely irrelevant to the
American situation. We say we have poor people here, but almost no one in
this country lives on less than one dollar a day, the global benchmark for
poverty. It marks off a class of about 1.3 billion people, the hard core
of the larger group of 2 billion chronically malnourished people--that is,
one third of humanity. We may forget about them, as most Americans do.

More relevant here are the methods of the green revolution, which added
orders of magnitude to the devastation. By mining the iron for tractors,
drilling the new oil to fuel them and to make nitrogen fertilizers, and by
taking the water that rain and rivers had meant for other lands, farming
had extended its boundaries, its dominion, to lands that were not
farmable. At the same time, it extended its boundaries across time,
tapping fossil energy, stripping past assets.

The common assumption these days is that we muster our weapons to secure
oil, not food. There's a little joke in this. Ever since we ran out of
arable land, food is oil. Every single calorie we eat is backed by at
least a calorie of oil, more like ten. In 1940 the average farm in the
United States produced 2.3 calories of food energy for every calorie of
fossil energy it used. By 1974 (the last year in which anyone looked
closely at this issue), that ratio was 1:1. And this understates the
problem, because at the same time that there is more oil in our food there
is less oil in our oil. A couple of generations ago we spent a lot less
energy drilling, pumping, and distributing than we do now. In the 1940s we
got about 100 barrels of oil back for every barrel of oil we spent getting
it. Today each barrel invested in the process returns only ten, a
calculation that no doubt fails to include the fuel burned by the Hummers
and Blackhawks we use to maintain access to the oil in Iraq.

David Pimentel, an expert on food and energy at Cornell University, has
estimated that if all of the world ate the way the United States eats,
humanity would exhaust all known global fossil-fuel reserves in just over
seven years. Pimentel has his detractors. Some have accused him of being
off on other calculations by as much as 30 percent. Fine. Make it ten
years.

**************************************

Every which way but loose -- eh guys??

 

From snkm at btl.net Tue Oct 26 20:04:37 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:04:37 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Eating fossil fuels
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041026181720.009a45a0@pop.btl.net>

They took this article off the WWW -- but you can still get it at Google
Archives.

I know -- I promised -- but this is the more technical -- and the latest --

The "meat":

All told, Dale Allen Pfeiffer's research and reporting confirms the worst
of FTW's suspicions about the consequences of Peak Oil, and it poses
serious questions about what to do next. Not the least of these is why, in
a presidential election year, none of the candidates has even acknowledged
the problem. Thus far, it is clear that solutions for these questions,
perhaps the most important ones facing mankind, will by necessity be found
by private individuals and communities, independently of outside or
governmental help. Whether the real search for answers comes now, or as the
crisis becomes unavoidable, depends solely on us. ? MCR]

By the way -- when your suggesting using corn for ethanol -- consider this
factoid!

"The production of 1 pound of maize requires 1,400 pounds (or 175 gallons)
of water.29"

I do not regard this as a practical solution for declining fossil fuels!!

Peter -- Sitting in Belize -- and happy to be here -- not there!

*********on with it then*************

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:T5tfMAi5XmMJ:tinyurl.com/yuwdz+eating+o
il&hl=en&lr=lang_en

Note -- most of the references cited and listed at the end of article are
"linked" at the WWW site.

[ Note: The most frightening article FTW has ever published is now a free
story for all to read. Our paid subscribers read it last October. As Peak
Oil and its effects become a raging national controversy it's time everyone
reads the story that puts the most serious implications of Peak Oil and Gas
into perspective. Your biggest problem is not that your SUV might go
hungry, it's that you and your children might go hungry. What has been
documented here is no secret to US and foreign policy makers as China
experiences grain shortages this year and, as CNN's Lou Dobbs recently
reported, the US and Canada will soon no longer be the world's breadbasket.
- MCR ]

Eating Fossil Fuels

by Dale Allen Pfeiffer

2004

[Some months ago, concerned by a Paris statement made by Professor Kenneth
Deffeyes of Princeton regarding his concern about the impact of Peak Oil
and Gas on fertilizer production, I tasked FTW's Contributing Editor for
Energy, Dale Allen Pfeiffer to start looking into what natural gas
shortages would do to fertilizer production costs. His investigation led
him to look at the totality of food production in the US. Because the US
and Canada feed much of the world, the answers have global implications.

What follows is most certainly the single most frightening article I have
ever read and certainly the most alarming piece that FTW has ever
published. Even as we have seen CNN, Britain's Independent and Jane's
Defence Weekly acknowledge the reality of Peak Oil and Gas within the last
week, acknowledging that world oil and gas reserves are as much as 80% less
than predicted, we are also seeing how little real thinking has been
devoted to the host of crises certain to follow; at least in terms of
publicly accessible thinking.

The following article is so serious in its implications that I have taken
the unusual step of underlining some of its key findings. I did that with
the intent that the reader treat each underlined passage as a separate and
incredibly important fact. Each one of these facts should be read and
digested separately to assimilate its importance. I found myself reading
one fact and then getting up and walking away until I could come back and
(un)comfortably read to the next.

All told, Dale Allen Pfeiffer's research and reporting confirms the worst
of FTW's suspicions about the consequences of Peak Oil, and it poses
serious questions about what to do next. Not the least of these is why, in
a presidential election year, none of the candidates has even acknowledged
the problem. Thus far, it is clear that solutions for these questions,
perhaps the most important ones facing mankind, will by necessity be found
by private individuals and communities, independently of outside or
governmental help. Whether the real search for answers comes now, or as the
crisis becomes unavoidable, depends solely on us. ? MCR]

October 3 , 2003, 1200 PDT, (FTW) -- Human beings (like all other animals)
draw their energy from the food they eat. Until the last century, all of
the food energy available on this planet was derived from the sun through
photosynthesis. Either you ate plants or you ate animals that fed on
plants, but the energy in your food was ultimately derived from the sun.

It would have been absurd to think that we would one day run out of
sunshine. No, sunshine was an abundant, renewable resource, and the process
of photosynthesis fed all life on this planet. It also set a limit on the
amount of food that could be generated at any one time, and therefore
placed a limit upon population growth. Solar energy has a limited rate of
flow into this planet. To increase your food production, you had to
increase the acreage under cultivation, and displace your competitors.
There was no other way to increase the amount of energy available for food
production. Human population grew by displacing everything else and
appropriating more and more of the available solar energy.

The need to expand agricultural production was one of the motive causes
behind most of the wars in recorded history, along with expansion of the
energy base (and agricultural production is truly an essential portion of
the energy base). And when Europeans could no longer expand cultivation,
they began the task of conquering the world. Explorers were followed by
conquistadors and traders and settlers. The declared reasons for expansion
may have been trade, avarice, empire or simply curiosity, but at its base,
it was all about the expansion of agricultural productivity. Wherever
explorers and conquistadors traveled, they may have carried off loot, but
they left plantations. And settlers toiled to clear land and establish
their own homestead. This conquest and expansion went on until there was no
place left for further expansion. Certainly, to this day, landowners and
farmers fight to claim still more land for agricultural productivity, but
they are fighting over crumbs. Today, virtually all of the productive land
on this planet is being exploited by agriculture. What remains unused is
too steep, too wet, too dry or lacking in soil nutrients.1

Just when agricultural output could expand no more by increasing acreage,
new innovations made possible a more thorough exploitation of the acreage
already available. The process of ?pest? displacement and appropriation for
agriculture accelerated with the industrial revolution as the mechanization
of agriculture hastened the clearing and tilling of land and augmented the
amount of farmland which could be tended by one person. With every increase
in food production, the human population grew apace.

At present, nearly 40% of all land-based photosynthetic capability has been
appropriated by human beings.2 In the United States we divert more than
half of the energy captured by photosynthesis.3 We have taken over all the
prime real estate on this planet. The rest of nature is forced to make due
with what is left. Plainly, this is one of the major factors in species
extinctions and in ecosystem stress.

The Green Revolution

In the 1950s and 1960s, agriculture underwent a drastic transformation
commonly referred to as the Green Revolution. The Green Revolution resulted
in the industrialization of agriculture. Part of the advance resulted from
new hybrid food plants, leading to more productive food crops. Between 1950
and 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture around the globe,
world grain production increased by 250%.4 That is a tremendous increase in
the amount of food energy available for human consumption. This additional
energy did not come from an increase in incipient sunlight, nor did it
result from introducing agriculture to new vistas of land. The energy for
the Green Revolution was provided by fossil fuels in the form of
fertilizers (natural gas), pesticides (oil), and hydrocarbon fueled
irrigation.

The Green Revolution increased the energy flow to agriculture by an average
of 50 times the energy input of traditional agriculture.5 In the most
extreme cases, energy consumption by agriculture has increased 100 fold or
more.6

In the United States, 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually
to feed each American (as of data provided in 1994).7 Agricultural energy
consumption is broken down as follows:

? 31% for the manufacture of inorganic fertilizer

? 19% for the operation of field machinery

? 16% for transportation

? 13% for irrigation

? 08% for raising livestock (not including livestock feed)

? 05% for crop drying

? 05% for pesticide production

? 08% miscellaneous8

Energy costs for packaging, refrigeration, transportation to retail
outlets, and household cooking are not considered in these figures.

To give the reader an idea of the energy intensiveness of modern
agriculture, production of one kilogram of nitrogen for fertilizer requires
the energy equivalent of from 1.4 to 1.8 liters of diesel fuel. This is not
considering the natural gas feedstock.9 According to The Fertilizer
Institute (http://www.tfi.org), in the year from June 30 2001 until June 30
2002 the United States used 12,009,300 short tons of nitrogen fertilizer.10
Using the low figure of 1.4 liters diesel equivalent per kilogram of
nitrogen, this equates to the energy content of 15.3 billion liters of
diesel fuel, or 96.2 million barrels.

Of course, this is only a rough comparison to aid comprehension of the
energy requirements for modern agriculture.

In a very real sense, we are literally eating fossil fuels. However, due to
the laws of thermodynamics, there is not a direct correspondence between
energy inflow and outflow in agriculture. Along the way, there is a marked
energy loss. Between 1945 and 1994, energy input to agriculture increased
4-fold while crop yields only increased 3-fold.11 Since then, energy input
has continued to increase without a corresponding increase in crop yield.
We have reached the point of marginal returns. Yet, due to soil
degradation, increased demands of pest management and increasing energy
costs for irrigation (all of which is examined below), modern agriculture
must continue increasing its energy expenditures simply to maintain current
crop yields. The Green Revolution is becoming bankrupt.

Fossil Fuel Costs

Solar energy is a renewable resource limited only by the inflow rate from
the sun to the earth. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, are a stock-type
resource that can be exploited at a nearly limitless rate. However, on a
human timescale, fossil fuels are nonrenewable. They represent a planetary
energy deposit which we can draw from at any rate we wish, but which will
eventually be exhausted without renewal. The Green Revolution tapped into
this energy deposit and used it to increase agricultural production.

Total fossil fuel use in the United States has increased 20-fold in the
last 4 decades. In the US, we consume 20 to 30 times more fossil fuel
energy per capita than people in developing nations. Agriculture directly
accounts for 17% of all the energy used in this country.12 As of 1990, we
were using approximately 1,000 liters (6.41 barrels) of oil to produce food
of one hectare of land.13

In 1994, David Pimentel and Mario Giampietro estimated the output/input
ratio of agriculture to be around 1.4.14 For 0.7 Kilogram-Calories (kcal)
of fossil energy consumed, U.S. agriculture produced 1 kcal of food. The
input figure for this ratio was based on FAO (Food and Agriculture
Organization of the UN) statistics, which consider only fertilizers
(without including fertilizer feedstock), irrigation, pesticides (without
including pesticide feedstock), and machinery and fuel for field
operations. Other agricultural energy inputs not considered were energy and
machinery for drying crops, transportation for inputs and outputs to and
from the farm, electricity, and construction and maintenance of farm
buildings and infrastructures. Adding in estimates for these energy costs
brought the input/output energy ratio down to 1.15 Yet this does not
include the energy expense of packaging, delivery to retail outlets,
refrigeration or household cooking.

In a subsequent study completed later that same year (1994), Giampietro and
Pimentel managed to derive a more accurate ratio of the net fossil fuel
energy ratio of agriculture.16 In this study, the authors defined two
separate forms of energy input: Endosomatic energy and Exosomatic energy.
Endosomatic energy is generated through the metabolic transformation of
food energy into muscle energy in the human body. Exosomatic energy is
generated by transforming energy outside of the human body, such as burning
gasoline in a tractor. This assessment allowed the authors to look at
fossil fuel input alone and in ratio to other inputs.

Prior to the industrial revolution, virtually 100% of both endosomatic and
exosomatic energy was solar driven. Fossil fuels now represent 90% of the
exosomatic energy used in the United States and other developed
countries.17 The typical exo/endo ratio of pre-industrial, solar powered
societies is about 4 to 1. The ratio has changed tenfold in developed
countries, climbing to 40 to 1. And in the United States it is more than 90
to 1.18 The nature of the way we use endosomatic energy has changed as well.

The vast majority of endosomatic energy is no longer expended to deliver
power for direct economic processes. Now the majority of endosomatic energy
is utilized to generate the flow of information directing the flow of
exosomatic energy driving machines. Considering the 90/1 exo/endo ratio in
the United States, each endosomatic kcal of energy expended in the US
induces the circulation of 90 kcal of exosomatic energy. As an example, a
small gasoline engine can convert the 38,000 kcal in one gallon of gasoline
into 8.8 KWh (Kilowatt hours), which equates to about 3 weeks of work for
one human being.19

In their refined study, Giampietro and Pimentel found that 10 kcal of
exosomatic energy are required to produce 1 kcal of food delivered to the
consumer in the U.S. food system. This includes packaging and all delivery
expenses, but excludes household cooking).20 The U.S. food system consumes
ten times more energy than it produces in food energy. This disparity is
made possible by nonrenewable fossil fuel stocks.

Assuming a figure of 2,500 kcal per capita for the daily diet in the United
States, the 10/1 ratio translates into a cost of 35,000 kcal of exosomatic
energy per capita each day. However, considering that the average return on
one hour of endosomatic labor in the U.S. is about 100,000 kcal of
exosomatic energy, the flow of exosomatic energy required to supply the
daily diet is achieved in only 20 minutes of labor in our current system.
Unfortunately, if you remove fossil fuels from the equation, the daily diet
will require 111 hours of endosomatic labor per capita; that is, the
current U.S. daily diet would require nearly three weeks of labor per
capita to produce.

Quite plainly, as fossil fuel production begins to decline within the next
decade, there will be less energy available for the production of food.

Soil, Cropland and Water

Modern intensive agriculture is unsustainable. Technologically-enhanced
agriculture has augmented soil erosion, polluted and overdrawn groundwater
and surface water, and even (largely due to increased pesticide use) caused
serious public health and environmental problems. Soil erosion, overtaxed
cropland and water resource overdraft in turn lead to even greater use of
fossil fuels and hydrocarbon products. More hydrocarbon-based fertilizers
must be applied, along with more pesticides; irrigation water requires more
energy to pump; and fossil fuels are used to process polluted water.

It takes 500 years to replace 1 inch of topsoil.21 In a natural
environment, topsoil is built up by decaying plant matter and weathering
rock, and it is protected from erosion by growing plants. In soil made
susceptible by agriculture, erosion is reducing productivity up to 65% each
year.22 Former prairie lands, which constitute the bread basket of the
United States, have lost one half of their topsoil after farming for about
100 years. This soil is eroding 30 times faster than the natural formation
rate.23 Food crops are much hungrier than the natural grasses that once
covered the Great Plains. As a result, the remaining topsoil is
increasingly depleted of nutrients. Soil erosion and mineral depletion
removes about $20 billion worth of plant nutrients from U.S. agricultural
soils every year.24 Much of the soil in the Great Plains is little more
than a sponge into which we must pour hydrocarbon-based fertilizers in
order to produce crops.

Every year in the U.S., more than 2 million acres of cropland are lost to
erosion, salinization and water logging. On top of this, urbanization, road
building, and industry claim another 1 million acres annually from
farmland.24 Approximately three-quarters of the land area in the United
States is devoted to agriculture and commercial forestry.25 The expanding
human population is putting increasing pressure on land availability.
Incidentally, only a small portion of U.S. land area remains available for
the solar energy technologies necessary to support a solar energy-based
economy. The land area for harvesting biomass is likewise limited. For this
reason, the development of solar energy or biomass must be at the expense
of agriculture.

Modern agriculture also places a strain on our water resources. Agriculture
consumes fully 85% of all U.S. freshwater resources.26 Overdraft is
occurring from many surface water resources, especially in the west and
south. The typical example is the Colorado River, which is diverted to a
trickle by the time it reaches the Pacific. Yet surface water only supplies
60% of the water used in irrigation. The remainder, and in some places the
majority of water for irrigation, comes from ground water aquifers. Ground
water is recharged slowly by the percolation of rainwater through the
earth's crust. Less than 0.1% of the stored ground water mined annually is
replaced by rainfall.27 The great Ogallala aquifer that supplies
agriculture, industry and home use in much of the southern and central
plains states has an annual overdraft up to 160% above its recharge rate.
The Ogallala aquifer will become unproductive in a matter of decades.28

We can illustrate the demand that modern agriculture places on water
resources by looking at a farmland producing corn. A corn crop that
produces 118 bushels/acre/year requires more than 500,000 gallons/acre of
water during the growing season. The production of 1 pound of maize
requires 1,400 pounds (or 175 gallons) of water.29 Unless something is done
to lower these consumption rates, modern agriculture will help to propel
the United States into a water crisis.

In the last two decades, the use of hydrocarbon-based pesticides in the
U.S. has increased 33-fold, yet each year we lose more crops to pests.30
This is the result of the abandonment of traditional crop rotation
practices. Nearly 50% of U.S. corn land is grown continuously as a
monoculture.31 This results in an increase in corn pests, which in turn
requires the use of more pesticides. Pesticide use on corn crops had
increased 1,000-fold even before the introduction of genetically
engineered, pesticide resistant corn. However, corn losses have still risen
4-fold.32

Modern intensive agriculture is unsustainable. It is damaging the land,
draining water supplies and polluting the environment. And all of this
requires more and more fossil fuel input to pump irrigation water, to
replace nutrients, to provide pest protection, to remediate the environment
and simply to hold crop production at a constant. Yet this necessary fossil
fuel input is going to crash headlong into declining fossil fuel production.

US Consumption

In the United States, each person consumes an average of 2,175 pounds of
food per person per year. This provides the U.S. consumer with an average
daily energy intake of 3,600 Calories. The world average is 2,700 Calories
per day.33 Fully 19% of the U.S. caloric intake comes from fast food. Fast
food accounts for 34% of the total food consumption for the average U.S.
citizen. The average citizen dines out for one meal out of four.34

One third of the caloric intake of the average American comes from animal
sources (including dairy products), totaling 800 pounds per person per
year. This diet means that U.S. citizens derive 40% of their calories from
fat-nearly half of their diet. 35

Americans are also grand consumers of water. As of one decade ago,
Americans were consuming 1,450 gallons/day/capita (g/d/c), with the largest
amount expended on agriculture. Allowing for projected population increase,
consumption by 2050 is projected at 700 g/d/c, which hydrologists consider
to be minimal for human needs.36 This is without taking into consideration
declining fossil fuel production.

To provide all of this food requires the application of 0.6 million metric
tons of pesticides in North America per year. This is over one fifth of the
total annual world pesticide use, estimated at 2.5 million tons.37
Worldwide, more nitrogen fertilizer is used per year than can be supplied
through natural sources. Likewise, water is pumped out of underground
aquifers at a much higher rate than it is recharged. And stocks of
important minerals, such as phosphorus and potassium, are quickly
approaching exhaustion.38

Total U.S. energy consumption is more than three times the amount of solar
energy harvested as crop and forest products. The United States consumes
40% more energy annually than the total amount of solar energy captured
yearly by all U.S. plant biomass. Per capita use of fossil energy in North
America is five times the world average.39

Our prosperity is built on the principal of exhausting the world's
resources as quickly as possible, without any thought to our neighbors, all
the other life on this planet, or our children.

Population & Sustainability

Considering a growth rate of 1.1% per year, the U.S. population is
projected to double by 2050. As the population expands, an estimated one
acre of land will be lost for every person added to the U.S. population.
Currently, there are 1.8 acres of farmland available to grow food for each
U.S. citizen. By 2050, this will decrease to 0.6 acres. 1.2 acres per
person is required in order to maintain current dietary standards.40

Presently, only two nations on the planet are major exporters of grain: the
United States and Canada.41 By 2025, it is expected that the U.S. will
cease to be a food exporter due to domestic demand. The impact on the U.S.
economy could be devastating, as food exports earn $40 billion for the U.S.
annually. More importantly, millions of people around the world could
starve to death without U.S. food exports.42

Domestically, 34.6 million people are living in poverty as of 2002 census
data.43 And this number is continuing to grow at an alarming rate. Too many
of these people do not have a sufficient diet. As the situation worsens,
this number will increase and the United States will witness growing
numbers of starvation fatalities.

There are some things that we can do to at least alleviate this tragedy. It
is suggested that streamlining agriculture to get rid of losses, waste and
mismanagement might cut the energy inputs for food production by up to
one-half.35 In place of fossil fuel-based fertilizers, we could utilize
livestock manures that are now wasted. It is estimated that livestock
manures contain 5 times the amount of fertilizer currently used each
year.36 Perhaps most effective would be to eliminate meat from our diet
altogether.37

Mario Giampietro and David Pimentel postulate that a sustainable food
system is possible only if four conditions are met:

1. Environmentally sound agricultural technologies must be implemented.

2. Renewable energy technologies must be put into place.

3. Major increases in energy efficiency must reduce exosomatic energy
consumption per capita.

4. Population size and consumption must be compatible with maintaining
the stability of environmental processes.38

Providing that the first three conditions are met, with a reduction to less
than half of the exosomatic energy consumption per capita, the authors
place the maximum population for a sustainable economy at 200 million.39
Several other studies have produced figures within this ballpark (Energy
and Population, Werbos, Paul J. http://www.dieoff.com/page63.htm; Impact of
Population Growth on Food Supplies and Environment, Pimentel, David, et al.
http://www.dieoff.com/page57.htm).

Given that the current U.S. population is in excess of 292 million, 40 that
would mean a reduction of 92 million. To achieve a sustainable economy and
avert disaster, the United States must reduce its population by at least
one-third. The black plague during the 14th Century claimed approximately
one-third of the European population (and more than half of the Asian and
Indian populations), plunging the continent into a darkness from which it
took them nearly two centuries to emerge.41

None of this research considers the impact of declining fossil fuel
production. The authors of all of these studies believe that the mentioned
agricultural crisis will only begin to impact us after 2020, and will not
become critical until 2050. The current peaking of global oil production
(and subsequent decline of production), along with the peak of North
American natural gas production will very likely precipitate this
agricultural crisis much sooner than expected. Quite possibly, a U.S.
population reduction of one-third will not be effective for sustainability;
the necessary reduction might be in excess of one-half. And, for
sustainability, global population will have to be reduced from the current
6.32 billion people42 to 2 billion-a reduction of 68% or over two-thirds.
The end of this decade could see spiraling food prices without relief. And
the coming decade could see massive starvation on a global level such as
never experienced before by the human race.

Three Choices

Considering the utter necessity of population reduction, there are three
obvious choices awaiting us.

We can-as a society-become aware of our dilemma and consciously make the
choice not to add more people to our population. This would be the most
welcome of our three options, to choose consciously and with free will to
responsibly lower our population. However, this flies in the face of our
biological imperative to procreate. It is further complicated by the
ability of modern medicine to extend our longevity, and by the refusal of
the Religious Right to consider issues of population management. And then,
there is a strong business lobby to maintain a high immigration rate in
order to hold down the cost of labor. Though this is probably our best
choice, it is the option least likely to be chosen.

Failing to responsibly lower our population, we can force population cuts
through government regulations. Is there any need to mention how
distasteful this option would be? How many of us would choose to live in a
world of forced sterilization and population quotas enforced under penalty
of law? How easily might this lead to a culling of the population utilizing
principles of eugenics?

This leaves the third choice, which itself presents an unspeakable picture
of suffering and death. Should we fail to acknowledge this coming crisis
and determine to deal with it, we will be faced with a die-off from which
civilization may very possibly never revive. We will very likely lose more
than the numbers necessary for sustainability. Under a die-off scenario,
conditions will deteriorate so badly that the surviving human population
would be a negligible fraction of the present population. And those
survivors would suffer from the trauma of living through the death of their
civilization, their neighbors, their friends and their families. Those
survivors will have seen their world crushed into nothing.

The questions we must ask ourselves now are, how can we allow this to
happen, and what can we do to prevent it? Does our present lifestyle mean
so much to us that we would subject ourselves and our children to this fast
approaching tragedy simply for a few more years of conspicuous consumption?

Author's Note

This is possibly the most important article I have written to date. It is
certainly the most frightening, and the conclusion is the bleakest I have
ever penned. This article is likely to greatly disturb the reader; it has
certainly disturbed me. However, it is important for our future that this
paper should be read, acknowledged and discussed.

I am by nature positive and optimistic. In spite of this article, I
continue to believe that we can find a positive solution to the multiple
crises bearing down upon us. Though this article may provoke a flood of
hate mail, it is simply a factual report of data and the obvious
conclusions that follow from it.

-----

ENDNOTES

1 Availability of agricultural land for crop and livestock production,
Buringh, P. Food and Natural Resources, Pimentel. D. and Hall. C.W. (eds),
Academic Press, 1989.

2 Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis, Vitousek, P.M. et
al. Bioscience 36, 1986. http://www.science.duq.edu/esm/unit2-3

3 Land, Energy and Water: the constraints governing Ideal US Population
Size, Pimental, David and Pimentel, Marcia. Focus, Spring 1991. NPG Forum,
1990. http://www.dieoff.com/page136.htm

4 Constraints on the Expansion of Global Food Supply, Kindell, Henry H. and
Pimentel, David. Ambio Vol. 23 No. 3, May 1994. The Royal Swedish Academy
of Sciences. http://www.dieoff.com/page36htm

5 The Tightening Conflict: Population, Energy Use, and the Ecology of
Agriculture, Giampietro, Mario and Pimentel, David, 1994.
http://www.dieoff.com/page69.htm

6 Op. Cit. See note 4.

7 Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy, Pimentel, David and
Giampietro, Mario. Carrying Capacity Network, 11/21/1994.
http://www.dieoff.com/page55.htm

8 Comparison of energy inputs for inorganic fertilizer and manure based
corn production, McLaughlin, N.B., et al. Canadian Agricultural
Engineering, Vol. 42, No. 1, 2000.

9 Ibid.

10 US Fertilizer Use Statistics. http://www.tfi.org/Statistics/USfertuse2.asp

11 Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy, Executive Summary,
Pimentel, David and Giampietro, Mario. Carrying Capacity Network,
11/21/1994. http://www.dieoff.com/page40.htm

12 Ibid.

13 Op. Cit. See note 3.

14 Op. Cit. See note 7.

15 Ibid.

16 Op. Cit. See note 5.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid.

21 Op. Cit. See note 11.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid.

24 Ibid.

25 Op Cit. See note 3.

26 Op Cit. See note 11.

27 Ibid.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid.

30 Op. Cit. See note 3.

31 Op. Cit. See note 5.

32 Op. Cit. See note 3.

33 Op. Cit. See note 11.

34 Food Consumption and Access, Lynn Brantley, et al. Capital Area Food
Bank, 6/1/2001. http://www.clagettfarm.org/purchasing.html

35 Op. Cit. See note 11.

36 Ibid.

37 Op. Cit. See note 5.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid.

40 Op. Cit. See note 11.

41 Op. Cit. See note 4.

42 Op. Cit. See note 11.

43 Poverty 2002. The U.S. Census Bureau.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty02/pov02hi.html

35 Op. Cit. See note 3.

36 Ibid.

37 Diet for a Small Planet, Lapp?, Frances Moore. Ballantine Books,
1971-revised 1991. http://www.dietforasmallplanet.com/

38 Op. Cit. See note 5.

39 Ibid.

40 U.S. and World Population Clocks. U.S. Census Bureau.
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

41 A Distant Mirror, Tuckman Barbara. Ballantine Books, 1978.

42 Op. Cit. See note 40.

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

 

From jerry5335 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 20:41:45 2004
From: jerry5335 at yahoo.com (jerry dycus)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gasification] Energy Farms, The Oil We Eat
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20041026173525.009b0100@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <20041027014145.17691.qmail@web41001.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi Peter and All,
What a load of bull written by a known Oil
backed hack. And quoted by an oil/gas man! Now there
is a reliable source!!! You should be ashamed Peter!
There was a reason it was ignored!!
Your hatred for the US is showing thru, calm
down before you have a heart attack!!
To start with he doesn't consider any product
other than ethanol. Next he considers the worse case
only.
While it's true most of our ag is energy
intensive, it doesn't have to be that way. What
happens after the farm is the same as oil produced so
doesn't count.
By making their own fertilizer organicly with
a good living soil, predator insects, birds, chickens,
ect, the plants are healthier so they can resist
illness, attack while producing good yields without
unnatural, costly pesticides. This has been proven.
This cuts the energy use greatly. From there
the tractor, ect can be fueled from the fuel made or
wind, solar by using an electric tractor. If very long
endurance is needed a gasifier, other fueled gen could
be brought along to charge while working.
Don't laugh, stock GE Electra-Trac EV tractors
regularly out pull similar size hopped up gas units in
tractor pull contests with much less hp. Pisses them
off!! There is a reason all trains are electric
now!!!!
So now we have traded using oil for higher
profits by cutting expenses, oil!!!

Next is energy, cash yield. You get 2.5 gal of
ethanol from a bushel of corn that cost today about
$2.10 bu. That's about $2.50 though going now for much
more.
Ethanol from the stalk sugar ? Say $1
Higher food value animal feed, $2 bu
How much corn oil do you get from a Bu ? Say
$1. Anyone know?
How much gas from the stalk? Say $2, a lot of
stalks per bushel! Sold in the form or electricity.
Power for the process, windgens for pumps,
solar and/or gasifier, gen waste heat and recycling
heat and heating the house, barn.
So now you have $8.50 profit from a bushel of
corn, it's stalks without any outside energy other
than to make the equipment. That can greatly be
reduced by a co-op of farmers within a 10 mile area.
Plus organic free range chickens!!
Even if you used diesel it would still be
profitable!!!
And most of the products can be sold for use
locally reducing transports costs greatly.
And this is a great way for Fla to be an
energy producer. And by feeding, processing our
breeder cows, we're the leading US cattle state, here
we can create many more jobs on top of the new farm
jobs. Other crops like Sorgum, sunflowers, soybeans,
peanuts, ect can work too.
So minus $2 for equipment and labor and final
profit is about $6.50bu. This increases the farmer's
profit 3-5x for the same land!!!!
This is how farming is changing already and
it's future. If the true cost of oil was reflected in
it's price, would have been for a while.
And as for land. 3/4 of farm land is unused in
the US and much has turned back to the wild. Even on
1/4 of the land we produce so much it piles up and is
wasted, turn it into fuel!!!
So Peter, isn't this possible? All processes
are currently successfully used.
Other possible products, acetone, naptha,
methanol, NG, ect from the gasifier.
HTH's,
jerry dycus
--- Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net> wrote:

>
> Second part -- and the very last you'll hear from me
> on this subject --
>
> But I have a humongous paper presented by the
> Natural Gas industry to
> president GWB from three years ago on this very
> subject -- which -- of
> course -- was then totally ignored.
>
> That paper goes into complete detail -- by far --
> than these two mass media
> pieces.
>
> Anyway -- time to come out of the woods -- from
> looking at trees -- cross
> that field -- climb that mountain -- and see the
> forest!
>
> Test question:
>
> What is?? "primary productivity"
>
> A catchy turn of words:
>
> Farming is the process of ripping that niche open
> again and again. It is
> an annual artificial catastrophe, and it requires
> the equivalent of three
> or four tons of TNT per acre for a modern American
> farm. Iowa's fields
> require the energy of 4,000 Nagasaki bombs every
> year.
>
> Peter (whistle blower) in Belize
>
>
> ******************************
>
>
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/280191.shtml
>
> Title: THE OIL WE EAT , By: Manning, Richard,
> Harper's Magazine,
> 0017789X, Feb2004, Vol. 308, Issue 1845
> Database: MAS Ultra - School Edition
>
>
> ***************snipped********************
>
> It is an extremely well written article and a very
> good read -- advise you
> all do -- just for some "perspective -- like seeing
> forest -- instead of
> individual "tree".
>
> But far to long to post -- so just some "meat" --
>
> ***************snipped**************************
>
> It appears, however, that the corn cycle is about to
>
> come full circle. If a bipartisan coalition of
> farm-state lawmakers has
> their way--and it appears they will--we will soon
> buy gasoline containing
> twice as much fuel alcohol as it does now. Fuel
> alcohol already ranks
> second as a use for processed corn in the United
> States, just behind corn
> sweeteners. According to one set of calculations, we
> spend more calories
> of fossil-fuel energy making ethanol than we gain
> from it. The Department
> of Agriculture says the ratio is closer to a gallon
> and a quart of ethanol
> for every gallon of fossil fuel we invest.
>
> (My note here -- even with boosting the compression
> ratio to increase
> efficiency when burning ethanol -- you are not ever
> going to do better "gas
> milage" than 1 gallon of pure ethanol = 2/3 of a
> gallon of gasoline!! So it
> is a negative factor -- and as the man goes on to
> point out -- at great
> environmental costs!!)
>
> The USDA calls this a bargain,
> because gasohol is a "clean fuel." This claim to
> cleanness is in dispute
> at the tailpipe level, and it certainly ignores the
> dead zone in the Gulf
> of Mexico, pesticide pollution, and the haze of
> global gases gathering
> over every farm field. Nor does this claim cover
> clean conscience; some
> still might be unsettled knowing that our SUVs'
> demands for fuel compete
> with the poor's demand for grain.
>
>
> ***********and******************
>
>
>
> This is the end result of a
> factory-farm system that appears as a living,
> continental-scale monument
> to Rube Goldberg, a black-mass remake of the
> loaves-and-fishes miracle.
> Prairie's productivity is lost for grain, grain's
> productivity is lost in
> livestock, livestock's protein is lost to human
> fat--all federally
> subsidized for about $15 billion a year, two thirds
> of which goes directly
> to only two crops, corn and wheat.
>
> *************************
>
> So Steve -- make fuel from corn and sugar cane and
> happy days are here
> again -- eh??
>
> And folks -- do read the entire article -- you'll
> understand much better
> why people like myself figure we have no options bu
> to watch you great
> industrialized natuion -- practicing the Green
> Revolution -- nuke
> yourselves over food!
>
>
> **************************
>
> Definition of "Green Revolution"
>
> The precolonial famines of Europe raised the
> question: What would happen
> when the planet's supply of arable land ran out? We
> have a clear answer.
> In about 1960 expansion hit its limits and the
> supply of unfarmed, arable
> lands came to an end. There was nothing left to
> plow. What happened was
> grain yields tripled.
>
> The accepted term for this strange turn of events is
> the green revolution,
> though it would be more properly labeled the amber
> revolution, because it
> applied exclusively to grain--wheat, rice, and corn.
> Plant breeders
> tinkered with the architecture of these three grains
> so that they could be
> hypercharged with irrigation water and chemical
> fertilizers, especially
> nitrogen. This innovation meshed nicely with the
> increased "efficiency" of
> the industrialized factory-farm system. With the
> possible exception of the
> domestication of wheat, the green revolution is the
> worst thing that has
> ever happened to the planet.
>
> For openers, it disrupted long-standing patterns of
> rural life worldwide,
> moving a lot of no-longer-needed people off the land
> and into the world's
> most severe poverty. The experience in population
> control in the
> developing world is by now clear: It is not that
> people make more people
> so much as it is that they make more poor people. In
> the forty-year period
> beginning about 1960, the world's population
> doubled, adding virtually the
> entire increase of 3 billion to the world's poorest
> classes, the most
> fecund classes. The way in which the green
> revolution raised that grain
> contributed hugely to the population boom, and it is
> the weight of the
> population that leaves humanity in its present
> untenable position.
>
> Discussion of these, the most poor, however, is
> largely irrelevant to the
> American situation. We say we have poor people here,
> but almost no one in
> this country lives on less than one dollar a day,
> the global benchmark for
> poverty. It marks off a class of about 1.3 billion
> people, the hard core
> of the larger group of 2 billion chronically
> malnourished people--that is,
> one third of humanity. We may forget about them, as
> most Americans do.
>
> More relevant here are the methods of the green
> revolution, which added
>
=== message truncated ===

 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

From Carefreeland at aol.com Tue Oct 26 21:21:07 2004
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:21:07 EDT
Subject: Fwd: [Gasification] Eating fossil fuels
Message-ID: <7e.5bec9f7c.2eb06013@aol.com>


-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Carefreeland at aol.com
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Eating fossil fuels
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:18:22 EDT
Size: 1622
Url: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041026/8d3e6b07/attachment.mht

From snkm at btl.net Tue Oct 26 22:46:08 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:46:08 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Re: Energy Farms, The Oil We Eat
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041026210437.009acdd0@pop.btl.net>

Jerry -- that is exactly how we farmed in the old days -- in the Eastern
Townships and Vermont.

You missed the huge point -- it is not about "choices" -- it is about
realities.

Only in your wildest dreams can you fit that all together before people are
starving -- and long before they start starving -- they will be going after
each other's throats -- Mad Max -- Road Warrior -- styles.

Good channeling for that kind of excess energy is organized all out warfare!

Also a good die-off in human terms would solve that problem fast -- say
half the population gets nuked. Then yes -- it could work like it did back
when -- the population was only half!!

We joined the green revolution here in Belize about 12 years ago -- it now
costs 32.5 cents US -- which is hard to get foreign exchange for us -- to
grow one pound of red beans. We could probably import beans for a lot less
than is costs it to grow them -- but the Government believes it is
important to grow out own -- and be self sufficient.

Mind you -- we now grow five times as much per acre. And need 1/100 as much
labor.

Course -- Belize has more than abundant land to go back to the old style --
and our unemployment rate is up around 40% or so in real terms. So here it
is about politics -- change out political view and we still can survive.

Politics playing games with collective peoples heads saying we are food
self sufficient "now" -- kind of like using corn in the US to make ethanol
to be fuel self sufficient.

It just don't add up -- no matter which way you arrange the figures.

But I doubt the US can do such -- change to survive.

Look -- your plan is right -- that is the way things were -- and the way
they should be for your country to be self sustainable.

I simply doubt -- that in real terms -- it can be applied -- or applied
before it can do any good.

Killing the messengers is not going to solve any problems Jerry -- nor is
denying realities.

You have a huge population -- and the vast majority of it is well
programmed to be consumers -- really great consumers.

Surely -- you can't expect these to change over night??

Anyway -- they are saying 2020 -- to 2050.

so I might be wrong -- and maybe you can find solutions in time.

Such as taking the plutonium out of the war heads and making enough
electrical energy using that as fuel that the price of crude drops to under
$5.00 US per barrel because there is a glut of it.

Lead acid and other such storage devices are a dead end -- if you really
needed them to take over energy -- as in transportation -- you soon would
have no lead -- no cadmium -- etc -- left.

But we do have other options -- such as Vanadium Redox Battery. And if you
combine all types along with high efficiency recycling -- you could
probably work it.

But I doubt you can convince the Greens on that small matter alone in even
100 years time!!

I personally believe that organized warfare to solve the problems is more
realistic.

And not just the US -- scratch a European -- or a Canadian -- just even a
little -- and remember who was doing the "crazy" in the last major two
world wars -- eh??

It is not the US so much being the cause of this problem -- but being
trapped in it as much as the rest.

It is also about the US being the first nation to take the escape hatch --
and that is not about going back to fertilizing using chicken liter!

Hey -- that is a full out war in Iraq now -- in case you been missing out
on things.

Certainly -- america is mostly dancing by itself right now -- but just wait
-- they get hungry in Europe -- England -- Russia -- the far east -- why --
they all gonna wanna get up and dance to!!

To suggest anything different would be to totally ignore all history of the
human race as we know it.

The word is out -- Iran is next -- and soon --

Anyway -- certainly energy farming will work -- but here -- not there!!

You know -- in five years time I can yield 1500 gallons per acre of diesel
fuel -- in the form of african palm oil -- and no fossils fuels at all
required -- as fertilizer -- as anything!

 

Peter

At 06:41 PM 10/26/2004 -0700, you wrote:
> Hi Peter and All,
> What a load of bull written by a known Oil
>backed hack. And quoted by an oil/gas man! Now there
>is a reliable source!!! You should be ashamed Peter!
>There was a reason it was ignored!!
> Your hatred for the US is showing thru, calm
>down before you have a heart attack!!
> To start with he doesn't consider any product
>other than ethanol. Next he considers the worse case
>only.
> While it's true most of our ag is energy
>intensive, it doesn't have to be that way. What
>happens after the farm is the same as oil produced so
>doesn't count.
> By making their own fertilizer organicly with
>a good living soil, predator insects, birds, chickens,
>ect, the plants are healthier so they can resist
>illness, attack while producing good yields without
>unnatural, costly pesticides. This has been proven.
> This cuts the energy use greatly. From there
>the tractor, ect can be fueled from the fuel made or
>wind, solar by using an electric tractor. If very long
>endurance is needed a gasifier, other fueled gen could
>be brought along to charge while working.
> Don't laugh, stock GE Electra-Trac EV tractors
>regularly out pull similar size hopped up gas units in
>tractor pull contests with much less hp. Pisses them
>off!! There is a reason all trains are electric
>now!!!!
> So now we have traded using oil for higher
>profits by cutting expenses, oil!!!
>
> Next is energy, cash yield. You get 2.5 gal of
>ethanol from a bushel of corn that cost today about
>$2.10 bu. That's about $2.50 though going now for much
>more.
> Ethanol from the stalk sugar ? Say $1
> Higher food value animal feed, $2 bu
> How much corn oil do you get from a Bu ? Say
>$1. Anyone know?
> How much gas from the stalk? Say $2, a lot of
>stalks per bushel! Sold in the form or electricity.
> Power for the process, windgens for pumps,
>solar and/or gasifier, gen waste heat and recycling
>heat and heating the house, barn.
> So now you have $8.50 profit from a bushel of
>corn, it's stalks without any outside energy other
>than to make the equipment. That can greatly be
>reduced by a co-op of farmers within a 10 mile area.
> Plus organic free range chickens!!
> Even if you used diesel it would still be
>profitable!!!
> And most of the products can be sold for use
>locally reducing transports costs greatly.
> And this is a great way for Fla to be an
>energy producer. And by feeding, processing our
>breeder cows, we're the leading US cattle state, here
>we can create many more jobs on top of the new farm
>jobs. Other crops like Sorgum, sunflowers, soybeans,
>peanuts, ect can work too.
> So minus $2 for equipment and labor and final
>profit is about $6.50bu. This increases the farmer's
>profit 3-5x for the same land!!!!
> This is how farming is changing already and
>it's future. If the true cost of oil was reflected in
>it's price, would have been for a while.
> And as for land. 3/4 of farm land is unused in
>the US and much has turned back to the wild. Even on
>1/4 of the land we produce so much it piles up and is
>wasted, turn it into fuel!!!
> So Peter, isn't this possible? All processes
>are currently successfully used.
> Other possible products, acetone, naptha,
>methanol, NG, ect from the gasifier.
> HTH's,
> jerry dycus

 

From snkm at btl.net Wed Oct 27 00:00:11 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:00:11 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Eating fossil fuels
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041026215745.009aaa60@pop.btl.net>

 

Hi Dan --

Check out this site --

http://www.asd-cr.com/

high yield palm oil plants -- clones --

Palm oil -- straight and pure -- is being bought in supermarkets in Germany
and being used in that manner -- no conversions -- as diesel in Jettas. The
German Government is pissed -- losing the tax dollars.

You might also want to check on food and medicinal values --

http://www.tropicaltraditions.com/red_palm_oil.htm

That just one quicky example.

Your talking a yield of 1500 gals per acre per year -- and lazy man's
farming!! And easy to extract -- minimum investment in equipments!

Remember -- I am all ready expressing coconut oil. And cohune nut oil!!

I am not concerned about these problems for us here -- but if -- should --
the US go down -- it is a great misery for people here -- people everywhere.

Hey -- all that has to be done to stop this horrid developing scenario is
just turn down the gas. Economize. No more SUVs -- a little more us of
public transit -- start by doubling or tripling the price of fuels -- and
apply that tax windfall to clearing off some deficits.

Simple -- easy stuff -- common sense stuff --

The US used to be so good at handling problems -- now we -- the rest of the
world -- wonders.

Anything beats going to war to continue squandering global resources.

Peter

At 10:18 PM 10/26/2004 EDT, Carefreeland at aol.com wrote:
>>>>
Peter,
How about soy beans? My little Daughter calls them "soil beans".
They could be fertilized with ash and need no nitrogen. If they would just
allow a small amount of the crop to re- seed itself, all you would have to
do was harvest. Then make oil and burn in a diesel engine. 45 gallons per
acre yield in Ohio.
Dan Dimiduk

 

 

From Carefreeland at aol.com Wed Oct 27 07:53:20 2004
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:53:20 EDT
Subject: Fwd: [Gasification] Eating fossil fuels
Message-ID: <14.36d493b6.2eb0f440@aol.com>


-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Carefreeland at aol.com
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Eating fossil fuels
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:52:41 EDT
Size: 3880
Url: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041027/bd9fe9ff/attachment.mht

From jerry5335 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 08:58:49 2004
From: jerry5335 at yahoo.com (jerry dycus)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 06:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Gasification] Re: Energy Farms, The Oil We Eat
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20041026210437.009acdd0@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <20041027135849.91603.qmail@web41003.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi Peter and All,
--- Peter Singfield <snkm at btl.net> wrote:

>
> Jerry -- that is exactly how we farmed in the old
> days -- in the Eastern
> Townships and Vermont.

And we will and can do it that way again with
improvements.

>
> You missed the huge point -- it is not about
> "choices" -- it is about
> realities.

Your bias makes you miss the point. We are
capable of large changes in short times when nessasary
as shown last time an oil crisis, 73, happened worse
than we are in now. Prices went to $80bbl indexed for
inflation.
We cut our oil use 35% in a couple of months and
there was no food shortages, No?
While I agree the present is not sustainable, the
farmers are mostly making a profit now and are working
with the cards they are given.
As those cards change, they, like all of us will
adapt as we always have.
>
> Only in your wildest dreams can you fit that all
> together before people are
> starving -- and long before they start starving --
> they will be going after
> each other's throats -- Mad Max -- Road Warrior --
> styles.

There must be some good smoke down there!! That's
not going to happen and you should know coming from a
farming community that was able to do it.
The fuel making I talked about from biomass is all
well known and can be ramped up quite easily though
will take some time.
The ethanol, wind parts are being ramped up as we
speak, doubling each yr for the last 10 yrs!!
How much does a oil press cost or time to build?
Not much! How much does a gasifier costs? Not much.
A corn stalk sugar press? Not much.
A gen for gasifier gas, not much! Windgens, not
much!
If needed, farmers can build their own as I have
from surplus, junk yards. No?
As the price of oil rises, so does the profits of
making fuel so the investment money will pour in
halting the oil price rise at about $3.50-4.50/gal. At
those prices biofuels, Fischer/Tropsh, ect will be
more profitable than oil!!!!!!!!!!! No?
>
> Good channeling for that kind of excess energy is
> organized all out warfare!
>
> Also a good die-off in human terms would solve that
> problem fast -- say
> half the population gets nuked. Then yes -- it could
> work like it did back
> when -- the population was only half!!

Again that premise has been disproven many times.
Just by switching animals to grass feeds we could feed
a couple billion more people just on US present farms
easily. And reclaiming closed farm land would increase
that 2x or more. So get a grip!!!!!
I prefer grass fed beef, chickens myself for much
lower fat. Of course in Fla we grow 10-20x the
animals/acre than Texas and why we are the biggest
cattle state, ie 2 per acre vs 1 per 10 acres . And
they produce fertilizer too!
>
> We joined the green revolution here in Belize about
> 12 years ago -- it now
> costs 32.5 cents US -- which is hard to get foreign
> exchange for us -- to
> grow one pound of red beans. We could probably

Your fault, not ours. My good friend Peace Corped
down there and taught against oil intensive farming.
You all didn't listen, did you?
How many jobs did you lose farming? How many from
loss of money to Big ag leaving your country? Again,
your fault!!! Not ours.

> import beans for a lot less
> than is costs it to grow them -- but the Government
> believes it is
> important to grow out own -- and be self sufficient.
>
> Mind you -- we now grow five times as much per acre.
> And need 1/100 as much
> labor.

Not a good deal as of the job, forgien exchange
losses. You could get the same yields, many more jobs
by using more labor to make organic growing mediums
and raised beds, ect at a lower overall costs, more
empolyment.

>
> Course -- Belize has more than abundant land to go
> back to the old style --
> and our unemployment rate is up around 40% or so in

 

> real terms. So here it
> is about politics -- change out political view and
> we still can survive.

And the difference with the US is?

>
> Politics playing games with collective peoples heads
> saying we are food
> self sufficient "now" -- kind of like using corn in
> the US to make ethanol
> to be fuel self sufficient.

But we are!! Ethanol will be part, not all the
energy needs.
The price of energy the farmer pays is in the
crops he sells or he will be broke. Now that is
$2.06bu spot for corn price today.
The fact they are still in business refutes your
conclusions. This has been a record yr for farm
profits despite higher oil costs, No?
As my last post pointed out, it is easy to make a
farm produce 3-5x the energy it uses. That leaves a
lot left to use elseware, No?

>
> It just don't add up -- no matter which way you
> arrange the figures.
>
> But I doubt the US can do such -- change to survive.
>
>
> Look -- your plan is right -- that is the way things
> were -- and the way
> they should be for your country to be self
> sustainable.

And as the price rises, it will be again, no?

>
> I simply doubt -- that in real terms -- it can be
> applied -- or applied
> before it can do any good.

You are forgeting the fat in our economy, farm
production and large capital shifts that will correct
these as the oil price rises. One good thing about
being energy fat is you can cut back a lot without
changing much thru conservation just like 73, no?
And it won't come all at once and the shift has
already started.

>
> Killing the messengers is not going to solve any
> problems Jerry -- nor is
> denying realities.

You are denying reality yourself, boarding on
paranoia. While it will be a little messy and a
recession, the switch to energy independence and it's
jobs, investment from the switch that will bring us
out of it before food riots start.
You seem not to know much about economics and how
it works.
>
> You have a huge population -- and the vast majority
> of it is well
> programmed to be consumers -- really great
> consumers.


> Surely -- you can't expect these to change over
> night??

No, but the energy crisis won't happen over night
either, just ramping up about $.75/gal each yr for the
next 2 or 3 before other energy sources ramp up,
conservation happens from the higher prices.
Since ethanol costs under $.50/gal on the energy
farm mentioned to make it will be able to halt the oil
price before it gets really dire.
Not to mention gasifying, bio-diesel,
gasoline/diesel from coal, Green river tar sands,
nukes, windgens, ect.
All these are profitable at $3/gal or less with
present tech. The only reason they are not used is the
cheap price of oil.
>
> Anyway -- they are saying 2020 -- to 2050.

Much sooner than that, by 2010 at the lastest
using the best current data!!!

>
> so I might be wrong -- and maybe you can find
> solutions in time.

The solutions are already here! No? which ones are
not?

>
> Such as taking the plutonium out of the war heads
> and making enough
> electrical energy using that as fuel that the price
> of crude drops to under
> $5.00 US per barrel because there is a glut of it.

One way of many, yes.

>
> Lead acid and other such storage devices are a dead
> end -- if you really
> needed them to take over energy -- as in
> transportation -- you soon would
> have no lead -- no cadmium -- etc -- left.

Lead is almost not mined anymore as recycling
supplies most of our needs and incidental production
from mining copper, silver, gold, ect supplies the
rest.
But Li-ion batts will power the future EV's and
it's materials are cheap and plentiful and relatively
non-toxic.
As production ramps up at it's current pace, an EV
with 300 mile range will be priced at under $15,000 in
todays dollars with li-ions batts.
I can right now build one for that with lead batts
that gets 100 miles range and with a small gen gets
100 mpg for longer trips!!! Which my EV proto-type I
drive now gets!!!

> But we do have other options -- such as Vanadium
> Redox Battery. And if you
> combine all types along with high efficiency
> recycling -- you could
> probably work it.

It works quite well right now for 10,000's of US EV
drivers and that doesn't include NEV's and Golf Carts
used for transport now in Fla, other states.
And by electrifying the highways most US transport
can go electric. Even without E highways, EV's with
small ICE gens can get 3-4X the mileage they get now.
Driving mostly on electric and only using the gen for
long trips.
Electric drive is 3X more eff than ICE's!!!
Nottice all trains use it now.
>
> But I doubt you can convince the Greens on that
> small matter alone in even
> 100 years time!!

When they are paying $3.00/gal, $3,000+ yr for gas
it will be much easier.
They already have bought up every EV and Hybrid
available and clamoring for more belies that
assumpion.
And many more convert, build their own EV's each
yr because they can't get then because Detroit is
afraid to build them.
>
> I personally believe that organized warfare to solve
> the problems is more
> realistic.

Your sick!!!!

>
> And not just the US -- scratch a European -- or a
> Canadian -- just even a
> little -- and remember who was doing the "crazy" in
> the last major two
> world wars -- eh??
>
> It is not the US so much being the cause of this
> problem -- but being
> trapped in it as much as the rest.

Yes but we are slippery ;-)). The low cost oil trap
you talk about made us the top power today and if gets
out of control, we'll slip out of it and go another
way.

>
> It is also about the US being the first nation to
> take the escape hatch --
> and that is not about going back to fertilizing
> using chicken liter!

The US goes where the money is, if that's chicken
liter then it goes there, No?

>
> Hey -- that is a full out war in Iraq now -- in case
> you been missing out
> on things.

That's a corporate war done for corporate welfare,
politics and religion. Not for the best interest of
the US or the world's.
For the money we are spending, we could be energy
independent now.
>
> Certainly -- america is mostly dancing by itself
> right now -- but just wait
> -- they get hungry in Europe -- England -- Russia --
> the far east -- why --
> they all gonna wanna get up and dance to!!

Their farmers will make a mint and ramp up
production not to mention victory type gardens, ect.
Farming increases during downturns, not decrease.

>
> To suggest anything different would be to totally
> ignore all history of the
> human race as we know it.

I study, lived history too and the facts above show
you are not correct.

>
> The word is out -- Iran is next -- and soon --

Not a chance even if Bush is re-elected!!! But
it's looking more like a Kerry victory every day.

>
> Anyway -- certainly energy farming will work
Yes it will along with many other energy sources.
It's called the marketplace!

-- but
> here -- not there!!

Why? That's the most foolish thing you have
said!!! Of any country we are best at doing this kind
of change as proved many times before.

>
> You know -- in five years time I can yield 1500
> gallons per acre of diesel
> fuel -- in the form of african palm oil -- and no
> fossils fuels at all
> required -- as fertilizer -- as anything!

Cool, but why won't that happen here too in other
forms?
Love,
jerry dycus
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
> At 06:41 PM 10/26/2004 -0700, you wrote:
> > Hi Peter and All,
> > What a load of bull written by a known Oil
> >backed hack. And quoted by an oil/gas man! Now
> there
> >is a reliable source!!! You should be ashamed
> Peter!
> >There was a reason it was ignored!!
> > Your hatred for the US is showing thru,
> calm
> >down before you have a heart attack!!
> > To start with he doesn't consider any
> product
> >other than ethanol. Next he considers the worse
> case
> >only.
> > While it's true most of our ag is energy
> >intensive, it doesn't have to be that way. What
> >happens after the farm is the same as oil produced
> so
> >doesn't count.
> > By making their own fertilizer organicly
> with
> >a good living soil, predator insects, birds,
> chickens,
> >ect, the plants are healthier so they can resist
> >illness, attack while producing good yields without
> >unnatural, costly pesticides. This has been
> proven.
> > This cuts the energy use greatly. From
> there
> >the tractor, ect can be fueled from the fuel made
> or
> >wind, solar by using an electric tractor. If very
> long
> >endurance is needed a gasifier, other fueled gen
> could
> >be brought along to charge while working.
> > Don't laugh, stock GE Electra-Trac EV
> tractors
> >regularly out pull similar size hopped up gas units
> in
> >tractor pull contests with much less hp. Pisses
> them
> >off!! There is a reason all trains are electric
> >now!!!!
>
=== message truncated ===

 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

From snkm at btl.net Wed Oct 27 12:13:26 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:13:26 -0600
Subject: Fwd: [Gasification] Eating fossil fuels
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041027095802.009b8dc0@pop.btl.net>

Dan -- it is all about different solutions in different areas -- and one
way does not fit for all.

Peter

At 08:53 AM 10/27/2004 EDT, Carefreeland at aol.com wrote:
>>>>

Return-path:
From: Carefreeland at aol.com
Full-name: Carefreeland
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:52:41 EDT
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Eating fossil fuels
To: snkm at btl.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="part2_14.36d493b6.2eb0f419_boundary"
X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6036

In a message dated 10/27/04 1:02:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, snkm at btl.net
writes:

 

Hi Dan --

Check out this site --

http://www.asd-cr.com/

high yield palm oil plants -- clones --

Palm oil -- straight and pure -- is being bought in supermarkets in Germany
and being used in that manner -- no conversions -- as diesel in Jettas. The
German Government is pissed -- losing the tax dollars.

You might also want to check on food and medicinal values --

http://www.tropicaltraditions.com/red_palm_oil.htm

That just one quicky example.

Your talking a yield of 1500 gals per acre per year -- and lazy man's
farming!! And easy to extract -- minimum investment in equipments!

DD Only one problem Peter- here in Ohio, I don't see too many palm trees-
which means it has to be shipped.
DD Maybe when I have hundreds of acres of greenhouses. I will heat with
a million tons of woodwaste( landfilled in this 3 county area alone) -
converted into charcoal - then used to smelt iron. The waste heat from
that process, as well as electricity from the offgas driving generators,
powering supplemental growlights. Maybe then I can have a tropical
revolution right here in Ohio, with power too cheap to meter. Oranges in a
blizzard anyone?

Dan Dimiduk - thinking of his own green revolution.
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Wed Oct 27 13:06:15 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:06:15 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] proposed coal gasification plant in northern
Minnesota.
Message-ID: <82.198abdd9.2eb13d97@aol.com>

This news story related to what is called political synergy that glaringly
seems to be missing with ethanol, bio and grain, hydrogen and gassifiers.

No one can ever compete with big coal oil or gas in network distribution of
energy it is too expensive to build such as large scale system.

However at the end user it is anyone's market and that is the market that not
a lot of folks have been looking at. In this group there are a few noteworthy
exceptions.

The components missing from the synergy model are
1. The cheap bulk transport which must be a pipeline not a wire. That is not
a long pipe either!
2. The second component must be a renewable fuel with sufficient energy
balance.
3. The third component is Eco friendly emissions and waste streams.
4 . Last component is all local domestic production.

More later...
Quote:

The Bush administration awarded a $36-million grant yesterday for a proposed
coal gasification plant in northern Minnesota. Meanwhile, Democrats attacked
the timing of the Energy Department's announcement as an election-week ploy to
win votes.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041027/653ce139/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Wed Oct 27 13:23:26 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:23:26 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Yes the quality of the producer gas can be adjusted
in L V DC Plasma Arc
Message-ID: <146.371c730c.2eb1419e@aol.com>

Off net you have asked some really focused questions. I am getting the ans
in documented form.

Using the Low Voltage, DC Arc system and designing down as well as designing
for specific waste streams like wood, manure, paper, plastics, citrus waste,
sewer sludge and the other stuff that Gassifiers currently consume makes quite
a differences in gas outcomes and system design cost. Couple this with
variations or add ins to the arc surrounding burn gasses Argon and Nitrogen made by
the system on site and some really interesting outputs are realized.

Can it economically produce a clean 300 or 500 Btu SCF or higher syngas that
can be cool and piped? From what waste stream and at what cost how much
feedstock for how much gas? I don't know yet.

It looks system can exceed the conversion/heat efficiencies of all the
Gassifiers that I have been sent specs on by 5 to 10 percent. It looks like this gas
with some system tweaks for specific waste streams rather than medical could
make a really clean tar free syn gas that would be at least 300 Btu SCF or
better.
Keep you posted... I think they mentioned some test with manure and sewer
sludge.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041027/4fa917f7/attachment.html

From LINVENT at aol.com Wed Oct 27 13:40:19 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:40:19 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] proposed coal gasification plant in northern
Minnesota.
Message-ID: <a3.65f61b6c.2eb14593@aol.com>

your missing components are an erroneous assumption based upon lack of
adequate information on various presentations and options. This can also be applied
to your highly touted plasma carbon sprayer.

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

From snkm at btl.net Wed Oct 27 14:01:41 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:01:41 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Yes the quality of the producer gas can be
adjustedin L V DC Plasma Arc
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041027130035.009b1bc0@pop.btl.net>

The quality of syngas is largely proportional to the amount of air you have
mixed with it -- ergo -- that makes conventional partial combustion
gasifiers look inefficient -- but that is not a truth!!

If you look at the over all picture -- that product out over product in --
they are quite efficient.

Further -- rate of conversion is another important factor to consider. A
very cheap gasifier can produce a lot more product than a most expensive
plasma arc furnace.

You can increase the btu value of syngas but elimination the need of
atmosphere -- so they use pure O2 -- but now you are getting expensive and
tricky.

You can also do even better by using steam -- as in steam reformation.

And then their is super critical water baths.

For bottom line comparison -- try super critical water baths -- long
cylinder -- heated by conventional electric resistance elements.

You soon realize you can be pumping megawatts of power to your low through
reaction -- for a fraction of capital costs -- and resistance heaters are
just about 100% efficient transfers of electricity to heat -- your plasma
arc is not!

Certainly for a $10,000 or so dollars -- I could build you a complete
prototype doing just that -- right here in Belize.

Thick walled steel tubing -- band resistance heater -- some simple valving
-- hydraulic injection system -- and one heavy duty blender for fuel
conditioning.

The ultimate injection system is a hydraulic cylinder with no rod -- just a
piston. And one side is pressurized hydraulic fluid -- on the other --
biomass/water slurry.

Use use compressed air to charge the slurry into the cylinder -- pushing
out the hydraulic fluid on the other side of the piston -- once cylinder is
full of slurry -- you close intake valve -- open valve for delivery to
super critical water reactor -- apply hydraulic power -- at the rate you
wish -- stopping and starting if need be -- in the most easy and controlled
manner -- pushing the slurry into the reactor.

The plus side is you have your product already cooled and compressed -- at
the exit of the process -- 5000 PSI or more.

This makes charging tanks for storage reality -- and is great for long
distance pipeline pushing.

Now -- tell us again how the plasma arc can do this better??

Your basically spinning yourself into one hell of a rut.

There is no sensible reasoning to using a plasma arc for applying
electricity to gas production. Not when there already exists so many much
easier ways -- and far less complicated -- not to mention much more efficient.

Now -- for a real jump of imagination -- fin the outside of that same steel
cylinder reaction vessel to increase air to metal heat transfer -- apply
flame -- voila -- look maw -- no electriciy and it still makes syngas!!

Your beating brains out for no reasoning here Leonard!

Peter

At 02:23 PM 10/27/2004 EDT, LWheeler45 at aol.com wrote:
>>>>
Off net you have asked some really focused questions. I am getting the ans
in documented form.

Using the Low Voltage, DC Arc system and designing down as well as
designing for specific waste streams like wood, manure, paper, plastics,
citrus waste, sewer sludge and the other stuff that Gassifiers currently
consume makes quite a differences in gas outcomes and system design cost.
Couple this with variations or add ins to the arc surrounding burn gasses
Argon and Nitrogen made by the system on site and some really interesting
outputs are realized.

Can it economically produce a clean 300 or 500 Btu SCF or higher syngas
that can be cool and piped? From what waste stream and at what cost how
much feedstock for how much gas? I don't know yet.

It looks system can exceed the conversion/heat efficiencies of all the
Gassifiers that I have been sent specs on by 5 to 10 percent. It looks like
this gas with some system tweaks for specific waste streams rather than
medical could make a really clean tar free syn gas that would be at least
300 Btu SCF or better.
Keep you posted... I think they mentioned some test with manure and sewer
sludge.
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

 

From oscar at geprop.cu Wed Oct 27 15:49:54 2004
From: oscar at geprop.cu (Oscar Jimenez)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:49:54 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] proposed coal gasification plant in
northernMinnesota.
Message-ID: <A6C7CDF4EB4F92459A97B5514EC9F1D90478E9@geprop-server.172.16.1.254>

>>...Meanwhile, Democrats attacked the timing of the Energy Department's announcement as an election-week ploy to win votes.

..sure it is....taking into consideration the denaying position of GWB to many energy and renewable energy understanding mostly world-wide...!!!

thanks.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: LWheeler45 at aol.com [mailto:LWheeler45 at aol.com]
Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 27 de octubre de 2004 13:06
Para: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Asunto: [Gasification] proposed coal gasification plant in northernMinnesota.

This news story related to what is called political synergy that glaringly seems to be missing with ethanol, bio and grain, hydrogen and gassifiers.

No one can ever compete with big coal oil or gas in network distribution of energy it is too expensive to build such as large scale system.

However at the end user it is anyone's market and that is the market that not a lot of folks have been looking at. In this group there are a few noteworthy exceptions.

The components missing from the synergy model are
1. The cheap bulk transport which must be a pipeline not a wire. That is not a long pipe either!
2. The second component must be a renewable fuel with sufficient energy balance.
3. The third component is Eco friendly emissions and waste streams.
4 . Last component is all local domestic production.

More later...
Quote:

The Bush administration awarded a $36-million grant yesterday for a proposed coal gasification plant in northern Minnesota. Meanwhile, Democrats attacked the timing of the Energy Department's announcement as an election-week ploy to win votes.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041027/e88fb70b/attachment.html

From Carefreeland at aol.com Wed Oct 27 17:53:08 2004
From: Carefreeland at aol.com (Carefreeland at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:53:08 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Eating fossil fuels
Message-ID: <9d.512a57cc.2eb180d4@aol.com>

In a message dated 10/27/04 1:15:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, snkm at btl.net
writes:

>
>
> Dan -- it is all about different solutions in different areas -- and one
> way does not fit for all.
>
> Peter
>
>
DD We usually agree on most things ;-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041027/a772dd6e/attachment.html

From arnt at c2i.net Wed Oct 27 19:32:31 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 02:32:31 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] proposed coal gasification plant in northern
Minnesota.
In-Reply-To: <82.198abdd9.2eb13d97@aol.com>
References: <82.198abdd9.2eb13d97@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20041028023231.4ddf2eac.arnt@c2i.net>

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:06:15 EDT, LWheeler45 at aol.com wrote in message
<82.198abdd9.2eb13d97 at aol.com>:

> No one can ever compete with big coal oil or gas in network
> distribution of energy it is too expensive to build such as large
> scale system.

..so we start small, right? This list is open for mined fossil coal
gasification R&D etc rants, too? Where the big money is. ;-)

..I mean, If I can run engines on sewer pellets and it scales... ;-)

--
..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 LWheeler45 at aol.com Wed Oct 27 21:43:28 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:43:28 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] read this .
Message-ID: <6b.36c071d4.2eb1b6d0@aol.com>

[RenewableEnergyAccess.com] Corn stalks and grasses are difficult matter to
work with when making ethanol because they don't break down the same way corn
and regular starchy grains do. Genencor International and the Department of
Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) announced that Genencor
exceeded their contractual goals by achieving an estimated cellulase cost in the
range of $0.10-$0.20 per gallon of ethanol in NREL's cost model. This
represents an approximate 30-fold improvement in enzyme cost in that model. NREL is
expected to validate these results at pilot scale within the next quarter. The
actual enzyme cost and the final cost of ethanol in a commercial process will be
heavily dependent upon overcoming the remaining hurdles in the development of
integrated biorefineries, according to NREL. The organizations have
collaborated for the past 4-years to reduce the costs of enzymes and enable a
commercially viable process of using cellulosic biomass, such as corn stalks and
grasses, to make ethanol.

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041027/5ce17a38/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Wed Oct 27 21:45:18 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:45:18 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] http://www.acore.org/
Message-ID: <1a7.2a2c5f1a.2eb1b73e@aol.com>

http://www.acore.org/ May I suggest American Counsel on Renewable Energy
on your URL list Leonard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041027/c95a1124/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Wed Oct 27 23:59:33 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 00:59:33 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] DC Plasma Arc specifications promised your ans here
are most of them
Message-ID: <7b.36bfa43b.2eb1d6b5@aol.com>

This is a commercial plasma arc medical bio waste Gasification unit that has
been sold to seven hospitals US and is under contract for 150 hospitals in
Europe.

This private company is looking for joint venture development projects of
other than medical bio waste in global Gasification market. Electrical power
generation of 20 MW and higher using this system for steam and not to supply to
the grid is presently available w financing.

This spec sheet is for a bio medical system and NOT what I am working on
developing applications for. It is merely the base EPA and engineering
commercially validated system for making syn gas heat steam and power with exactly the
same Feedstocks that traditional Gassifiers use only nearly instantly variable.

This system bridges base Gassifiers and Expensive Plasma Redux systems with
the cost of almost a full dress traditional gasifier system $500,000 to
$750,000 turn key and 10% or less than a Westinghouse plasma torch system.

All the add ons of any gassifier system be it a gen set or IC motor or steam
generator can be powered by or accommodated by this system in basic form sans
medical adaptive components such as the $60,000 shredder two conveyors and
some bio medical special requirements and pump or two.

Whereas a traditional gassifier can do a great job on feedstock wood, sugar
cane and sludge this system can reconfigure on site and do all of these with
the same system. Like a gasifiers it can be fine tuned to a specific waste
stream and in that form achieve a maximized efficiency. It is as good as the BEST
system that anyone has sent to me specifics on in terms of environmental
contamination and outputs of waste materials. I have the test for Nitrogen oxides,
Sulfur Dioxides VOC and Carbon Monoxide on a 100 lb per hr unit by independent
lab. The new unit is a great deal more efficient and meets or exceeds European
Medical Waste and environmental specifications.

I have some photos and a diagram of the flow thru the system and more
importantly a photo of the roller heat sink a patented part of this operation. The
version I am showing was three generations ago and has since been significantly
improved. New pat pending. AS soon as I have scanned these and placed in PDF
I would be most happy to share with any who request it.

Specifications: Bio Medical Model Only. Larger version 1000 lbs per hr not
available at this time. Test results for improved model not available.

6 yards medical waste per hr.
400 lbs per hr.
2,000,000 lbs per year duty cycle

Standard loading
1/2 yard per cycle
12 cycles per hr

Optional
1 yard per cycle
6 cycles per hr.

Total Power
480 V 600 Amps

Water 1"line 50 PSI min
SWS 4" standard

Steam 1" feed water tank
Heat 1" blow down
Recovery 3" discharge to boiler

Required space Medical Unit
26 W 54' L 25' H
Wt 60,000 lbs
Performance medical Unit
1000 lbs of 300 F steam per 100 lbs of waste
90% vol and weight reduction
Non Leaching residues solids
Clean air and water emissions less than 300 CFm total

2 year limited warrenty
5 Year Maintenance Contract w upgrades
Financing available
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041028/4d7cd8c3/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Thu Oct 28 00:07:29 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 01:07:29 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Test results of independent lab DC Lo vt Plasma
Gassification Nox So2 VOC as car
Message-ID: <84.370b0143.2eb1d891@aol.com>

Test results of independent lab
DC Lo vt Plasma Gasification 1997 system much improved since.
Mean of 3 test EPA methods 1997 3A 6C 7E 10 and 26 A.
Nox ................... . 0062 lbs/hr
So2.............................1569 lbs hr
VOC as carbon .......17.66 lbs /hr
Co ............................12.95 lbs/hr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041028/c5c87186/attachment.html

From gregoire.jovicic at jovicic.com Thu Oct 28 03:47:16 2004
From: gregoire.jovicic at jovicic.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Gr=E9goire_JOVICIC?=)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:47:16 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Test results of independent lab DC Lo vt
PlasmaGassification Nox So2 VOC as car
In-Reply-To: <84.370b0143.2eb1d891@aol.com>
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAjWHuzVeiQECyc+xYtT7dy8KAAAAQAAAAkzaTgc0uNkmgjrACDuk5yAEAAAAA@jovicic.com>

Could you please explain ? Plasma method ? ?

-----Message d'origine-----
De : gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] De la part de
LWheeler45 at aol.com
Envoy? : jeudi 28 octobre 2004 07:07
? : gasification at listserv.repp.org
Objet : [Gasification] Test results of independent lab DC Lo vt
PlasmaGassification Nox So2 VOC as car

Test results of independent lab
DC Lo vt Plasma Gasification 1997 system much improved since.
Mean of 3 test EPA methods 1997 3A 6C 7E 10 and 26 A.
Nox ................... . 0062 lbs/hr
So2.............................1569 lbs hr
VOC as carbon .......17.66 lbs /hr
Co ............................12.95 lbs/hr

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041028/09f71a5c/attachment.html

From Liftcontrol at aol.com Thu Oct 28 04:06:42 2004
From: Liftcontrol at aol.com (Liftcontrol at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 05:06:42 -0400
Subject: [Gasification] more Info
Message-ID: <467B58EB.04D367F9.3B7E98C4@aol.com>

http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/IndustryInformation/IndustryInformationExternal/IndustryInformationHome/0,1589,,00.html

From santo at poczta.fm Thu Oct 28 05:07:34 2004
From: santo at poczta.fm (Krzysztof Lis)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:07:34 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Re: Woodgas storage
In-Reply-To: <41AD072E@webmail.colostate.edu>
References: <41AD072E@webmail.colostate.edu>
Message-ID: <261650.20041028120734@poczta.fm>

 

s> i was wondering if you could give me the list of links that icould
s> look into and not wander in the maze of google.

Unfortunatelly I don't have a list of sources from which I downloaded
all the files I have on my hard drive. I don't even remember where I
read the information I mentioned (about reverse reactions in stored
wood gas), I'll try to look through the files I have and if I succeed
in finding at least titles of the docs, I'll contact you. :)

--
Best regards,
Krzysztof Lis / Poland

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Zmien sie i znajdz swoj nowy styl z programem Mistrz Wizazu
Dobieraj modne fryzury, makijaz i dodatki nie ruszaj?c sie z domu
>>> http://link.interia.pl/f1838

 

From snkm at btl.net Thu Oct 28 12:18:09 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:18:09 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Carbon dioxide turned into hydrocarbon fuel
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041028110110.009c5e70@pop.btl.net>

The sell bacteria for converting any oil (veggie or fossil) to CO2 and
water -- very fast acting -- now used as ecologically pure "degreasers" in
industry (granted -- mostly in europe where they worry about such things)

I have always found that "fascinating" -- but what to do with the CO2??

Further -- we get a lot of pure CO2 as by-product of fermentation processes.

Well -- here is something new under the sun that might be just the right
kind of answer.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992620

Peter -- In Belize

Carbon dioxide turned into hydrocarbon fuel


16:00 02 August 02

Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.

A way to turn carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons has caused a big stir at an
industrial chemistry conference in New Brunwick, New Jersey. Nakamichi
Yamasaki of the Tokushima Industrial Technology Center in Japan says he has
a process that makes propane and butane at relatively low temperatures and
pressures.

While his work still needs independent verification, if he can make even
heavier hydrocarbons, it might be possible to make petrol. It has carbon
chains that are between five and 12 atoms long - butane is four atoms long.

The work suggests the tantalising prospect that CO2, the main greenhouse
gas, could be recycled instead of being pumped into the atmosphere.

Many people have tried before to make hydrocarbons by mixing carbon with
hydrogen gas in a reaction chamber at very high temperatures, but yields
have always been pitiful. Yamasaki has used hydrochloric acid as his source
of hydrogen ions.

He bubbles the CO2 into a reaction vessel (see graphic) where it is heated
to about 300 ?C at 100 times atmospheric pressure. The heat and pressure
are low enough, says Yamasaki, to make it feasible to scale up the reaction
so it can run on a power station's waste heat.

The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service



Carbon dioxide turned into hydrocarbon fuel


16:00 02 August 02

Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.

A way to turn carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons has caused a big stir at an
industrial chemistry conference in New Brunwick, New Jersey. Nakamichi
Yamasaki of the Tokushima Industrial Technology Center in Japan says he has
a process that makes propane and butane at relatively low temperatures and
pressures.


Making fuel from greenhouse gases
While his work still needs independent verification, if he can make even
heavier hydrocarbons, it might be possible to make petrol. It has carbon
chains that are between five and 12 atoms long - butane is four atoms long.

The work suggests the tantalising prospect that CO2, the main greenhouse
gas, could be recycled instead of being pumped into the atmosphere.

Many people have tried before to make hydrocarbons by mixing carbon with
hydrogen gas in a reaction chamber at very high temperatures, but yields
have always been pitiful. Yamasaki has used hydrochloric acid as his source
of hydrogen ions.

He bubbles the CO2 into a reaction vessel (see graphic) where it is heated
to about 300 ?C at 100 times atmospheric pressure. The heat and pressure
are low enough, says Yamasaki, to make it feasible to scale up the reaction
so it can run on a power station's waste heat.

Iron powder

Using iron powder as a catalyst, Yamasaki says he has made substantial
amounts of methane, ethane, propane and butane, which he was able to vent
off as gases when the mixture cooled. If he can improve the catalyst's
performance he is hopeful of making heavier hydrocarbons such as petrol, too.

William Siegfried, who has lead similar experiments at the University of
Minnesota in the twin cities of Minneapolis and St Paul, says his group was
only able to make methane at far higher temperatures. But his process also
used a nickel-based alloy as a catalyst, rather than iron.

Siegfried's group was investigating whether natural methane deposits might
have formed chemically with the metal in rocks acting as a catalyst rather
than forming from the decay of rotting biological material over aeons.

Unless Yamasaki's technology can make the more valuable heavier
hydrocarbons such as petroleum, which are liquid at room temperature, it
will not be much more use than present-day bioreactors, in which bacteria
that like to feed on CO2 are induced to produce methane. "Organisms have a
special talent for that kind of reaction," says Siegfried.


Eugenie Samuel, Boston

 

 

From brunoM1 at telenet.be Thu Oct 28 13:18:29 2004
From: brunoM1 at telenet.be (Bruno M.)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:18:29 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Test results of independent lab DC Lo vt
Plasma Gassification Nox So2 VOC as car
In-Reply-To: <84.370b0143.2eb1d891@aol.com>
References: <84.370b0143.2eb1d891@aol.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20041028191118.04d34830@in.telenet.be>

Leonard,

is this a typing error or were they gasifying
sulfur blocks or battery acid ( sulfuric acid )
...
1569 lbs/hr SO2 ( sulfur-dioxide ) ???

What was the feed stock for this test anyway?
Output concentrations means nothing if
one doesn't know what the input was.

greets
Bruno M.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At 06:07 28/10/2004, you wrote:
>Test results of independent lab
>DC Lo vt Plasma Gasification 1997 system much improved since.
>Mean of 3 test EPA methods 1997 3A 6C 7E 10 and 26 A.
>Nox ................... . 0062 lbs/hr
>So2.............................1569 lbs hr
>VOC as carbon .......17.66 lbs /hr
>Co ............................12.95 lbs/hr
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Thu Oct 28 12:21:44 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:21:44 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] =?iso-8859-1?q?__Could_you_please_explain_=AB_Pla?=
=?iso-8859-1?q?sma_method_=BB_=3F?=
Message-ID: <d8.184c82dc.2eb284a8@aol.com>

In a message dated 10/28/04 4:46:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
gregoire.jovicic at jovicic.com writes:

I will give it a try.

This plasma arc reduction system was introduced by this co in 1993 to fill
one specific need to dispose of medical waste. The proprietary product was
developed using 55 year old technology with innovative process.

This waste destruction occurs within the plasma chamber without incurring
combustion. The treatment physically fractures the molecular bonds of waste into
simple compounds converting it into carbon black elemental metals silica and
plasma processed gasses

When this system exposes the enclosed waste to an electrical current that
breaks down the molecular bonds of the waste and releases intense light and heat.
By products are dependent upon waste composition. process reclaims heat
released from waste destruction through an integrated transfer system for the
process of steam.

I have a digital picture of the entire set up medical waste system and a
photo of the patented internal rollers that act as the heat to steam converters
and system heat sink.

I will put the photos on PDF JPEG file format and send them to you if you
wish.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041028/c0460350/attachment.html

From sach at engr.colostate.edu Thu Oct 28 12:28:49 2004
From: sach at engr.colostate.edu (sachin)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:28:49 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Re: Woodgas storage
Message-ID: <41C1F266@webmail.colostate.edu>

Thanks a tonne
-sach

>===== Original Message From Krzysztof Lis <santo at poczta.fm> =====
>s> i was wondering if you could give me the list of links that icould
>s> look into and not wander in the maze of google.
>
>Unfortunatelly I don't have a list of sources from which I downloaded
>all the files I have on my hard drive. I don't even remember where I
>read the information I mentioned (about reverse reactions in stored
>wood gas), I'll try to look through the files I have and if I succeed
>in finding at least titles of the docs, I'll contact you. :)
>
>--
>Best regards,
> Krzysztof Lis / Poland
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Zmien sie i znajdz swoj nowy styl z programem Mistrz Wizazu
>Dobieraj modne fryzury, makijaz i dodatki nie ruszaj?c sie z domu
>>> http://link.interia.pl/f1838
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gasification mailing list
>Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

Sachin Joshi

Dept. Of Mechanical Engineering
Colorado State University
Fort Collins , Co 80523
USA
office Tel no : 970-491-1967

 

From gregoire.jovicic at jovicic.com Thu Oct 28 12:39:14 2004
From: gregoire.jovicic at jovicic.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Gr=E9goire_JOVICIC?=)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:39:14 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] =?iso-8859-1?q?RE_=3A_Could_you_please_explain_?=
=?iso-8859-1?q?=AB_Plasma_method_=BB_=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <d8.184c82dc.2eb284a8@aol.com>
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAjWHuzVeiQECyc+xYtT7dy8KAAAAQAAAAP2jOOqqvK06tYd6tmbW8HQEAAAAA@jovicic.com>

Very interesting clear information. Do you know at what temperatures crack
the bonds ? Is it a property for each organic compound which is known and
can be found in a book.

-----Message d'origine-----
De : LWheeler45 at aol.com [mailto:LWheeler45 at aol.com]
Envoy? : jeudi 28 octobre 2004 19:22
? : gregoire.jovicic at jovicic.com
Cc : gasification at listserv.repp.org
Objet : Could you please explain ? Plasma method ? ?

In a message dated 10/28/04 4:46:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
gregoire.jovicic at jovicic.com writes:

I will give it a try.

This plasma arc reduction system was introduced by this co in 1993 to fill
one specific need to dispose of medical waste. The proprietary product was
developed using 55 year old technology with innovative process.

This waste destruction occurs within the plasma chamber without incurring
combustion. The treatment physically fractures the molecular bonds of waste
into simple compounds converting it into carbon black elemental metals
silica and plasma processed gasses

When this system exposes the enclosed waste to an electrical current that
breaks down the molecular bonds of the waste and releases intense light and
heat. By products are dependent upon waste composition. process reclaims
heat released from waste destruction through an integrated transfer system
for the process of steam.

I have a digital picture of the entire set up medical waste system and a
photo of the patented internal rollers that act as the heat to steam
converters and system heat sink.

I will put the photos on PDF JPEG file format and send them to you if you
wish.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041028/188eed61/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Thu Oct 28 12:45:37 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:45:37 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] I will try to ans that question on temperatures.
Message-ID: <7b.36cebd80.2eb28a41@aol.com>

According to the technical sheet with the commercial medical waste system

" ... electrical current that breaks the breaks the molecular bonds of the
waste and releases intense light and heat. This energy released from the
disruption of the molecular bonds and converted to heat and light adds to the energy
injected into the process where the temperatures reach in excess of 15,000
degrees F... "
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041028/3df9c2d8/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Thu Oct 28 12:57:48 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:57:48 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] This Lo volts Plasma Gassifier is NOT a competitor
to traditional systems
Message-ID: <13f.4d6ec0d.2eb28d1c@aol.com>

The traditional gassifiers will likely always be less costly to make and
operate than the Lo V. Plasma ARC system with the noted qualification to that "as
long as the designed for combustible material that is feedstock is available
and dry".

This system processes effluents as well as soggy and solids all at the same
time w/o a spike in heat or steam output. Versatility cost more but not much
more.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041028/75f333c7/attachment.html

From LINVENT at aol.com Thu Oct 28 13:08:07 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:08:07 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] I will try to ans that question on temperatures.
Message-ID: <7a.650511b5.2eb28f87@aol.com>

so? It is not necessary to go to this temperature to break the bonds. Most
occur at much lower temperatures. Energy loss to thermal and light radiation
goes up at the 4th power of temperature and is by and large difficult to recover.
Carbon stays carbon and ends up as a useless powder with out some chemical to
form with to make a gas.

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

From kchisholm at ca.inter.net Thu Oct 28 16:21:01 2004
From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net (Kevin Chisholm)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:21:01 -0300
Subject: [Gasification] I will try to ans that question on temperatures.
References: <7b.36cebd80.2eb28a41@aol.com>
Message-ID: <008501c4bd34$0ae07dd0$029a0a40@kevin>

Dear Leonard
----- Original Message -----
From: <LWheeler45 at aol.com>
To: <gregoire.jovicic at jovicic.com>
Cc: <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 2:45 PM
Subject: [Gasification] I will try to ans that question on temperatures.

> According to the technical sheet with the commercial medical waste system
>
> " ... electrical current that breaks the breaks the molecular bonds of the
> waste and releases intense light and heat. This energy released from the
> disruption of the molecular bonds and converted to heat and light adds to
the energy
> injected into the process where the temperatures reach in excess of 15,000
> degrees F... "

With all due respect to you, they are feeding you meaningless mumbo jumbo.

Kevin Chisholm

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Thu Oct 28 16:50:13 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:50:13 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] AVI 650kb file avail on the action of the torches on
2 lbs of waste .8 sec
Message-ID: <e0.4ff0c8a.2eb2c395@aol.com>

 

Re How it works.... DC Lo Voltage Plasma Arc Medical system in action

I have now available in PDF or attachment format an AVI 650kb file avail on
the action of the torches on 2 lb. of waste .8 tenths of a sec for complete
destruction ZERO pollution. Slow motion w/ filter to capture the arc only. Inert
gas of nitrogen and argon fills the chamber.

This is the first generation system. Co is in version 2 on the specifications
quoted. Vastly improved version 4 ready for production run.

Off net me your e address that will take this file and I will send it to you
for your review.

Leonard Wheeler
Eustis, Fla 32726
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041028/3c1a8783/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Thu Oct 28 16:56:03 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:56:03 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] carbon and ends up as a useless powder Really not if
someone wants it
Message-ID: <7d.5bef5077.2eb2c4f3@aol.com>

In a message dated 10/28/04 2:08:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, L INVENT
writes:

> so? It is not necessary to go to this temperature to break the bonds. Most
> occur at much lower temperatures. Energy loss to thermal and light radiation
> goes up at the 4th power of temperature and is by and large difficult to
> recover. Carbon stays carbon and ends up as a useless powder without some
> chemical to form with to make a gas.

The useless powder has a buyer than wants all of it for laser printer toner/
The patented rollers really capture this hard to recover heat. Three hours
after the feedstock has been consumed and the torches shut off it is still
producing 300 F steam.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041028/1e99368f/attachment.html

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Thu Oct 28 17:20:41 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:20:41 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] that is .1569 Medical Waste
Message-ID: <13c.4cc6cfd.2eb2cab9@aol.com>

 

> Leonard,
>
> is this a typing error or were they gasifying
> sulfur blocks or battery acid (sulfuric acid )
> ...
> .1569 lbs/hr SO2 ( sulfur-dioxide ) ???
>
> What was the feed stock for this test anyway?
> Output concentrations means nothing if
> one doesn't know what the input was.
>
> the results /data was from plasma arc destruction of the Tulane medical
center waste stream 9/ 23 /97 and was made to insure compliance with the
requirements for destruction for bio hazard medical waste

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041028/f054e6e2/attachment.html

From snkm at btl.net Thu Oct 28 17:30:01 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 16:30:01 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] AVI 650kb file avail on the action of the
torches on2 lbs of waste .8 sec
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041028162721.009418a0@pop.btl.net>

 

To bad there is not a mail list somewhere for Plasma Arc hospital wastes
disposal unit "freaks!!

OK -- grabing you by the ear and dragging you back to topic:

Is there a way using a gasifier to process medical wastes??

There most certainly is!!

There was a company in India that is selling units the same size range your
talking about -- but instead of plasma arc -- are woody biomass fueld
gasifiers.

Thermal gassifiers -- the gasifier fuels with just about any biomass -- and
the gas firing a special furance for total break down and destruction of
medical wastes.

Believe they were selling those for around -- well -- let me go check!!

GT-400-INC Medical wastes Incinerator

50,000 K.cal/Hr & 50 Kg/Batch -- Rs 300,000

( Rs.42 = 1 US) -- so $7142.86

Hey Leanard -- how much does your dream unit cost -- eh??

Leanord -- you are begining to convince me that you represent everything
that is wrong with the US in regards to ever being able to get out of it's
present rut and back on it's feet again.

As your interest is not in what is best -- but in pushing what you want to
use -- no matter costs -- scientific objections -- or what!

So your hospitals in Florida will suck out money like there is no end to it
to solve a problem that we can here for a 1/10 of a penny to your dollar
invested.

Ya -- show us how you americans do things -- that American know how -- look
at Leanord -- the perfect example!

Give us all a collective break -- hell -- I alone have saved you $50,000 in
consulting fees -- time you go beg at another corner -- eh??

Here is the text:

(Could also send you file attached a nice graphic of the process -- and
another of the machine)

HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATOR
(Based on GT-400 Thermal Gasifier)
MODEL : GT - 400 - INC.

* Direct burning of Hospital Wastes using Woody Biomass.

* Two Heating Chambers construction.

* Burning the wastes in the range of 900 Deg. C - 1000 Deg. C

* Flue gases also subjected to 900 Deg. C. again in the second Chamber.

INCINERATOR
* Minimum auxiliary power requirement.
SCHEMATIC

* Economical in running compared to other methods.

* Ideally suited for Medium & Remote Hospitals.

* Environmental friendly.

* Non-Technical personal can operate.

NEED: High temperature incineration is advocated for disposal of Hospital
Wastes.

The flue gases are also need to be subjected to high temperature again to
avoid any Toxins formation.

Earlier incinerators are not equipped to deal in this way.

Modern Incinerators need heavy capital investment and beyond the reach of
many hospitals in Developing Countries.

This Woody Biomass Gasifier based Incinerator will meet the requirement at
an affordable capital cost.

SPECIFICATIONS

Weight of one charge of wastes

-- 40 - 50 Kgs

Time taken for Incineration

-- 2 Hours /Batch

Wood chips consumption for one charge

-- 50 Kg ( approx.)

Air Blower capacity

-- 1 HP

Approximate cost of Incineration
-- Rs. 3/Kg

( 0.07 US $ / Kg)

Approx. Floor space required

-- 8' X 15'

-----------------------------------------------------------------
* In our endeavor to continuous improvement, specifications are subject to
change without notice.

K.R.Suryanarayana
email suryakota at usa.net

Associated Engineering Works,
Gamini Compound,
Post Box No.17,
TANUKU - 534 211 (A.P)
INDIA.

Phones: 0091 - 8819 - 22950 & 23410, fax: 0091- 8819-24801

 

At 05:50 PM 10/28/2004 EDT, LWheeler45 at aol.com wrote:
>>>>

Re How it works.... DC Lo Voltage Plasma Arc Medical system in action

I have now available in PDF or attachment format an AVI 650kb file avail on
the action of the torches on 2 lb. of waste .8 tenths of a sec for complete
destruction ZERO pollution. Slow motion w/ filter to capture the arc only.
Inert gas of nitrogen and argon fills the chamber.

This is the first generation system. Co is in version 2 on the
specifications quoted. Vastly improved version 4 ready for production run.

Off net me your e address that will take this file and I will send it to
you for your review.

Leonard Wheeler
Eustis, Fla 32726
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

 

From jorgemiraglia at engeplus.com.br Fri Oct 29 08:01:07 2004
From: jorgemiraglia at engeplus.com.br (Jorge Miraglia)
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:01:07 -0000
Subject: [Gasification] Re: Gasification Digest, Vol 3, Issue 66
References: <20041028180340.BFF83E14B@ns2.misteam.net>
Message-ID: <003601c45803$6faef660$ee00a8c0@mshome.net>

Hi,

Please,anybody could supply me the address email of:
Tom Reed
and
Agua Das

Thanks!
jorgemiraglia at engeplus.com.br

> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>
>
> End of Gasification Digest, Vol 3, Issue 66
> *******************************************

 

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Fri Oct 29 08:56:36 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 08:56:36 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] AVI 650kb file avail on the action of thetorches
on2 lbs of waste .8 sec
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20041028162721.009418a0@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <017901c4bdbf$1bd28080$1900a8c0@a31server>

Ya Know, I'm leaning this direction!

Hello All !!!!

Leonard, I think I have to agree with Peter on this,

Take your SOAP BOX somewhere else please.

The "real" messages I want to see on this list, are getting "hashed over" by
your insane number of posts per day, heck, I'm now of the firm belief that
my internet company is going to "up charge" me for all this excess broadband
traffic re: all your posts (they have never done this before).

Don't you go for walks or bike rides or something, or are you on the list
24/7 ????

Greg Manning,

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Peter
Singfield
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 5:30 PM
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Subject: Re: [Gasification] AVI 650kb file avail on the action of
thetorches on2 lbs of waste .8 sec

 

To bad there is not a mail list somewhere for Plasma Arc hospital wastes
disposal unit "freaks!!

OK -- grabing you by the ear and dragging you back to topic:

Is there a way using a gasifier to process medical wastes??

There most certainly is!!

There was a company in India that is selling units the same size range your
talking about -- but instead of plasma arc -- are woody biomass fueld
gasifiers.

Thermal gassifiers -- the gasifier fuels with just about any biomass -- and
the gas firing a special furance for total break down and destruction of
medical wastes.

Believe they were selling those for around -- well -- let me go check!!

GT-400-INC Medical wastes Incinerator

50,000 K.cal/Hr & 50 Kg/Batch -- Rs 300,000

( Rs.42 = 1 US) -- so $7142.86

Hey Leanard -- how much does your dream unit cost -- eh??

Leanord -- you are begining to convince me that you represent everything
that is wrong with the US in regards to ever being able to get out of it's
present rut and back on it's feet again.

As your interest is not in what is best -- but in pushing what you want to
use -- no matter costs -- scientific objections -- or what!

So your hospitals in Florida will suck out money like there is no end to it
to solve a problem that we can here for a 1/10 of a penny to your dollar
invested.

Ya -- show us how you americans do things -- that American know how -- look
at Leanord -- the perfect example!

Give us all a collective break -- hell -- I alone have saved you $50,000 in
consulting fees -- time you go beg at another corner -- eh??

Here is the text:

(Could also send you file attached a nice graphic of the process -- and
another of the machine)

HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATOR
(Based on GT-400 Thermal Gasifier)
MODEL : GT - 400 - INC.

* Direct burning of Hospital Wastes using Woody Biomass.

* Two Heating Chambers construction.

* Burning the wastes in the range of 900 Deg. C - 1000 Deg. C

* Flue gases also subjected to 900 Deg. C. again in the second Chamber.

 

INCINERATOR
* Minimum auxiliary power requirement.
SCHEMATIC

* Economical in running compared to other methods.

* Ideally suited for Medium & Remote Hospitals.

* Environmental friendly.

* Non-Technical personal can operate.

NEED: High temperature incineration is advocated for disposal of Hospital
Wastes.

The flue gases are also need to be subjected to high temperature again to
avoid any Toxins formation.

Earlier incinerators are not equipped to deal in this way.

Modern Incinerators need heavy capital investment and beyond the reach of
many hospitals in Developing Countries.

This Woody Biomass Gasifier based Incinerator will meet the requirement at
an affordable capital cost.

SPECIFICATIONS

Weight of one charge of wastes

-- 40 - 50 Kgs

Time taken for Incineration

-- 2 Hours /Batch

Wood chips consumption for one charge

-- 50 Kg ( approx.)

Air Blower capacity

-- 1 HP

Approximate cost of Incineration
-- Rs. 3/Kg

( 0.07 US $ / Kg)

Approx. Floor space required

-- 8' X 15'

-----------------------------------------------------------------
* In our endeavor to continuous improvement, specifications are subject to
change without notice.

K.R.Suryanarayana
email suryakota at usa.net

Associated Engineering Works,
Gamini Compound,
Post Box No.17,
TANUKU - 534 211 (A.P)
INDIA.

Phones: 0091 - 8819 - 22950 & 23410, fax: 0091- 8819-24801

 

At 05:50 PM 10/28/2004 EDT, LWheeler45 at aol.com wrote:
>>>>

Re How it works.... DC Lo Voltage Plasma Arc Medical system in action

I have now available in PDF or attachment format an AVI 650kb file avail on
the action of the torches on 2 lb. of waste .8 tenths of a sec for complete
destruction ZERO pollution. Slow motion w/ filter to capture the arc only.
Inert gas of nitrogen and argon fills the chamber.

This is the first generation system. Co is in version 2 on the
specifications quoted. Vastly improved version 4 ready for production run.

Off net me your e address that will take this file and I will send it to
you for your review.

Leonard Wheeler
Eustis, Fla 32726
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

From a31ford at inetlink.ca Fri Oct 29 09:20:27 2004
From: a31ford at inetlink.ca (a31ford)
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:20:27 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] The TRUE Cost of "Demolition"
Message-ID: <017a01c4bdc2$70aae6d0$1900a8c0@a31server>

Hello All!

I'm starting a new thread for one reason "THE TRUE COST OF OPERATION"

Quoting Mr. Leonard W.

"{start of quote}

action of the torches on 2 lb. of waste .8 tenths of a sec for complete
destruction ZERO pollution. Slow motion w/ filter to capture the arc only.
Inert gas of nitrogen and argon fills the chamber.

{end of quote}"

LETS GET to the basics of REAL cost,

1) Capital investment in "system"

2) Installation

3) Fix what didn't work the first, second or third time

4) Man hours in maintenance

5) Man hours in operation

6) Supplies (consumables) LET ME EXPAND on THIS !

7) As well as a host of things like interest, accounting expense, etc.

Consumables include:

ELECTRICITY, TANKS OF NITROGEN, TANKS OF ARGON, PLASMA TIPS, ETC!

Leonard, ARE you of the thought process that these tanks of inert gas do NOT
use fossil fuels to make them in the first place ???

If memory serves correct, one 4' tall tank of argon (std. welding size)
takes 3 gallons of gasoline to make!

You might be better off, simply to throw a portion of the gasoline directly
on the waste you are trying to get rid of, and save the rest of the gasoline
for your car.....

One VERY frustrated List reader.

Greg Manning

Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

 

From gjahnke at birch.net Fri Oct 29 09:33:35 2004
From: gjahnke at birch.net (Greg Jahnke)
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:33:35 -0500
Subject: [Gasification] Small scale heat only system
References: <017901c4bdbf$1bd28080$1900a8c0@a31server>
Message-ID: <000a01c4bdc4$46bdcca0$de28d4d8@shop>

My fatehr in law recently asked me to help with aheat only system for his
shop and barn. I have no idea how most heat only systems are assembled. My
current system is a CHP system with the waste heat from the engine powering
the alternator being used in a radiant heating setup.

I was planning on using an adaptation of the gassifier on the gengas page,
as that is what I am using now on my CHP system and I am very happy with its
performance (wet feed stock no problem).

What kind of burner is generally best for this type of thing and what is the
best way to pump the gas to the burner? I would prefer not to pressurize it
too much. Also, I have seen a couple of pages on the web that suggest that
you don't need to vent woodgas burners. How accurate is this?

Thanks

Greg Jahnke

 

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Fri Oct 29 15:14:26 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:14:26 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] Good points Greg let me try and ans
Message-ID: <6.36dd47cf.2eb3fea2@aol.com>

In a message dated 10/29/04 12:49:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gasification-request at listserv.repp.org writes:

>
>
> LETS GET to the basics of REAL cost,
>
> 1) Capital investment in "system" 750,000 or less turn key
>
> 2) Installation 4 modules bolt together
>
> 3) Fix what didn't work the first, second or third time. Commercial Unit
> Debugged
>
> 4) Man hours in maintenance. How much is too little
>
> 5) Man hours in operation. Computer controlled
>
> 6) Supplies (consumables) LET ME EXPAND on THIS ! $12.00 a torch every x
> weeks ? weeks.
>
> 7) As well as a host of things like interest, accounting expense, etc.
>
> Consumables include:
>
> ELECTRICITY, Self propelled from own energy that is an add on

TANKS OF NITROGEN, Zero Makes it own
TANKS OF ARGON, Zero makes its own
PLASMA TIPS, ETC! $12 each. With medical waste containing stainless steel
stuff there was a pump that was on the expendable list and the HD chipper needs
teeth replaced. That is it.
>
>
> Leonard, ARE you of the thought process that these tanks of inert gas do NOT
> use fossil fuels to make them in the first place ???

I was shown that part of the machine that is part of the system that makes
all the gases for operation. That is in the specifications for the turn key
system.

>
> If memory serves correct, one 4' tall tank of argon (std. welding size)
> takes 3 gallons of gasoline to make!
>
> You might be better off, simply to throw a portion of the gasoline directly
> on the waste you are trying to get rid of, and save the rest of the gasoline
> for your car.....
>
>
> One VERY frustrated List reader.
>
> Greg Manning
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041029/59ef0a15/attachment.html

From arnt at c2i.net Fri Oct 29 03:17:38 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:17:38 +0200
Subject: [Gasification] Carbon dioxide turned into hydrocarbon fuel
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20041028110110.009c5e70@pop.btl.net>
References: <3.0.32.20041028110110.009c5e70@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <20041029101738.3052442c.arnt@c2i.net>

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:18:09 -0600, Peter wrote in message
<3.0.32.20041028110110.009c5e70 at pop.btl.net>:

> Well -- here is something new under the sun that might be just the
> right kind of answer.
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992620
>
> Peter -- In Belize
>
>
> Carbon dioxide turned into hydrocarbon fuel

..ok, a name for this new process baby? It too is hot and uses
chemicals, but "thermochemical gasification" _is_ taken. ;-)

--
..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 LWheeler45 at aol.com Sat Oct 30 12:01:50 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:01:50 EDT
Subject: [Gasification] VERY frustrated reader.reg Manning Not a problem
addressing your frustration
Message-ID: <be.1a93f180.2eb522fe@aol.com>

Mr Manning, and any other frustrated list readers...

1. I have put together a 5 slide power point view of the whole working and
commercial Bio Med system, 2 shots of the feed system which I intend to
eliminate along with two conveyors a pump or two and some other bio haz junk. and two
shots of the Version 3 "low Voltage DC Arc GASSIFIER CHAMBER which I am
certain most of this group will find very familiar and most interesting. I have
ZERO interest or any kind in bio Med or this system for that purpose. I am
looking at a boiler system that can provide heat steam, elect and a/c at final end
user be it a a hotel, concrete plant, bio non medical waste disposal site,
packing house, AG drying, steaming etc.
There were plans made some time back for 4 units coupled together using some
shared system components which makes the unit cost lots less.

Oh I forgot to mention it will consume frozen wood chips too. F 15,000
instant defrost moisture not a problem.

If anyone wants to see this MY non technical non sales personal 5 slide
presentation of a Version 3 commercial EPA FDEP approved Low V. Plasma Arc
gassifier system please e mail me off net. My scanner has failed to load or slide 6
would be the anode heat conducting internal heat sink rollers of Version 2.
Slide 7 would be the schematic of the complete process from feedstock in to all
output streams.

Monday, I will also scan the reference pages of the independent lab reports I
quoted from to the group all the fine detail such as test protocol, type of
test equipment and serial numbers of the test machines and last date certified.
I have seen boxes of these ands each set keeps getting better with emissions
chlorine is almost not existent.

As a point of reference for performance Vs cost/size Vs out put,/ energy in
Vs energy out I used the 10 ton per day Westinghouse style system that it
currently located at the Startech company web site and running in Conn. as my
comparison model since I have been provided their specifications when they spoke at
the Landfill Committee. Public record available on request.
\
Any More General Questions more than glad to answer. If it is something
really specific and detailed send them to me off net.

Regards,

Leonard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041030/b6bc8570/attachment.html

From Steve.Goldthorpe at xtra.co.nz Sat Oct 30 14:11:04 2004
From: Steve.Goldthorpe at xtra.co.nz (Steve Goldthorpe)
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 08:11:04 +1300
Subject: [Gasification] Turning CO2 into hydrocarbons !!
Message-ID: <004601c4beb4$391c8e60$1b1f98de@sgealaptop>

Apologies that this is way off topic, but I couldn't help commenting.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992620

Of course turning CO2 into hydrocarbons can be done if one throws enough technology, money and energy at the problem, but what is the point? Certainly not climate change mitigation.

The amount of energy required to convert CO2 to hydrocarbons must be at least as much as the amount of energy obtained from burning the resulting hydrocarbons as a source of fuel and returning that carbon to its minimum energy form of CO2 .

The basic laws of thermodynamics tell us that
(1) Your can't win.
(2) You can't even break even

I hope that the funding body for the reported research project have got there feet firmly on the ground.

Have a good day.

Steve

Steve Goldthorpe Energy Analyst Ltd
PO Box 96, Waipu 0254
Waipu Wanderers Backpackers
25 St Mary's Road, Waipu
Phone/fax 09 432 0532
Mobile 0274 849764
Steve.Goldthorpe at xtra.co.nz
Waipu.Wanderers at xtra.co.nz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041030/064cf93e/attachment.html

From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Sat Oct 30 18:25:04 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:25:04 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] Turning CO2 into hydrocarbons !!
References: <004601c4beb4$391c8e60$1b1f98de@sgealaptop>
Message-ID: <00bb01c4bed7$b0006b00$71c0f204@7k6rv21>

Steve,

Good observation!

But, (which means all before it is not true), if one uses excess renewable fixed site energy such as sunlight to manufacture a portable fuel, there could be some interest. Efficiency is important however it is not the do-all, be-all of energy conversion.

If I can convert the CO2 produced from a biodigestion process using food waste through a solar driven converter in Phoenix, AZ at a 15 or 25% conversion efficiency - it might make sense. If I had to make the conversion using fossil fuels at 40%, it might not.

It depends heavily upon the source of the energy required to do the conversion and that it be excess or wasted and available.

Art Krenzel
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Goldthorpe
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 12:11 PM
Subject: [Gasification] Turning CO2 into hydrocarbons !!

Apologies that this is way off topic, but I couldn't help commenting.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992620

Of course turning CO2 into hydrocarbons can be done if one throws enough technology, money and energy at the problem, but what is the point? Certainly not climate change mitigation.

The amount of energy required to convert CO2 to hydrocarbons must be at least as much as the amount of energy obtained from burning the resulting hydrocarbons as a source of fuel and returning that carbon to its minimum energy form of CO2 .

The basic laws of thermodynamics tell us that
(1) Your can't win.
(2) You can't even break even

I hope that the funding body for the reported research project have got there feet firmly on the ground.

Have a good day.

Steve

Steve Goldthorpe Energy Analyst Ltd
PO Box 96, Waipu 0254
Waipu Wanderers Backpackers
25 St Mary's Road, Waipu
Phone/fax 09 432 0532
Mobile 0274 849764
Steve.Goldthorpe at xtra.co.nz
Waipu.Wanderers at xtra.co.nz

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

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041030/c9ecaa64/attachment.html

From snkm at btl.net Sat Oct 30 18:37:55 2004
From: snkm at btl.net (Peter Singfield)
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:37:55 -0600
Subject: [Gasification] Turning CO2 into hydrocarbons !!
Message-ID: <3.0.32.20041030173633.009cc100@pop.btl.net>

Certainly -- just like the H2 con job going down these days -- eh??

On the other hand -- Arnt might figure out a way to use some of the waste
heat in his device to get a little more oomph out of his product.

What say Arnt -- any chances there??

Point being -- certainly makes no sense in straight conversion -- but might
have application in existing process with conditions in that range of
activity -- such as Arnt's gasifier.

As they figure this should work in a coal burning furance smoke stack.

Also -- the products include butane and propane -- which are handy portable
fuels.

"Using iron powder as a catalyst, Yamasaki says he has made substantial
amounts of methane, ethane, propane and butane"

And the rest can certainly increase gas product quality.

Basic requirements to make this soup --

waste heat of 300 centigrade

around 1500 psi "pressure" (The acid at 300 C probably can supply this)

And iron powder --

I found this line curious though:

"it will not be much more use than present-day bioreactors, in which
bacteria that like to feed on CO2 are induced to produce methane.
"Organisms have a special talent for that kind of reaction," says Siegfried."

Anybody know a link to that "bacteria"??

Curious minds wish to know!

The real killer here is how Arnt would ever extract pure CO2 from his
process and pump (bubble) it through the acid bath -- at 1500 PSI!!

My interest is in bacterial conversion of CO2 methane -- as pure CO2 I vent
so much of when fermenting cane juice!

But I have not yet been able to find anything about that!!

I did find bacteria that eat oils -- veggies or crude even -- and produce
water and pure CO2!

Eg.

http://www.spillaway.com/

Peter

At 08:11 AM 10/31/2004 +1300, Steve Goldthorpe wrote:
>>>>
Apologies that this is way off topic, but I couldn't help commenting.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992620
Of course turning CO2 into hydrocarbons can be done if one throws enough
technology, money and energy at the problem, but what is the point?
Certainly not climate change mitigation. The amount of energy required to
convert CO2 to hydrocarbons must be at least as much as the amount of
energy obtained from burning the resulting hydrocarbons as a source of
fuel and returning that carbon to its minimum energy form of CO2 . The
basic laws of thermodynamics tell us that (1) Your can't win. (2) You
can't even break even I hope that the funding body for the reported
research project have got there feet firmly on the ground. Have a good
day. Steve
Steve Goldthorpe Energy Analyst Ltd
PO Box 96, Waipu 0254
Waipu Wanderers Backpackers
25 St Mary's Road, Waipu
Phone/fax 09 432 0532
Mobile 0274 849764
Steve.Goldthorpe at xtra.co.nz
Waipu.Wanderers at xtra.co.nz _______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification

 

 

From arnt at c2i.net Sat Oct 30 22:12:00 2004
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 04:12:00 +0100
Subject: [Gasification] Turning CO2 into hydrocarbons !!
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20041030173633.009cc100@pop.btl.net>
References: <3.0.32.20041030173633.009cc100@pop.btl.net>
Message-ID: <20041031041200.5b2c923d.arnt@c2i.net>

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:37:55 -0600, Peter wrote in message
<3.0.32.20041030173633.009cc100 at pop.btl.net>:

>
> Certainly -- just like the H2 con job going down these days -- eh??
>
> On the other hand -- Arnt might figure out a way to use some of the
> waste heat in his device to get a little more oomph out of his
> product.
>
> What say Arnt -- any chances there??

..K?lle did this back in WWII with 1/5 of his engine exhaust gas,
I did it with both my mower power fan exhaust into my tar flare.

> Point being -- certainly makes no sense in straight conversion -- but
> might have application in existing process with conditions in that
> range of activity -- such as Arnt's gasifier.

> As they figure this should work in a coal burning furance smoke stack.
>
> Also -- the products include butane and propane -- which are handy
> portable fuels.
>
> "Using iron powder as a catalyst, Yamasaki says he has made
> substantial amounts of methane, ethane, propane and butane"

..old man Peter, sure you're not confusing me, Arnt, with Yamasaki? ;-)

..I suggest "Yamasaki Gasification" for his process baby.

> The real killer here is how Arnt would ever extract pure CO2 from his
> process and pump (bubble) it through the acid bath -- at 1500 PSI!!

..acid??? Simple case of taking exhaust gas and force it down a cold
water bath in an U formed pipe, with a wee gas trap deep down to catch
and bleed off the exhaust gas bubbles, just leave the water with the CO2
dissolved down in the bend, and bubble it out up the other leg. If you
really wanna be fancy, use a coupla turbines to feed back some power to
the exhaust gas fan and water pump. ;-)

--
..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 LINVENT at aol.com Sun Oct 31 11:17:59 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:17:59 EST
Subject: [Gasification] Turning CO2 into hydrocarbons !!
Message-ID: <30.647c2254.2eb67847@aol.com>

There are catalysts available for converting CO2 into ethanol. They were
developed for the mars mission for NASA. There is a hydrogen requirement for the
process. It has been sometime since these were looked at, but the process was
somewhat reasonably efficient.
CO2 impact upon the atmosphere is greatly exaggerated.

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 bht at actrix.gen.nz Sun Oct 31 12:02:04 2004
From: bht at actrix.gen.nz (Bernard)
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 07:02:04 +1300
Subject: [Gasification] Turning CO2 into hydrocarbons !!
In-Reply-To: <30.647c2254.2eb67847@aol.com>
References: <30.647c2254.2eb67847@aol.com>
Message-ID: <42aao01adea90ldhtcjbephpceoiofm94b@4ax.com>

In Nakamichi Yamasaki's process, hydrochloric acid, HCL is used to
provide the hydrogen. What happens to the remaining CL ion that was
part of the HCL?

Bernard
bht at actrix.gen.nz

From LWheeler45 at aol.com Sun Oct 31 12:25:43 2004
From: LWheeler45 at aol.com (LWheeler45 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:25:43 EST
Subject: [Gasification] Re Ans to Off net Questions of Scale up of DC plasma
system
Message-ID: <79.373917fb.2eb68827@aol.com>

Question: Can this individual system be scaled up to accommodate larger than
1000 lb per hr loads?

ANS: NO!

The limitation on this and all other plasma arc systems I am aware of is the
physical size of the maximum working area of the arc. Recognized as about 16."
So no matter how big you build the system the choke point is 16" thereabouts.

In matter of fact the 1000 lb per hr system has engineered around this
limitation to achieve a larger effective working area within the constraints of the
laws of physics.

Question: Can this system be made smaller? Larger?

The physical size of the medical waste system I sent photos on and quoted
specifications about is definitely much bigger than needs to be for a non medical
waste system. The physical size of the business end the gassifier for this
system or any others is about optimum for the design considerations of a plasma
arc so making it smaller or larger is not really a process thruput or
meaningful cost issue.

Question: How does one increase capacity in a cost effective manner? A
design has been worked up using 4 Plasma gassifier units together with common
shared components.

Thanks for the good questions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/gasification_listserv.repp.org/attachments/20041031/e4f5f58f/attachment.html

From phoenix98604 at earthlink.net Sun Oct 31 12:27:22 2004
From: phoenix98604 at earthlink.net (Art Krenzel)
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 10:27:22 -0800
Subject: [Gasification] Turning CO2 into hydrocarbons !!
References: <30.647c2254.2eb67847@aol.com>
Message-ID: <000a01c4bf77$4479c160$5ac3f204@7k6rv21>

Leland,

Do you have any information as to where I might find the catalyst
information you refer to in this posting?

Thanks!

Art Krenzel

----- Original Message -----
From: <LINVENT at aol.com>
To: <Steve.Goldthorpe at xtra.co.nz>; <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Turning CO2 into hydrocarbons !!

> There are catalysts available for converting CO2 into ethanol. They were
> developed for the mars mission for NASA. There is a hydrogen requirement
> for the
> process. It has been sometime since these were looked at, but the process
> was
> somewhat reasonably efficient.
> CO2 impact upon the atmosphere is greatly exaggerated.
>
> Leland T. Taylor
> President
> Thermogenics Inc.
> 7100-F 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107 Phone: 505-761-5633,
> fax:
> 341-0424, website: thermogenics.com.
> In order to read the compressed files forwarded under AOL, it is necessary
> to
> download Aladdin's freeware Unstuffit at
> http://www.stuffit.com/expander/index.html
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
>

 

From LINVENT at aol.com Sun Oct 31 13:34:18 2004
From: LINVENT at aol.com (LINVENT at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:34:18 EST
Subject: [Gasification] definition of gasifier
Message-ID: <7f.4fe22035.2eb6983a@aol.com>

Dear Listers, ( the ship is sinking, therefore it has a list),
The thermodynamic definition of gasification is the reaction C+H20->CO+H2.
Other processes involved such as devolatilization, methane formation as part of
the devolatilization or subset of the gasification reaction may be present but
are not the prinicpal reaction of gasification.
Because the plasma system does not have under normal circumstances adequate
water to produce the gasification reaction, it is primarily a pyrolyzer and
about 50% of the input weight is residual carbon. Hence, the reference to it as a
gasifier and any potential benefit which may arise from this nomenclature is
not available. Furthermore, it should not be considered by this group as a
gasifier because of this and the economic limitations which are inherent with
plasma systems. My definition of it is a pyrolyzing carbon sprayer, of the
excessively costly and inefficent variety.
Maybe at some point, there will be a mass/energy balance which shows that it
consumes more power than it can produce and that the carbon residue should be
put through a regular gasifier to reduce the disposal fees and improve the
conversion efficiency, but this begs the question as to why a true gasifier is
not used for the entire process to start with?

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

From tombreed at comcast.net Sun Oct 31 20:00:29 2004
From: tombreed at comcast.net (Tom Reed)
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 19:00:29 -0700
Subject: [Gasification] definition of gasifier
References: <7f.4fe22035.2eb6983a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <000d01c4c454$026ab0e0$3201a8c0@TOMBREED>

Dear Leland and All:

Sorry, we need new definitions for "gasification" of biomass. Coal is a
hydrocarbon, approximately CHY, and 80% fixed carbon and 20% volatile, so
Leland's definition is OK as far as it goes, but there is also partial
oxidation.
2CH + O2 ==> 2 CO + H2
(and remmeber that the energy content of the CO is the same as the H2).

Biomass is close to being a carbohydrate, CH2O and is 80 % volatile and only
20% fixed carbon (for which the above equations work).

The appropriate equation for biomas is

CH2O ==> CO + H2
but this is somewhat endothermic, so requires a little of
CH2O + 1/2O2 ==> CO2 + H2
just enough to make it autothermic.

However, it takes relatively little energy to pyrolyse biomass and in the
downdraft gasifiers (or toplit updraft) "pyrolytic gasification" operates at
about 700C as above in a process we call "flaming pyrolysis", a combustion
flame of a part of the volatiles down in the bed where it can't be seen
usually.

At higher gasification rates we also have "simultaneous pyrolysis and
gasification" in which the outside of the particle has turned to very hat
charcoal while the center is still evolving H2O and CO2 that can react at
the surface. As a result with superficial pyrolysis velocities of >0.2m/s
instead of making 20% charcoal, char yields can be < 5%.

So the old definition of "gasification " applied to coal, but pyrolytic and
flaming pyrolytic gasification also produces combustible gas.

Onward, TOM REED BEF

----- Original Message -----
From: <LINVENT at aol.com>
To: <LWheeler45 at aol.com>; <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 12:34 PM
Subject: [Gasification] definition of gasifier

> Dear Listers, ( the ship is sinking, therefore it has a list),
> The thermodynamic definition of gasification is the reaction C+H20->CO+H2.
> Other processes involved such as devolatilization, methane formation as
part of
> the devolatilization or subset of the gasification reaction may be present
but
> are not the prinicpal reaction of gasification.
> Because the plasma system does not have under normal circumstances
adequate
> water to produce the gasification reaction, it is primarily a pyrolyzer
and
> about 50% of the input weight is residual carbon. Hence, the reference to
it as a
> gasifier and any potential benefit which may arise from this nomenclature
is
> not available. Furthermore, it should not be considered by this group as a
> gasifier because of this and the economic limitations which are inherent
with
> plasma systems. My definition of it is a pyrolyzing carbon sprayer, of the
> excessively costly and inefficent variety.
> Maybe at some point, there will be a mass/energy balance which shows that
it
> consumes more power than it can produce and that the carbon residue should
be
> put through a regular gasifier to reduce the disposal fees and improve the
> conversion efficiency, but this begs the question as to why a true
gasifier is
> not used for the entire process to start with?
>
> Leland T. Taylor
> President
> Thermogenics Inc.
> 7100-F 2nd St. NW Albuquerque, New Mexico USA 87107 Phone: 505-761-5633,
fax:
> 341-0424, website: thermogenics.com.
> In order to read the compressed files forwarded under AOL, it is necessary
to
> download Aladdin's freeware Unstuffit at
> http://www.stuffit.com/expander/index.html
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification